Postinterview Communications: Two Surveys of Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors Before and After Guideline Implementation

Variable Practice, Variable Results: Impact of Postinterview Communication Practices Among Critical Care Medicine/Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship Applicants and Program Directors

BACKGROUND

Although postinterview communication (PIC) guidelines exist, adherence is voluntary. There are no studies of PIC practices in critical care medicine (CCM) and pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellowship recruitment.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the frequency, format, goals, and content of PIC between CCM/PCCM applicants and program directors? What is the impact of PIC on applicant and program rank order lists (ROLs)?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

CCM/PCCM applicants and program directors were separately surveyed after the 2022-2023 National Resident Matching Program Specialty Match. Surveys included multiple-choice, Likert-scale, and two free text questions. Thematic content analysis of free text responses was performed.

RESULTS

One-third of eligible participants responded (applicants: n = 373 [34%]; program directors: n = 86 [32%]). Applicant respondents applied to CCM (19%), PCCM (69%), or both (12%). Program directors represented CCM (17%), PCCM (57%), or both (26%) programs. Applicant (66%) and program director (49%) respondents reported initiating PIC. PIC did not impact ROL decision for most applicants (73%) or program directors (83%), though 21% of applicants and 17% of program directors moved programs or applicants up on their ROL in response to PIC. One-quarter (23%) of applicants strongly agreed or agreed that PIC was helpful in creating their ROL, 27% strongly disagreed or disagreed, and 29% were neutral. PIC challenges identified by both groups included time; lack of uniformity; peer pressure; misleading language; and uncertainty about motives, rules, and response protocols.

INTERPRETATION

PIC is common among CCM/PCCM applicants and program directors. About 50% of applicants and 20% of program directors share ranking intentions via PIC. Although PIC did not impact ROL for most applicants and program directors, a minority of applicants and program directors moved programs up on their ROL after receiving PIC from the other party. Applicants have mixed perspectives on PIC value. Applicants and program directors alike desire clear guidance on PIC to minimize ambiguous and misleading communication.

Making the match and breaking it: values, perceptions, and obstacles of trainees applying into physician-scientist training programs

BACKGROUND

Replenishing the physician-scientist workforce constitutes a central mission of medical education, but the loss of qualified trainees to non-academic positions remains an ongoing threat. Among the barriers facing physician-scientists today is the game-like model of U.S. medical residency matching through the National Research Matching Program (NRPM), which applies several assumptions regarding the comparability of applicant qualifications, cohort size, and the institutional breadth of applicants' training needs.

METHODS

The current report therefore summarizes the survey-based views and experiences of physician-scientist trainees obtained following the 2021-2022 application cycle for research-oriented residency programs, or physician-scientist training programs (PSTPs). From among this small cohort of applicants, we obtained survey-based feedback of 27 PSTP applicants across 17 U.S. medical universities, among whom 85% (23/27) matched into a PSTP.

RESULTS

Among these PSTP applicants, 25/27 (93%) recognized "scientific community" as the most important feature of a postgraduate training program, with applicants identifying as female placing a higher value on the program's infrastructure of personal and/or family support. Most (18/27) respondents found "waiting for interviews" as the most stressful phase of their application cycle, and roughly half of all respondents encountered at least one NRMP policy violation through post-interview communication. Specifically, 93% (25/27) respondents were contacted by at least one PSTP following interviews, and 1/3 of them admitted to feeling pressured into sharing their ranking preferences.

CONCLUSION

We highlight many previously unrecognized priorities among applicants to PSTPs, which include fostering community among its trainees and reinforcing structured mentoring. We uncover an inconsistency among PSTPs regarding the post-interview process, which represents an opportunity to better support applicants seeking to gauge programs according to their clinical, scientific, and academic interests as physician-scientists, while still adhering to NRMP policies.

The State of Morning Report in the Current Healthcare Landscape: a National Survey of Internal Medicine Program Directors

BACKGROUND

Case-based Morning Report (MR) has long been the predominant educational conference in Internal Medicine (IM) residency programs. The last comprehensive survey of IM MR was in 1986. Much has changed in the healthcare landscape since 1986 that may impact MR.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the current state of MR across all US IM programs.

