Search

BACKGROUND Many children are undervaccinated at the time of hospital admission. Our objective was to explore the facilitators and barriers to vaccinating during hospitalization. METHODS We conducted qualitative interviews of parents, primary care pediatricians, emergency department (ED) physicians, and pediatric hospitalists. Parents of undervaccinated hospitalized children who were admitted through the ED were invited to participate. We used purposive sampling to identify physician participants. Semistructured interviews querying participants' perspectives on hospital-based vaccination were audiorecorded and transcribed. Parent demographics and physician practice characteristics were collected. Transcripts were analyzed for facilitators and barriers to vaccinating during acute hospital visits by using inductive content analysis. A conceptual framework was developed on the basis of the social ecological model. RESULTS Twenty-one parent interviews and 10 physician interviews were conducted. Of parent participants, 86% were female; 76% were white. Physician participants included 3 primary care pediatricians, 3 ED physicians, and 4 hospitalists. Facilitators and barriers fell under 4 major themes: (1) systems-level factors, (2) physician-level factors, (3) parent-provider interactional factors, and (4) parent- and child-level factors. Parent participants reported a willingness to receive vaccines during hospitalizations, which aligned with physician participants' experiences. Another key facilitator identified by parent and physician participants was the availability of shared immunization data. Identified by parent and physician participants included the availability of shared immunization data. Barriers included being unaware that the child was vaccine-eligible, parental beliefs against vaccination, and ED and inpatient physicians’ perceived lack of skills to effectively communicate with vaccine-hesitant parents. CONCLUSIONS Parents and physicians identified several key facilitators and barriers to vaccinating during hospitalization. Efforts to provide inpatient vaccines need to address existing barriers.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the relationship between vaccination status and clinician adherence to quality measures for children with acute respiratory tract illnesses. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of children aged 0 to 16 years who presented with 1 of 4 acute respiratory tract illness diagnoses (community-acquired pneumonia, croup, asthma, and bronchiolitis) between July 2014 and June 2016. The predictor variable was provider-documented up-to-date (UTD) vaccination status. Our primary outcome was clinician adherence to quality measures by using the validated Pediatric Respiratory Illness Measurement System (PRIMES). Across all conditions, we examined overall PRIMES composite scores and overuse (including indicators for care that should not be provided, eg, C-reactive protein testing in community-acquired pneumonia) and underuse (including indicators for care that should be provided, eg, dexamethasone in croup) composite subscores. We examined differences in length of stay, costs, and readmissions by vaccination status using adjusted linear and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of the 2302 participants included in the analysis, 92% were documented as UTD. The adjusted mean difference in overall PRIMES scores by UTD status was not significant (adjusted mean difference −0.3; 95% confidence interval: −1.9 to 1.3), whereas the adjusted mean difference was significant for both overuse (−4.6; 95% confidence interval: −7.5 to −1.6) and underuse (2.8; 95% confidence interval: 0.9 to 4.8) composite subscores. There were no significant adjusted differences in mean length of stay, cost, and readmissions by vaccination status. CONCLUSIONS: We identified lower adherence to overuse quality indicators and higher adherence to underuse quality indicators for children not UTD, which suggests that clinicians “do more” for hospitalized children who are not UTD.

* Abbreviation: SNI — : severe neurologic impairment A couple presents to maternal fetal medicine clinic 3 days after a routine prenatal ultrasound at 19 weeks revealed a brain malformation consistent with severe holoprosencephaly in an otherwise normal appearing fetus. Clinicians share with the parents that many families decide to terminate their pregnancy in this situation on the basis of the likelihood that their child will have lifelong severe neurologic impairment (SNI) and require frequent hospital and medicalized home care. Without much further discussion, the couple immediately responds that they will continue their pregnancy. They express hope that their infant’s health will be better than doctors anticipate. Presenting at term in labor with brain abnormalities confirmed on ultrasound, the obstetric clinicians ask the parents about their goals of care. The couple again shares that they remain hopeful and that they would like every intervention done to help their child survive. The infant emerges lethargic and without respiratory effort requiring intubation in the delivery room and admission to the NICU. At the time of birth, the parents share that they are feeling a mix of surprise, anger, joy, and sadness. Over the subsequent months, the infant continues to show signs of SNI, grows well after a gastrostomy tube is placed, and remains intubated for intermittent apnea and airway obstruction. After discussions with the neonatology and surgery teams, the parents … Address correspondence to Jori F. Bogetz, MD, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, 1900 Ninth Ave, M/S: JMB-6, Seattle, WA 98101. E-mail: jori.bogetz{at}seattlechildrens.org

