Search

Introduction: Program signaling (PS), which enables residency applicants to signal their preference for a specific program, was introduced in emergency medicine (EM) in the 2022–2023 residency application cycle. In this study we evaluated EM program directors’ (PD) utilization of PS in application review and ranking. This study also explores the relationship between program characteristics and number of signals received as well as the relative importance and utilization of signals related to the number of signals received.Methods: This is an institutional review board-approved, cross-sectional study of PDs at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited EM residency programs. We used descriptive statistics to describe the characteristics of residency programs and practices around PS. Measures of central tendency and dispersion summarized continuous variables. We used chi-square analysis or the Fisher exact test for comparisons between groups for categorical variables. Comparisons for continuous variables were made using the t-test for independent samples or analysis of variance.Results: The response rate was 41% (n = 113/277 EM programs). Most programs participated in PS(n = 261/277 EM programs, 94.2%). Mean number of signals received was 60 (range 2–203). Signals received varied based on program characteristics including geographic location and program type, duration, environment, and longevity. Most used PS in holistic review (52.2%), but other uses varied by proportion of applications that were signaled. The importance of PS in application review (mean 2.9; 1–5scale,1= not important, 5 = extremely important) and rank list preparation (2.1) was relatively low compared to other application elements such as standardized letters of evaluation (4.97 for review, 4.90 for ranking).Conclusion: The study provides insights into PS utilization in EM’s inaugural year. We have identified patterns of signal use based on program characteristics and number of signals received that can inform signal allocation and utilization on an individual applicant and program level. A more nuanced understanding of signal use can provide valuable insight as the specialty of EM grapples with fluctuations in its applicant numbers and shifting demographics of its applicant pool.

Background: Academic emergency medicine (EM) communities have viewed anonymous online communities (AOC) such as Reddit or specialty-specific “applicant spreadsheets” as poor advising resources. Despite this, robust EM AOCs exist, with large user bases and heavy readership. Insights about applicants’ authentic experiences can be critical for applicants and program leadership decision-making. To date, there are no EM studies to qualitatively assess EM AOC narratives during the application cycle. Our goal was to perform a qualitative analysis of students’ EM program experiences through a publicly available AOC.Methods: This was a qualitative analysis of a publicly available, time-stamped, user-locked AOC dataset: “Official 2020–2021 Emergency Medicine Applicant Spreadsheet.” We extracted and then de-identified all data from selected sub-sheets entitled “Virtual Interview Impressions” and “Rotation Impressions.” Four investigators used constant comparative method to analyze the data inductively, and they subsequently met to generate common themes discussed by students. Preliminary thematic analysis was conducted on a random sample of 37/183 (20%) independent narratives to create the initial codebook. This was used and updated iteratively to analyze the entire narrative set consisting of 841 discrete statements. Finally, two unique codes were created to distinguish whether the identified sub-themes, or program attributes, were likely “modifiable” or “non-modifiable.”Results: We identified six major themes: living and working conditions; interpersonal relationships; learning experiences, postgraduate readiness, and online/virtual supplements. Common sub-themes included patient population (13%); resident personality (7%); program leadership personality (7%); relationship with faculty/leadership (6%); geography (4%); practice setting (4%); program reputation (4%), and postgraduate year-3 experiences (4%). Modifiable sub-themes outnumbered non-modifiable sub-themes, 60.7% to 39.3%.Conclusion: In this analysis of selected medical students’ narratives in an AOC, the majority of identified themes represented topics that may serve as external feedback for EM residency programs and their clerkships. Selective use of AOCs may set a precedent for future program assessments by applicants and inform program leadership of important programmatic elements in the eyes of applicants. It elucidates important themes in their interactions or learning experiences with programs and creates opportunities for learner-centric program improvement.

Learning Objectives: Assess EM residency program leadership preferences/concerns for the 2021-22 residency interview cycle.Background: The Coalition for Physician Accountability recommended 2021-2022 residency interviews be held virtually. Studies assessing EM program leadership preferences for virtual versus in person interviews have been limited.Objective: Assess EM residency program leadership preferences/concerns for the 2021-2022 residency interview cycle.Methods: Via CORD’s Program Director and Faculty Community, EM program leadership were asked to complete a 10 question survey, which included likert, multiple choice, and open response questions. There were 73 responses (86.3% PDs, 12.3% APDs, 2.7% CDs, Vice Chair of Education 1.4%). Descriptive and summary statistics were used.Results: When asked comfort level with formats for 2021-2022, respondents felt most comfortable (agree or strongly agree) with virtual interviews only (64.4%), followed by virtual interviews with all applicants with optional in person second looks (57.5%), in person interviews only (50.7%), and offering both in person and virtual formats with applicants choosing the format they prefer (29.1%). When asked which one format they prefer, 37% preferred virtual interviews with all applicants with optional in person second looks, followed by 26% virtual interviews only, 20.5% offering both in person and virtual formats with applicants choosing which format they prefer, and 16.4% preferred in person interviews only (Figure 1). There was concern for bias if students are given a choice between in person and virtual interviews (Figure 2). In the open response, a novel idea suggested second looks for students after programs have submitted their rank list, yet before students submit their lists.Conclusions: A majority of EM program leaders feel comfortable with virtual interviews only for the 2021-2022 cycle. The largest percentage prefer virtual interviews with all applicants, with optional in person second looks. As a follow up, we plan to survey current interns who interviewed in 2020-2021.

The Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine (CORD) Advising Students Committee in Emergency Medicine (ASC-EM) anticipates institutional and regional variability in both the spread and response to COVID-19. Travel restrictions and host institution rotation closures will impact the number of emergency medicine (EM) rotations EM-bound medical students can complete in an unprecedented manner. They may prevent students from completing any away rotations this academic cycle, challenging the students’ ability to obtain EM Standardized Letters of Evaluation (SLOEs). EM’s emphasis on residency group SLOEs over other letter types creates an undue burden on these vulnerable students and makes the application process intrinsically inequitable. This inequity warrants a reevaluation of the current application practice. This article outlines ASC-EM's proposed recommendations for all stakeholders, including EM program leadership, medical schools, and EM-bound medical students, to consider for the upcoming EM application cycle.

Recommendations from the Council of Residency Directors Application Process Improvement Committee (CORD-APIC)The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on undergraduate medical education with limitation of patient care activities and disruption to medical licensing examinations. In an effort to promote both safety and equity, the emergency medicine (EM) community has recommended no away rotations for EM applicants and entirely virtual interviews during this year’s residency application cycle. These changes affect the components of the EM residency application most highly regarded by program directors – Standardized Letters of Evaluation from EM rotations, board scores, and interactions during the interview. The Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine Application Process Improvement Committee suggests solutions not only for the upcoming year but also to address longstanding difficulties within the process, encouraging residency programs to leverage these challenges as an opportunity for disruptive innovation.