Search

Abstract Objective Management of peripheral nerve injuries requires physicians to rely on qualitative measures from patient history, electromyography, and physical exam. Determining a successful nerve repair can take months to years for proximal injuries, and the resulting delays in clinical decision‐making can lead to a negative impact on patient outcomes. Early identification of a failed nerve repair could prevent permanent muscle atrophy and loss of function. This study aims to test the feasibility of performing diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to evaluate injury and recovery following repair of wrist trauma. We hypothesize that DTI provides a noninvasive and reliable assessment of regeneration, which may improve clinical decision‐making and alter the clinical course of surgical interventions. Methods Clinical and MRI measurements from subjects with traumatic peripheral nerve injury, carpal tunnel syndrome, and healthy control subjects were compared to evaluate the relationship between DTI metrics and injury severity. Results Fractional anisotropy from DTI was sensitive to differences between damaged and healthy nerves, damaged and compressed nerves, and injured and healthy contralateral nerves. Longitudinal measurements in two injury subjects also related to clinical outcomes. Implications of other diffusion measures are also discussed. Interpretation DTI is a sensitive tool for wrist nerve injuries and can be utilized for monitoring nerve recovery. Across three subjects with nerve injuries, this study has shown how DTI can detect abnormalities between injured and healthy nerves, measure recovery, and determine if re‐operation was successful. Additional comparisons to carpal tunnel syndrome and healthy nerves show that DTI is sensitive to the degree of impairment.

Background:. Applicant preferences for required research and global surgery experiences during plastic surgery training have not been previously studied. Methods:. An anonymous survey was sent to integrated plastic surgery applicants from consecutive residency application cycles (2018–2020). Research and global health experiences before residency were elicited, along with the interest to continue these activities. Data were analyzed using frequency distributions and chi-square test of independence. Results:. Seventy-eight former plastic surgery applicants responded to the survey (15.7% response rate). Most participants (65%) viewed time for research as important when evaluating residency programs. Fewer respondents (10%) ranked programs with a required research year higher, whereas 47% ranked those programs lower and 43% did not factor it into their decision-making. Less than one-third of respondents (28%) reported prior global health experience, yet 44% viewed international opportunities as an important factor when ranking programs, and the majority (72%) stated plans to participate in global surgery during residency. Past experience on a global health trip predicted a strong preference for longer rotations (P = 0.003) and willingness to use vacation time to participate during residency (P < 0.001). Conclusions:. Research was an important consideration in residency selection, but a few preferred a residency program with a dedicated research year. Although applicants had limited experience with global surgery, the majority intended to get involved during residency. Understanding factors that influence applicants’ interests in residency programs may better equip programs with information to create enriching experiences and attract the most qualified applicants.

Introduction: The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score is one of the few standardized metrics used to objectively review applicants for residency. In February 2020 the USMLE program announced that the numerical Step 1 scoring would be changed to a binary (Pass/Fail) system. In this study we sought to characterize how this change in score reporting will impact the application review process for emergency medicine (EM) program directors (PD). Methods: In March 2020 we electronically distributed a validated anonymous survey to EM PDs at 236 US EM residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Results: Of 236 EM PDs, 121 responded (51.3% response rate). Overall, 72.7% believed binary Step 1 scoring would make the process of objectively comparing applicants more difficult. A minority (19.8%) believed it was a good idea, and 33.1% felt it would improve medical student well-being. The majority (88.4%) reported that they will increase their emphasis on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) for resident selection, and 85% plan to require Step 2 CK scores at application submission time. Conclusion: Our study suggests most EM PDs disapprove of the new Step 1 scoring. As more objective data is peeled away from the residency application, EM PDs will be left to rely more heavily on the few remaining measures, including Step 2 CK and standardized letters of evaluation. Further changes are needed to promote equity and improve the overall quality of the application process for students and PDs.