* Abbreviation: AAP — : American Academy of Pediatrics Vaccine refusal forces us to confront tensions between many values, including scientific expertise, parental rights, children’s best interests, social responsibility, public trust, and community health. Recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable and emerging infectious diseases have amplified these issues. The prospect of a coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine signals even more friction on the horizon. In this contentious sociopolitical landscape, it is therefore more important than ever for clinicians to identify ethically justified responses to vaccine refusal. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says dismissing families who continue to refuse vaccines is an “acceptable option,”1 but some practices have gone further by not accepting vaccine refusers as patients at all.2,3 The phenomenon of nonacceptance has been underexplored; in both empirical studies and ethics analyses, researchers largely focus on dismissal.4–7 In this article, we first criticize arguments for nonacceptance that invoke a supposed right to choose one’s patients. We then argue that nonacceptance is problematic because (1) some of its motivations are intrinsically immoral, (2) it does not appear to accomplish some of its goals, and (3) even when nonacceptance does accomplish its goals, it fails to appropriately balance the various values it implicates. Throughout the article, we engage with the existing ethics literature about dismissal and conclude that even if dismissal is sometimes justifiable, nonacceptance is not. Some may argue that nonacceptance is ethically justified because they believe the clinical relationship is fundamentally a free association between clinicians and patients, as the American Medical Association Code of Medical … Address correspondence to Mark C. Navin, PhD, Department of Philosophy, Oakland University, 746 Mathematics and Science Center, 146 Library Dr, Rochester, MI 48309-4479. E-mail: navin{at}oakland.edu

* Abbreviation: VHP — : vaccine-hesitant parent The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has put into sharp perspective the paucity of our understanding of how to influence immunization behavior. If we must achieve herd immunity to halt this pandemic, how can that be accomplished? What could we do now to ensure almost universal acceptance of a vaccine determined by the US Food and Drug Administration to be safe and effective in preventing coronavirus disease? Furthermore, recent experience with measles in the United States has demonstrated that even the ready availability of an indisputably effective and demonstrably safe vaccine is no longer sufficient to prevent outbreaks. We need to figure out how to achieve and sustain vaccine acceptance by a high proportion of our population. The investment required to bring a new vaccine to licensure in the United States (estimated to cost ∼$1 billion)1 warrants a substantial commitment to funding research on how and when attitudes and beliefs about vaccines are formed and how best to communicate about vaccines to parents and the public to promote vaccine acceptance. The good news is that this work is well on its way for childhood vaccines. There is a robust literature on parents’ vaccine attitudes … Address correspondence to Edgar K. Marcuse, MD, MPH, FPIDS, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, 4800 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, Washington, 98105. E-mail: emarcuse{at}uw.edu

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has affected nearly every aspect of medicine and raises numerous moral dilemmas for clinicians. Foremost of these quandaries is how to delineate and implement crisis standards of care and, specifically, how to consider how health care resources should be distributed in times of shortage. We review basic principles of disaster planning and resource stewardship with ethical relevance for this and future public health crises, explore the role of illness severity scoring systems and their limitations and potential contribution to health disparities, and consider the role for exceptionally resource-intensive interventions. We also review the philosophical and practical underpinnings of crisis standards of care and describe historical approaches to scarce resource allocation to offer analysis and guidance for pediatric clinicians. Particular attention is given to the impact on children of this endeavor. Although few children have required hospitalization for symptomatic infection, children nonetheless have the potential to be profoundly affected by the strain on the health care system imposed by the pandemic and should be considered prospectively in resource allocation frameworks.