DESIGN

In 2018, US IM program directors (PDs) were surveyed about the dynamics of MR at their institutions, perceived pressures, and realized changes.

KEY RESULTS

The response rate was 70.2% (275/392). MR remains highly prevalent (97.5% of programs), although held less frequently (mean 3.9 days/week, SD 1.2), for less time (mean 49.4 min, SD 12.3), and often later in the day compared to 1986. MR attendees have changed, with more diversity of learners but less presence of educational leaders. PD presence at MR is associated with increased resident attendance (high attendance: 78% vs 61%, p=0.0062) and punctuality (strongly agree/agree: 59% vs 43%, p=0.0161). The most cited goal for MR is utilizing cases to practice clinical reasoning. Nearly 40% of PDs feel pressure to move or cancel MR; of those, 61.2% have done so, most commonly changing the timing (48.5%), reducing the length (18.4%), and reducing the number of sessions per week (11.7%). Compared to community-based and to community-based, university-affiliated programs, university-based programs have 2.9 times greater odds (95% CI: 1.3, 6.9; p = 0.0081) and 2.5 times greater odds (95% CI 1.5, 4.4; p =0.0007), respectively, of holding MR after 9 AM, and 1.8 times greater odds (95% CI: 0.8, 4.2; p = 0.1367) and 2.0 times greater odds (95% CI: 1.2, 3.5; p = 0.0117), respectively, of reporting pressure to cancel or move MR compared to their counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

While MR ubiquity reflects its continued perceived value, PDs have modified MR to accommodate changes in the healthcare environment. This includes reduced frequency, shorter length, and moving conferences later in the day. Additional studies are needed to understand how these changes impact learning.

Where Do International Medical Graduates Matriculate for Internal Medicine Training? A National Longitudinal Study

INTRODUCTION

In 2020, roughly 25% of applicants who matched into internal medicine (IM) residencies were international medical graduates (IMGs). We examine 12-year trends in distribution of IMGs among IM training programs and explore differences in program perceptions towards IMG recruitment.

METHODS

Since 2007, Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine Annual Surveys have collected data about trainees by medical school graduate type. Sixteen additional questions regarding perceptions of IMGs were included in the 2017 spring survey.

RESULTS

The 2017 survey response rate was 63.3% (236/373) and ranged from 61.9 to 70.2% for the 2007-2019 Annual Surveys. During that 12-year period, 55-70% of community programs' and 22-30% of university programs' PGY1 positions were filled by IMGs. In 2017, 45% of community programs' and 15% of university programs' interview and ranking positions were allocated to IMGs. Departmental pressure (university 45.6% [95% CI 43.7-47.5]; community 28.2% [95% CI 26.6-29.7]; p = 0.007), institutional priority (university 64.0% [95% CI 62.1-66.0]; community 41% [95% CI 36.9-44.6]; p = 0.001), and reputational concerns (university 52.8% [95% CI 50.0-55.6]; community 38.5% [95% CI 36.0-40.9]; p = 0.045) were cited as factors influencing recruitment of IMGs.

CONCLUSION

Our study was limited to exploring program factors in residency recruitment and did not assess applicant preferences. There is a large, longstanding difference in the recruitment of IMGs to US community-based and university residencies, beginning during the interview and ranking process. Further research in disparities in IMG recruitment is needed, including exploring pressures, preferences, and potential biases associated with the recruitment of IMGs.

Invoking culture in medical education research: A critical review and metaphor analysis

INTRODUCTION

'Culture' is a word frequently invoked within medical education literature to explain challenges faced by learners in practice. While social settings and practices are widely acknowledged as critical influences on medical education, there is vast variability in how the term 'culture' is employed. This may lead to confusion, resulting in assumptions and oversights.

OBJECTIVE

This critical literature review aims to characterise how the term 'culture' is explicitly and implicitly conceptualised in medical education research.

METHODS

Four leading English language journals in the medical education field were searched in a twelve-month period for research papers or reviews that mentioned culture in title or abstract in a substantive way. A content analysis was undertaken of extracted definitions. In addition, metaphor analysis was used to identify conceptual metaphors, which were subsequently clustered thematically.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 26 papers, 8 of which contained definitions, mostly from the organisational literature. We interpreted nine conceptual metaphors related to how the term culture was employed (terroir, divider, dominant force, toxic force, obstacle, microclimate, object, brand and holdall) in four categories (unchanging, powerful, can adapt around, can be used).

