Pearls of wisdom for aspiring physician-scientist residency applicants and program directors

Emergency medicine residency pathways for MD/PhD trainees: A national cross-sectional study of physician-scientist training programs

Background

Combined clinical and research training is common in residency programs outside emergency medicine (EM), and these pathways are particularly valuable for combined MD/PhD graduates planning to pursue a career as a physician-scientist. However, EM departments may not know what resources to provide these trainees during residency to create research-focused, productive, future faculty, and trainees may not know which programs support their goal of becoming a physician-scientist in EM. The objective of this study was to describe research training and resources available to MD/PhD graduates in EM residency training with a focus on dedicated research pathways.

Methods

This study was a cross-sectional inventory conducted through an electronic survey of EM residency program directors. We sought to identify dedicated MD/PhD research training pathways, with a focus on both resources and training priorities. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey responses.

Results

We collected 192 survey responses (69.6% response rate). Among respondents, 41 programs (21.4%) offered a research pathway/track, 52 (27.4%) offered a research fellowship, 22 (11.5%) offered both a residency research pathway/track and a research fellowship, and two (1.0%) offered a dedicated EM physician-scientist training pathway. Most programs considered research a priority and were enthusiastic about interviewing applicants planning a research career, but recruitment of physician-scientist applicants was not generally prioritized.

Conclusions

Some EM residency programs offer combined clinical and mentored research training for prospective physician-scientists, and nearly all residency programs considered research important. Future work will focus on improving the EM physician-scientist pipeline by optimizing pathways available to trainees during residency and fellowship.

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.

LEARNING TO PIVOT: DEVELOPING TALENT AND A CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM

Developing the future leaders of biomedical science is fundamentally the most important role that we play in academic medicine. Similar to the path to elite championship athletics, the path begins early: engaging young minds to find excitement in science, enlightening medical students on the importance of curiosity, challenging faculty to achieve milestones and mature as leaders. Coaching strategies are critical and are different at each developmental stage. It may seem that it is becoming harder to entice young talent to pursue a career in biomedical research, or that the perpetually leaky pipeline is corroding to the point of hemorrhage. This perspective will explore the factors contributing to this loss, with flow further compromised by low input volume and high demand, and survey the coaching strategies that inspire the drive to pursue biomedical inquiry and the range of skills that must be developed to enable our workforce to thrive.

A global view of the aspiring physician-scientist

Physician-scientists have epitomized the blending of deep, rigorous impactful curiosity with broad attention to human health for centuries. While we aspire to prepare all physicians with an appreciation for these skills, those who apply them to push the understanding of the boundaries of human physiology and disease, to advance treatments, and to increase our knowledge base in the arena of human health can fulfill an essential space for our society, economies, and overall well-being. Working arm in arm with basic and translational scientists as well as expert clinicians, as peers in both groups, this career additionally serves as a bridge to facilitate the pace and direction of research that ultimately impacts health. Globally, there are remarkable similarities in challenges in this career path, and in the approaches employed to overcome them. Herein, we review how different countries train physician-scientists and suggest strategies to further bolster this career path.