OBJECTIVES:To assess (1) the accuracy of child immunization status documented by providers at hospital presentation for acute respiratory illness and (2) the association of provider-documented up-to-date (UTD) status with immunization receipt during and after hospitalization.METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of children ≤16 years old treated for asthma, croup, bronchiolitis, or pneumonia at a children’s hospital between July 2014 and June 2016. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and provider-documented UTD immunization status (yes or no) at presentation were obtained from the medical record. We compared provider-documented UTD status to the gold standard: the child’s UTD status as documented in the Washington State Immunization Information System (WAIIS). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of provider-documented UTD status were calculated. We assessed the association of provider-documented UTD status and immunization during and within 30 days posthospitalization using multivariable logistic regression.RESULTS:Among 478 eligible children, 450 (94%) had provider-documented UTD status at hospital presentation and an active WAIIS record. Overall, 92% and 42% were UTD by provider documentation and WAIIS records, respectively, with provider-documented UTD status having 98.4% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]: 95.4%–99.7%), 12.2% specificity (95% CI: 8.5%–16.8%), and 44.6% positive predictive value (95% CI: 39.7%–49.5%). Per WAIIS records, 20% and 44% of children who were due for vaccines received a vaccine during or within 30 days posthospitalization, respectively. There was no significant association between provider-documented UTD status and immunization during or after hospitalization.CONCLUSIONS:Provider-documented UTD immunization status at hospital presentation for children with respiratory illnesses overestimates UTD status, creating missed opportunities for immunization during and after hospitalization.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a well-established component of patient-centered care, and yet, its application in pediatrics is poorly understood. Common features of pediatric decision-making are not completely addressed in current SDM models, such as the fact that the principal SDM participant is the patient’s surrogate, who, unlike competent adult patients deciding for themselves, has limitations on decision-making authority. To address this gap and improve the practice of SDM in pediatrics, a practical 4-step framework is presented. In step 1, physicians are posed the following question for any discrete decision: does the decision include >1 medically reasonable option? If the answer is no, SDM is not indicated. If the answer is yes, physicians proceed to step 2 and answer the following question: does 1 option have a favorable medical benefit-burden ratio compared with other options? If yes, physician-guided SDM is appropriate. If no, parent-guided SDM is appropriate. For each SDM approach, the physician proceeds to step 3 and answers the following question: how preference sensitive are the options? This helps to determine the specific SDM approach in step 4, which ranges from a strong or weak version of physician-guided SDM to a strong or weak version of parent-guided SDM. Several decisional characteristics, if present, can also help calibrate the version of SDM used. Additional analyses are needed to consider the inclusion of adolescents into this SDM framework.

