Alejandra Balen1,2, Jennifer Fantasia1,2, Simone Thavaseelan3,4,5. 1. Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 2 Dudley Street Suite 185, Providence, RI, 02905, USA. 2. Division of Urology, Rhode Island Hospital and The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI, USA. 3. Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 2 Dudley Street Suite 185, Providence, RI, 02905, USA. sthavaseelan@lifespan.org. 4. Division of Urology, Rhode Island Hospital and The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI, USA. sthavaseelan@lifespan.org. 5. Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, RI, USA. sthavaseelan@lifespan.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The primary aim of this review is to: (1) adequately define Match violations, (2) thoroughly examine the nature and scope of Match violations in the American Urologic Association (AUA) Urology Match, and (3) propose and recommend policy guidelines, including consequences for applicants and programs, as it pertains to Match violations. These recommendations are intended to affect change at the level of the AUA and Society of Academic Urology (SAU) that more effectively mitigates future violations, intentional or not. RECENT FINDINGS: There is a paucity of specific guidelines published by the AUA on what constitutes a Match violation. Furthermore, in contrast to the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP), the AUA is surprisingly lenient in their existing guidelines. The Match violations most frequently reported were programs asking applicants illegal and restricted questions as well as inappropriate post-interview communication between applicants and programs. Review of current Match policies and violations suggest several areas for improvement, particularly regarding the specificity of AUA guidelines to define Match violations, the asking of illegal interview questions, and post-interview communication. The obligation to uphold a fair and equitable Match is an ethical imperative for the urologic community.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The primary aim of this review is to: (1) adequately define Match violations, (2) thoroughly examine the nature and scope of Match violations in the American Urologic Association (AUA) Urology Match, and (3) propose and recommend policy guidelines, including consequences for applicants and programs, as it pertains to Match violations. These recommendations are intended to affect change at the level of the AUA and Society of Academic Urology (SAU) that more effectively mitigates future violations, intentional or not. RECENT FINDINGS: There is a paucity of specific guidelines published by the AUA on what constitutes a Match violation. Furthermore, in contrast to the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP), the AUA is surprisingly lenient in their existing guidelines. The Match violations most frequently reported were programs asking applicants illegal and restricted questions as well as inappropriate post-interview communication between applicants and programs. Review of current Match policies and violations suggest several areas for improvement, particularly regarding the specificity of AUA guidelines to define Match violations, the asking of illegal interview questions, and post-interview communication. The obligation to uphold a fair and equitable Match is an ethical imperative for the urologic community.
Keywords:
AUA match; Match; Match violations; NRMP; Urology
Authors: Nicholas J Farber; Christopher J Neylan; Arnav Srivastava; Shashank S Pandya; Amy Kaplan; Kushan D Radadia; Eric A Singer; Sammy E Elsamra Journal: Urology Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Elisabeth M Sebesta; Michael J Lipsky; Michele Nunez; Kimberly L Cooper; Gina M Badalato Journal: Urology Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 2.649