DISCUSSION

This critical review reveals that medical education as a field: 1) draws most explicitly from the organisational literature; 2) invokes culture in multiple means but in ways that privilege either acontextual human agency or all-powerful social forces; and 3) regards culture as a negative or neutral force but rarely a positive one. There is a notable absence around conceptualisations of 'culture' that allow educator, student and administrator agency but at the same time acknowledge the deep forces that various social settings and practices exert. Other literatures investigating learning cultures and cultural reflexivity focus on this nexus and may provide possible means to advance considerations of culture within medical education research.

Impact of Match Violations on Applicants' Perceptions and Rankings of Residency Programs

Introduction The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) requires all Match participants to adhere to a strict code of conduct known as the Match Participation Agreement, yet Match violations continue to occur. We sought to determine how interview experiences, including Match violations, impact applicants' perceptions and rankings of residency programs. Methods An electronic survey was sent to all accredited medical school Deans of Student Affairs and Association of American Medical Colleges Student Representatives for distribution to fourth-year medical students. Questions assessed pressures that residency programs placed on applicants during interview season and their impact on applicants. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Results Of the 433 included respondents, 31.2% (n = 135) reported breaches of the NRMP Match Participation Agreement. Of those, 63% (n = 85) had a negative perception of the violating programs, and 37.8% (n = 51) were less likely to rank those programs highly. Violations included asking applicants about the locations of their other interviews (60.3%, n = 261), pressuring applicants to reveal their ranking (24.0%, n = 104), explicitly requesting applicants to reveal their ranking (6.5%, n = 28), asking applicants to provide a commitment before Match day (3.9%, n = 17), and other behavior that was felt to ignore the spirit of the Match (16.4%, n = 71). Implying that applicants would match into a program if they ranked it highly (37.2%, n = 161) was received positively by 65.2% (n = 105) of applicants experiencing this breach, with 42.2% (n = 68) ranking the program more highly. Three major themes impacting applicants' impressions of residency programs emerged from the qualitative data: interview experience, professionalism, and post-interview communication (PIC). Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that PIC should either be eliminated or that programs should set clear expectations for PIC. Conclusions Match violations continue to occur, despite the NRMP Match Participation Agreement. With the notable exception of communication implying that applicants would match into a program, applicants overwhelmingly view programs that commit these violations negatively and often rank these programs lower as a result.

Is It Safe to Ask the Questions That Matter Most to Me? Observations From a Female Residency Applicant

Tens of thousands of senior medical students interview for medical residency positions each year. As the applicant pool shifts to include more women, married individuals, and young parents, the criteria by which interviewees evaluate programs are also changing. Concerns including parental leave policies, lactation facilities, access to childcare, partner recruitment resources, and inclusivity in the work environment are important in selecting an ideal program. However, the National Resident Matching Program Match Communication Code of Conduct prohibits interviewers from addressing gender, marital status, and intent to bear children, so the burden of introducing such topics falls on the interviewees. These topics can be difficult to discuss with potential employers, especially when weighed against the pressure to obtain a competitive position through the Match.In this Invited Commentary, the authors draw on personal experience to examine the questions that residency programs need to answer, encouraging both applicants and programs to improve communication during the residency interview process.

High-Value Interviewing: A Call for Quality Improvement in the Match Process

Within the Match process, current residency interview practices are inefficient for both applicants and programs. Problems include disorganized interview offers and scheduling, excessive numbers of applicant interviews, unclear postinterview communication policies, and the significant expenses entailed. To address these issues, the authors propose applying a quality improvement approach to create a high-value interview process that would decrease investments of time, money, and energy and improve the quality of the Match experience for both applicants and programs. They propose establishing an interview offer week to streamline and systematize the interview offer and scheduling process; placing an evidence-based cap on the number of interviews that applicants are allowed to schedule; and enforcing a moratorium on postinterview communication that would apply to both applicants and programs. Implementing these proposals would decrease expenses, improve the efficiency of this process for all involved, and demonstrate that quality improvement methods used to improve patient care can also be applied to improving medical student and physician experiences.