OBJECTIVES: Parents frequently decline the influenza vaccine for their child during hospitalization. In this study, we aimed to assess the role of vaccine hesitancy in these declinations. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey study was conducted among English-speaking parents of influenza vaccine-eligible children who were hospitalized between October 2014 and April 2015. Between July 2015 and September 2015, parents were recruited via mail to complete the validated Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) survey (modified for influenza vaccination). PACV scores (0–100 scale) were dichotomized into scores of ≥50 (hesitant) and RESULTS: Of 199 parents (18% response rate), 24% were vaccine hesitant and 53% declined the influenza vaccine for their child during hospitalization. Vaccine hesitancy (versus nonhesitancy) was associated with declining influenza vaccination (adjusted odds ratio: 6.4; 95% confidence interval: 2.5–16.5). The declination reason differed by vaccine hesitancy status, with a higher proportion of parents who were hesitant versus nonhesitant reporting “vaccine concern” or “vaccine unnecessary.” CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine hesitancy was prevalent in this limited sample of parents of hospitalized children and associated with influenza vaccine declination. Additional investigation in a large, diverse, prospectively recruited cohort is warranted given the potential sampling bias present in this study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of vaccine hesitancy screening on childhood vaccine uptake. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial in pediatric primary care clinics in Washington state. Vaccine-hesitant parents (VHPs) with a healthy newborn receiving health supervision at participating clinics were eligible. VHPs were identified by using a 4-item version of the validated Parent Attitudes About Childhood Vaccines Survey (PACV). Before their child’s 2- and 6-month health supervision visits, VHPs at intervention clinics completed the 15-item PACV embedded in a survey containing placebo items. Intervention providers received a summary of parents’ 15-item PACV responses and interpretation of their PACV score; discretion was given to providers regarding how they acted on this information. VHPs at control clinics completed only the placebo survey items, and their child’s provider received a summary of their responses; control providers remained blinded to parent VHP status. Our outcome was child immunization status at 8 months of age expressed as percent of days underimmunized. We compared outcomes in control and intervention participants using t test and linear mixed-effects regression. RESULTS: We enrolled 24 clinics (12 in each arm) and 156 parents (65 in the intervention arm). Parent characteristics were similar across arms except more intervention (versus control) parents had a first-born child (60.9% vs 44%; P = .04). No significant difference in outcome was detected between arms (25.2% [95% confidence interval: 16.0% to 34.5%] vs 19.1% [95% confidence interval: 12.0% to 26.3%] mean days underimmunized in the intervention and control arms, respectively). CONCLUSION: Vaccine hesitancy screening was not significantly associated with days underimmunized.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pediatric dialysis is thought to be burdensome on caregivers given their need to assume dual responsibilities of parental and medical management of their child’s chronic illness. In this study, we seek to describe the experience of parental caregivers of children receiving chronic dialysis for end-stage kidney disease. METHODS: We performed semistructured interviews of primary caregivers of children with end-stage kidney disease receiving chronic peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis for at least 8 weeks from March 2016 to April 2017 at 3 pediatric dialysis centers in the United States. We performed a thematic analysis to inductively derive and identify themes and subthemes related to positive and negative caregiver experiences. RESULTS: Thirty-five caregivers completed interviews. Four major themes were identified, each with several subthemes: (1) caregiver medicalization (subthemes: diagnosis and initiation, disease management, and the future), (2) emotional adjustment (initial and/or acute phase, acceptance, personal growth, and medical stress and psychological burden), (3) pragmatic adaptation (disruption, adaptation of life goals and/or sense of self, and financial impact), and (4) social adjustment (relationship opportunity, relationship risk, advocacy, family functioning, and intimate relationships). These themes and subthemes reflected a broad range of experiences from positive to severely burdensome. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers of patients on dialysis report a broad range of positive and burdensome experiences. These results reveal a need for continued advocacy to support families with a child on dialysis and can be used to develop targeted measures to study and improve caregiver experience in this population.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It is unclear which specific well-child visits (WCVs) are most frequently missed and whether age-specific patterns of attendance differ by race or insurance type. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children 0 to 6 years old between 2011 and 2016 within 2 health networks spanning 20 states. WCVs were identified by using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and 10th Revisions and Current Procedural Terminology codes. We calculated adherence to the 13 American Academy of Pediatrics–recommended WCVs from birth to age 6 years. To address data completeness, we made 2 adherence calculations after a child’s last recorded WCV: 1 in which we assumed all subsequent WCVs were attended outside the network and 1 in which we assumed none were. RESULTS: We included 152 418 children in our analysis. Most children were either publicly insured (77%) or uninsured (14%). The 2-, 4-, and 6-month visits were the most frequently attended (63% [assuming no outside care after the last recorded WCV] to 90% [assuming outside care]), whereas the 15- and 18-months visits (41%–75%) and 4-year visit (19%–49%) were the least frequently attended. Patients who were publicly insured and uninsured (versus privately insured) had higher odds of missing WCVs. Hispanic and Asian American (versus non-Hispanic white) patients had higher odds of attending WCVs. DISCUSSION The 15- and 18-month WCVs as well as the 4-year WCV are the least frequently attended WCVs. The former represent opportunities to identify developmental delays, and the latter represents an opportunity to assess school readiness.

