OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Postinterview communication between residency programs and applicants is common during the US residency match process. To date, current communication practices between otolaryngology residency programs and applicants have not been studied. The objectives of this study were to characterize the frequency and type of postinterview communication and perceptions of how this communication influences ranking behavior of match participants. STUDY DESIGN: Survey. METHODS: A national survey of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited otolaryngology programs was distributed via the Otolaryngology Program Directors Organization. RESULTS: Program directors were surveyed regarding methods and content of postinterview communication, perceived impact that communication has on final rank lists, and current interpretations of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Code of Conduct. Thirty-three of 106 program directors (31.1%) responded. Thirty-eight percent of programs that responded initiate at least some form of postinterview communication. The program director most commonly initiated communication, typically in the form of an email. A minority of respondents (12.1%) indicated that specific information is revealed regarding rank status. Thirty-two percent of respondents indicated that communication initiated by applicants may influence final rank list. Twenty percent of respondents interpret the current NRMP Code of Conduct as allowing programs to reveal rank positions to applicants, and 63.6% of respondents as allowing applicants to reveal intended rank positions. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that postinterview communication practices within otolaryngology vary widely. Program directors perceive that postinterview contact between applicants and programs has limited impact on ranking behavior. NRMP rules for postinterview communication between programs and candidates are interpreted variably by program directors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 129:607-612, 2019.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Postinterview communication between residency programs and applicants is common during the US residency match process. To date, current communication practices between otolaryngology residency programs and applicants have not been studied. The objectives of this study were to characterize the frequency and type of postinterview communication and perceptions of how this communication influences ranking behavior of match participants. STUDY DESIGN: Survey. METHODS: A national survey of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited otolaryngology programs was distributed via the Otolaryngology Program Directors Organization. RESULTS: Program directors were surveyed regarding methods and content of postinterview communication, perceived impact that communication has on final rank lists, and current interpretations of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Code of Conduct. Thirty-three of 106 program directors (31.1%) responded. Thirty-eight percent of programs that responded initiate at least some form of postinterview communication. The program director most commonly initiated communication, typically in the form of an email. A minority of respondents (12.1%) indicated that specific information is revealed regarding rank status. Thirty-two percent of respondents indicated that communication initiated by applicants may influence final rank list. Twenty percent of respondents interpret the current NRMP Code of Conduct as allowing programs to reveal rank positions to applicants, and 63.6% of respondents as allowing applicants to reveal intended rank positions. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that postinterview communication practices within otolaryngology vary widely. Program directors perceive that postinterview contact between applicants and programs has limited impact on ranking behavior. NRMP rules for postinterview communication between programs and candidates are interpreted variably by program directors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 129:607-612, 2019.
Authors: Jaysson T Brooks; Jay S Reidler; Amit Jain; Dawn M LaPorte; Robert S Sterling Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Anupam B Jena; Vineet M Arora; Karen E Hauer; Steven Durning; Nicole Borges; Nancy Oriol; D Michael Elnicki; Mark J Fagan; Heather E Harrell; Dario Torre; Meryl Prochaska; David O Meltzer; Shalini Reddy Journal: Acad Med Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Reesa L Monir; Kristina Michaudet; Joseph G Monir; Kiarash P Rahmanian; Charlie Michaudet; Lou Ann Cooper; Heather Harrell Journal: Cureus Date: 2021-01-20