Document Type

Article

Publication Date

12-7-2020

Comments

This article is the author’s final published version in BMC Medical Education, Volume 20, Issue 1, December 2020, Article number 495.

The published version is available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02415-8. Copyright © Pelletier-Bui et al.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the advising and emergency medicine (EM) residency selection practices for special population applicant groups for whom traditional advice may not apply.

METHODS: A survey was distributed on the Council of Residency Directors in EM and Clerkship Directors in EM Academy listservs. Multiple choice, Likert-type scale, and fill-in-the-blank questions addressed the average EM applicant and special population groups (osteopathic; international medical graduate (IMG); couples; at-risk; re-applicant; dual-accreditation applicant; and military). Percentages and 95% confidence intervals [CI] were calculated.

RESULTS: One hundred four surveys were completed. Of respondents involved in the interview process, 2 or more standardized letters of evaluation (SLOEs) were recommended for osteopathic (90.1% [95% CI 84-96]), IMG (82.5% [73-92]), dual-accreditation (46% [19-73]), and average applicants (48.5% [39-58]). Recommendations for numbers of residency applications to submit were 21-30 (50.5% [40.7-60.3]) for the average applicant, 31-40 (41.6% [31.3-51.8]) for osteopathic, and > 50 (50.9% [37.5-64.4]) for IMG. For below-average Step 1 performance, 56.0% [46.3-65.7] were more likely to interview with an average Step 2 score. 88.1% [81.8-94.4] will consider matching an EM-EM couple. The majority were more likely to interview a military applicant with similar competitiveness to a traditional applicant. Respondents felt the best option for re-applicants was to pursue the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) for a preliminary residency position.

CONCLUSION: Advising and residency selection practices for special population applicants differ from those of traditional EM applicants. These data serve as an important foundation for advising these distinct applicant groups in ways that were previously only speculative. While respondents agree on many advising recommendations, outliers exist.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

PubMed ID

33287824

Language

English

Download

Share

COinS