Accuracy in Residency Program Rankings on Social Media

Resources Utilized by Otolaryngology Fellowship Directors When Determining Reputations of Residency Programs

OBJECTIVE

Residency program reputation is consistently reported as an important factor by fellowship directors when considering applicants. This study sets out to determine resources fellowship directors rely on when determining residency program reputation.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Using an anonymous online survey of all 2022 Otolaryngology (OHNS) fellowship program directors.

METHODS

The 13-question survey sought to assess fellowship director's perspectives and resource utilization when determining residency program reputation.

RESULTS

Representing all OHNS fellowship program directors and co-directors (N = 287), 103 responded to our survey, response rate 35.9%. Most participants reported that residency reputation was important for fellowship candidacy. On a Likert scale of 1 to 5, 1 being most important and 5 being not important, personal knowledge of the residency program (2.03 out of 5) and program faculty/mentor reputation (2.09 out of 5) were the most important factors cited. 63% were unfamiliar with the survey methodology of Doximity Residency Navigator (DRN), while 53% contributed to DRN by filling out surveys. Nearly all fellowship directors (N = 100, 97%) reported their rank list was not influenced by DRN. Most fellowship directors reported that US News and World Report (USNWR) and DRN were neither consistent nor inconsistent with their perceptions of residency reputations (38% and 56%, respectively), suggesting ambivalence toward these resources.

CONCLUSION

Residency reputation is important for fellowship directors when evaluating fellowship candidates. Directors do not rely on USNWR, National Institute of Health (NIH) ranking, or DRN when gauging residency reputation, but rather personal knowledge of the applicant's residency program or reputation of the otolaryngology faculty.

Doximity Orthopaedic Surgery Program Rankings Are Associated with Academic Productivity

Doximity residency rankings are used to compare training programs. Reputation is a component of Doximity rankings and is based on physician surveys. Outcomes-based measures allow for objective program comparison and may be more appropriate when assessing programs. This study evaluated how Doximity rankings of orthopaedic surgery residency programs compare with an outcomes-based ranking of programs based on academic productivity. This study also evaluated whether program size and type were associated with academic productivity.

Methods

Orthopaedic program rankings, size, type, and research productivity were recorded from Doximity. An academic productivity score was calculated by averaging the mean percentage of alumni clinical trials and alumni publications. Analysis of variance and post hoc analyses were performed to determine whether academic productivity was associated with program reputation, size, and type.

Results

One hundred seventy-five orthopaedic residency programs were included. Program rankings, size, and type had a statistically significant association with academic productivity (p < 0.0001). The 44 orthopaedic programs in the top quartile had an academic productivity score of 79.1 ± 13 in comparison with programs in the bottom quartile, who had a score of 38.3 ± 12.1 (p < 0.0001). Of the programs in the top quartile of reputation rankings, 32 (73%) were also in the top quartile for academic productivity. Programs with more residents demonstrated greater academic productivity than smaller programs. Twenty-three programs (13%) had more than 30 residents and a mean academic productivity of 76.2 ± 14.8. In comparison, 13 programs (7.5%) had 10 or fewer residents with an academic productivity score of 40.6 ± 16.3 (p < 0.0001). An academic productivity score differed significantly based on program type: university (63.9 ± 14.8), military (54.7 ± 16.9), university/community (46.3 ± 15.6), and community (38.7 ± 15) (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Academic productivity among orthopaedic residency programs is associated with Doximity ranking, program size, and type. This information can be used by medical students, residents, and physicians to understand the Doximity rankings and how they correlate with this objective measure.

Level of Evidence

III.

A Novel Ticket System for Capping Residency Interview Numbers: Reimagining Interviews in the COVID-19 Era

The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has led to dramatic changes in the 2020 residency application cycle, including halting away rotations and delaying the application timeline. These stressors are laid on top of a resident selection process already under duress with exploding application and interview numbers-the latter likely to be exacerbated with the widespread shift to virtual interviewing. Leveraging their trainee perspective, the authors propose enforcing a cap on the number of interviews that applicants may attend through a novel interview ticket system (ITS). Specialties electing to participate in the ITS would select an evidence-based, specialty-specific interview cap. Applicants would then receive unique electronic tickets-equal in number to the cap-that would be given to participating programs at the time of an interview, when the tickets would be marked as used. The system would be self-enforcing and would ensure each interview represents genuine interest between applicant and program, while potentially increasing the number of interviews-and thus match rate-for less competitive applicants. Limitations of the ITS and alternative approaches for interview capping, including an honor code system, are also discussed. Finally, in the context of capped interview numbers, the authors emphasize the need for transparent preinterview data from programs to inform applicants and their advisors on which interviews to attend, learning from prior experiences and studies on virtual interviewing, adherence to best practices for interviewing, and careful consideration of how virtual interviews may shift inequities in the resident selection process.