Vascular surgery integrated resident selection criteria in the pass or fail era

Perceptions and Expectations Regarding the Step 1 Score Change Among Surgical and Non-Surgical Program Directors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

There are currently no studies examining differences in perceptions and expected impact of the Step 1 score change to pass/fail between surgical and non-surgical program directors (PDs). We conducted a systematic review in May 2023 of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and PSYCInfo to evaluate studies examining PDs' perspectives regarding the Step 1 score change. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to determine differences in perspectives among surgical and non-surgical PDs. Surgical PDs (76.8% [95% CI, 72.1%-82.0%], I2 = 52%) reported significantly greater rates of disagreement with the score change compared to non-surgical (65.1% [95% CI, 57.9%-73.1%], I2 = 69.7%) (P = .01). Surgical PDs also reported significantly greater rates of agreement that the score change will increase the difficulty in objectively comparing applicants (88.1% [95% CI, 84.6%-91.7%], I2 = 16.4%), compared to non-surgical (81.0% [95% CI, 75.6%-86.8%], I2 = 72.6%) (P = .04). There was less heterogeneity among non-surgical PDs (88.7% [95% CI, 86.2%-91.2%], I2 = 0%), compared to surgical (84.7% [95% CI, 79.0%-90.8%], I2 = 67.3%), regarding expected increases in emphasis on Step 2, although the difference in rates of agreement was not statistically significant. Overall, there is significant heterogeneity in the literature regarding expected changes in the residency application review process. Most PDs reported significant disagreement with the score change, greater expected difficulty in objectively evaluating applicants, and greater emphasis on Step 2, with surgical PDs reporting greater rates of disagreement, greater expected difficulty, and heterogeneity regarding expected increases in emphasis on Step 2, compared to non-surgical. Additionally, there is significant heterogeneity in the overall literature regarding expected changes in the residency application review process. Further research is needed to establish evidence-based guidelines that improve the overall residency application process for all stakeholders.

An analysis of osteopathic medical students applying to surgical residencies following transition to a single graduate medical education accreditation system

CONTEXT

Upon requests from osteopathic medical schools, the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Charting Outcomes were redesigned to include osteopathic medical school seniors beginning in 2018 and one joint graduate medical education (GME) accreditation system, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), formed in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study is to analyze the match outcomes and characteristics of osteopathic applicants applying to surgical specialties following the ACGME transition.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of osteopathic senior match outcomes in surgical specialties from the NRMP Main Residency Match data from 2020 to 2022 and the NRMP Charting Outcomes data from 2020 to 2022 was performed.

RESULTS

For surgical specialties, results show matching increased as United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 CK (clinical knowledge) and Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Level 2 CE (cognitive evaluation) scores increased along with the number of contiguous rankings (p<0.001). The greatest indication for matching looking at scores alone were those who scored greater than 230 on Step 2 CK compared to below (p<0.001) and above 650 on Level 2 CE (p<0.001). However, those who scored 240 (p=0.025) on Step 2 CK were just as likely to match as those who scored 250 (p=0.022) when compared to those who scored below those scores. Increasing research involvement had little to no significance with the likelihood of matching across most surgical subspecialties.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that there are unique thresholds for Step 2 CK scores, Level 2 CE scores, and the number of contiguous ranks for each surgical specialty that, when reached, are significantly associated with match success. Although certain board score delineations are linked with higher match success rates, the rates level off after this point for most surgical specialties and do not significantly increase further with higher scores. In addition, thresholds within contiguous ranks for increasing match likelihood exist and vary across surgical specialties. Overall, this study highlights that the quantitative metrics utilized to assess applicants lack the correlation reported historically, and the data presently available need to be more substantiated.

The USMLE® STEP 1 Pass or Fail Era of the Vascular Surgery Residency Application Process: Implications for Structural Bias and Recommendations

MOTIVES BEHIND THE SHIFT

USMLE® STEP 1 score reporting has been changed to a binary pass/fail format since January 26, 2022. The motives behind this change were (1) the questionable validity of using USMLE® STEP 1 as a screening tool during the candidate selection process and (2) the negative impact of using standardized examination scores as an initial gatekeeping threshold for the underrepresented in medicine (URiM) candidates applying to GME programs, given their generally lower mean standardized exams scores compared to non-URiM students. The USMLE® administrators justified this change as a tactic to enhance the overall educational experience for all students and to increase the representation of URiM groups. Moreover, they advised the program directors (PDs) to give more attention to other important qualities and components such as the applicant's personality traits, leadership roles and other extracurricular accomplishments, as part of a holistic evaluation strategy. IMPACT OF USMLE® STEP 1 PASS/FAIL: At this early stage, it is unclear how this change will impact Vascular Surgery Integrated residency (VSIR) programs. Several questions are outstanding, most importantly, how VSIR PDs will evaluate applicants absent the variable which heretofore was the primary screening tool. Our previously published survey showed that VSIR PDs will move their attention to other measures such as USMLE® STEP 2CK and letters of recommendation during the VSIR selection process. Furthermore, more emphasis on subjective measures such as the applicant's medical school rank and extracurricular student activities is expected. Given the expected higher weight of USMLE® STEP 2CK in the selection process than ever, many anticipate that medical students will dedicate more of their limited time to its preparation at the expense of both clinical and non-clinical activities. Potentially leaving less time to explore specialty pathways and to determine whether VS is the appropriate career for them.

A FRAMEWORK FOR CANDIDATE EVALUATION

The critical juncture in the VSIR candidate evaluation paradigm presents an opportunity to thoughtfully transform the process via current (Standardized Letter of Recommendation, USMLE® STEP 2CK, and clinical research) and future (Emotional Intelligence, Structure Interview and Personality Assessment) measures which constitute a framework to follow in the USMLE® STEP 1 pass/fail era.