* Abbreviation: SDM — : shared decision-making Shared decision-making (SDM) is a decision-making model in which “both parties share information…take steps to build consensus about the preferred treatment, and [reach an agreement] on the treatment to implement.”1 It exists on a continuum between 2 extremes (decision-making driven solely by the patient or by the physician) and represents a balance between patient and physician decisional responsibility that is guided by the patient and calibrated to the clinical context.2 At its inception, SDM was proposed to be the “ideal for the physician–patient relationship” as medicine pivoted from paternalism.3 It is now the standard decision-making model in medicine. Despite SDM’s prominence, however, problems linger. The evidence to support the purported benefits of SDM (increased patient understanding and satisfaction, improved adherence, and better health outcomes) is equivocal.4 Physicians are also struggling with how to practice SDM.5 In addition, little is known about how SDM should be applied in the pediatric setting. The gap in our understanding of SDM in pediatrics exists in part because initial frameworks used to develop the concept of SDM were based on the clinical context of a competent adult patient facing an acute, one-time intervention for the treatment of disease. This single, simplistic dyadic scenario has also served as the basis for subsequent analyses of SDM, its features, and tools to facilitate it. Analyses of SDM for scenarios common in pediatrics, such … Address correspondence to Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPH, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, 1900 Ninth Ave, Mail Stop JMB-6, Seattle, WA 98101. E-mail: douglas.opel{at}seattlechildrens.org

Risk is implicit in all clinical decision-making. Whether a clinician refrains from ordering a head computed tomography scan for a patient with a headache or decides to obtain blood work on a child with a fever, each decision involves a balance between accepting and limiting risk. Ideally, clinicians strive to achieve this balance. Clinicians accept some risk (eg, the risk of missing a rare disease) to avoid placing undue burden on the patient and the health care system with invasive, expensive, and/or potentially unnecessary testing. Yet, clinicians also strive not to assume too much risk so that timely diagnoses are made and morbidity and mortality prevented.1 Achieving this balance is difficult for a number of reasons. First, clinicians often lack precise estimates of the risks and harms for a given clinical scenario. There is simply an absence of or paucity of data to help quantify many of the risks, benefits, and outcomes associated with different possible therapeutic options. This confounds the ability to know whether pursuing 1 particular option corresponds to accepting too much or too little risk. As a result, decision-making is often intrinsically imperfect. Second, even if precise estimates of the involved risks are known, determining the threshold constituting acceptable risk (ie, the level above which too much risk would be assumed) is largely subjective. The issue of acceptable risk is inherently a matter of values, which, in pediatrics, includes not only the clinician’s values but also those of the parent and sometimes the child. Although there is general agreement that it is unacceptable for a parent to assume high levels of preventable risk and harm on behalf of his or her child, what constitutes a high level of risk and harm? Is it a 1 in 100 or 1 in 100 000 risk of the child …

* Abbreviations: MV — : measles vaccine NME — : nonmedical exemption VPD — : vaccine-preventable disease Efforts to restrict parents’ ability to exempt children from receiving vaccinations required for school entry have recently reached a pinnacle. The American Medical Association voiced support for eliminating nonmedical exemptions (NMEs) from school vaccine requirements,1 and California enacted legislation doing so.2 Although laudable in their objective, policies eliminating NMEs from all vaccines are scientifically and ethically problematic. In the present article, we argue for an exemption policy that eliminates NMEs just for the measles vaccine (MV) and is pursued only after other less restrictive approaches have been implemented and deemed unsuccessful. A policy to eliminate NMEs just from MV is based on the premise that the nature and scope of the immediate threat to public health posed by measles and the ability to avert that threat with MV is distinct among vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). There are 3 features that, when considered in combination, support this premise. First, measles virus is extraordinarily contagious. Its basic reproduction number is 12 to 18.3 Only 1 other vaccine-preventable infectious agent is as contagious ( Bordetella pertussis ); all others have a basic reproduction number that ranges from 4 to 7. Due to this contagiousness, a very high rate of community immunity (∼92%–94%) must be achieved and sustained to prevent spread of the disease.4 Second, measles remains an important public health burden.5 Although other VPDs may be more common (eg, pertussis6) or have more severe typical cases (eg, invasive Haemophilus influenzae type b disease7), measles disease is severe enough,8,9 outbreaks common enough,10 … Address correspondence to Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPH, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, 1900 Ninth Ave, M/S: JMB-6, Seattle, WA 98101. E-mail: douglas.opel{at}seattlechildrens.org

Ethics education based upon everyday ethical dilemmas can help trainees place themselves within the situation and encourage them to reflect on their role and responsibility in reaching its resolution.• Three elements can help augment the bioethics teaching experience: (a) identifying the ethical dilemma, (b) employing methods of ethical analysis, and(c) having knowledge of additional bioethics resources.An increasing number of bioethics resources are available to clinicians, including clinical ethics consultation (CEC) and print and Web-based resources.

The management of a newborn born to a mother with chorioamnionitis is controversial. By using data collected on neonates born in the era of routine maternal screening for Group B Streptococcus , we calculate that the risk of early-onset sepsis in a hypothetical infant born at term to a mother with chorioamnionitis, who has a normal physical examination at birth, is likely substantially

OBJECTIVE:To determine the frequency of parents' requests for alternative childhood immunization schedules (ACISs) and pediatricians' comfort with and willingness to use ACISs.METHODS:Washington State primary care pediatricians were asked to complete an Internet-based survey on ACISs. The main outcome measures were the frequency of parents' requests for ACISs, pediatricians' comfort with their use, and pediatricians' willingness to use ACISs for individual vaccines. In addition, respondents were asked to characterize their practices and to provide demographic information.RESULTS:Of the 311 respondents (response rate: 65%), 209 met inclusion criteria and were included in analyses. Overall, 77% of eligible respondents reported that parents sometimes or frequently requested ACISs, and 61% were comfortable using an ACIS if requested by a parent. Pediatricians were least willing to consider using ACISs for diphtheria-tetanus toxoids-acellular pertussis vaccine, Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine, and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Pediatricians who practiced in a neighborhood or community clinic were less comfortable using ACISs than were those in a 1- or 2-physician practice (odds ratio: 0.10).CONCLUSIONS:Washington State pediatricians are regularly being asked to use ACISs, and most of them are comfortable using them if requested. Pediatricians are least willing to delay H influenzae type b vaccine, diphtheria-tetanus toxoids-acellular pertussis vaccine, and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, which suggests prioritization of immunizations that protect against potentially devastating bacterial infections of infancy and early childhood.

Several new vaccines for children and young adults have been introduced recently and now appear on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ recommended childhood and adolescent immunization schedule (meningococcal, rotavirus, human papillomavirus). As new vaccines are introduced, states face complex decisions regarding which vaccines to fund and which vaccines to require for school or child care entry. This complexity is evidenced by the current debate surrounding the human papillomavirus vaccine. We present a critique to the approach and criteria for evaluating vaccines for inclusion in mandatory school immunization programs that have been adopted by the Washington State Board of Health by illustrating how these criteria might be applied to the human papillomavirus vaccine. We conclude that these 9 criteria can help ensure a deliberate and informed approach to important public policy decisions, but we argue that several clarifications of the review process are needed along with the addition of a 10th criterion that ensures that a new vaccine mandate relates in some manner to increasing safety in the school environment.

OBJECTIVE. The National Residency Matching Program allows match participants to recruit each other and try to influence future ranking decisions in their favor, but it also states that participants “must not make statements implying commitment.” The National Residency Matching Program cautions against statements such as, “We plan to rank you very highly on our list,” because they can be misinterpreted as an informal commitment. To avoid issues around miscommunication, the University of Washington Pediatric Residency Program instituted a postinterview no-call policy with applicants. The purpose of this study was to determine this policy's impact on applicants. METHODS. A Web-based, anonymous survey was sent after the National Residency Matching Program deadline for submitting rank lists but before match day to applicants who interviewed at our program from 2003 to 2006. Applicants were asked whether our program's position on their rank list would have been influenced more favorably, less favorably, or not at all had they received a telephone call from our program. RESULTS. The survey response rate was 53% (n = 468). A total of 10.3% (n = 48) of the applicants to our program would have been favorably influenced by a telephone call after their interview. Significantly more applicants reported that a recruiting call from our program would have caused them to rank our program more favorably in 2006 (17.2%) than in 2003–2005 combined (8.4%). CONCLUSIONS. We identified a vulnerable applicant population whose rank lists are potentially influenced by questionable postinterview communication from residency programs. To protect the integrity and fairness of the match, we call for more explicit guidelines regarding postinterview communication with applicants.