Summary:. The residency application process is expensive, costing an average of $2149 in application fees per applicant during the 2020–2021 cycle. Additionally, the number of applications per applicant continues to rise annually across all specialties. This considerable cost creates a financial barrier for students, particularly those from first-generation and underrepresented backgrounds. Moreover, the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application generates a lengthy, diluted output that hinders a holistic review. We developed the Plastic Surgery Common Application (PSCA), a focused, specialty-specific application external to ERAS with the goal of lessening the financial barrier for students and improving reviewer satisfaction. The PSCA was revised over a 5-month period after prepiloting with stakeholders. All integrated plastic surgery programs were invited to participate. Of the 86 plastic surgery programs, 20 agreed to participate in the pilot, accepting both ERAS and PSCA for direct comparison. A total of 181 completed applications were received through the PSCA. In a postparticipation survey, most applicants and reviewers felt that the PSCA offered a reasonable alternative to ERAS, despite minor technical difficulties. The PSCA pilot demonstrates that there is a reasonable alternative to applying to residency through ERAS and offers a template for developing a system that is not cost-prohibitive to applicants. The PSCA also demonstrates the benefit of a specialty-specific, customizable application for reviewer efficiency and satisfaction.

Background:. In 2020, the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons and the Association of American Medical Colleges recommended residency programs suspend away rotations and in-person interviews. This study quantifies applicant costs and potential savings in the residency application process resulting from that change, while also evaluating differences in cost with respect to geographic region of the applicant. Methods:. A retrospective evaluation of the 2019–2020 Texas STAR (Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency) database was conducted. We queried responses from plastic surgery residency applicants, including expenses associated with the application, away rotations, interviews, and total costs for medical school seniors. Applicant characteristics were recorded. A Kruskal-Wallis H-test was used to evaluate differences in mean costs by medical school region. Results:. In total, 117 US allopathic applicants to plastic surgery residency were included. Total expenses for the application cycle were $10,845. This was made up of $1638 in application costs, $4074 in away rotation costs, and $5486 in interview costs. No significant differences were observed for mean total costs for applicants from schools in the Central ($11,045/applicant), Northeast ($9696/applicant), South ($11,332/applicant), and West ($11,205/applicant) (P = 0.209). Conclusion:. Assuming relatively minimal expenditures related to a virtual interview cycle and lack of away rotations in 2021, the average cost savings for plastic surgery residency applicants during the COVID-19 pandemic was estimated to be over $9000.

Background:. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unpreceded changes to medical education. Medical students interested in urology and neurosurgery have reported concerns regarding COVID-19’s effects on clinical experience and the residency application process; however, the impact amongst students interested in plastic surgery is unknown. We hypothesized that students applying into plastic surgery may experience much distress as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods:. An electronic survey was developed by 3 plastic surgery residents and 2 academic plastic surgeons and later refined by 4 fourth-year medical students. Questions focused on medical education curricular changes, perceived impact on medical education, and demographics. From April–May 2020 the survey was distributed to medical students who were interested in plastic surgery. Participants were identified through plastic surgery residency program personnel and social media platforms. Results: In total,. 130 of the 140 respondents reported interest in plastic surgery careers. An estimated 67% were in their clinical years or completing research year(s) before residency applications. Of the respondents, 80% believed that the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on their medical education. Clinical-level students compared with preclinical-level students, and students applying to residency during the 2020–2021 match cycle compared with students not applying during the 2020–2021 match cycle were significantly more likely to perceive the COVID-19 pandemic as having a negative impact on their medical education (P = 0.04 and 0.03, respectively). Conclusion:. Medical students interested in plastic surgery perceive the COVID-19 pandemic as having a negative impact on their education, likely due to a reduction in clinical exposure.

Background:. Integrated plastic surgery remains one of the most competitive specialties within the National Resident Matching Program. Although the burden of applying to surgical residencies has been studied, the literature lacks data specific to integrated plastic surgery applicants. This study reports the current total cost, along with the outcomes of applying to and interviewing for integrated plastic surgery residency. Methods:. A survey was sent to applicants in the 2018–2020 integrated plastic surgery application cycles. Survey questions focused on applicant demographics and home medical school characteristics, application processes, interview attendance, interview cost, and applicant financing. Comparative and regression analyses were performed on survey responses. Results:. The survey was distributed to 493 applicants. An estimated 245 (49.7%) applicants responded. On average, applicants applied to 68.3 ± 16.4 (mean ± SD) programs, received 17.6 ± 11.4 interview invites, and attended 12.6 ± 5.7 of the interviews they received. On average, each applicant spent a total of $6690 ± $4045 during the interview season, with individual interviews costing $531. Residency programs providing financial assistance supplemented $73 ± $64 per interviewee, corresponding to 13.7% of per-interview cost. To cover costs, 33.8% of applicants sought additional funding, and 30.7% of applicants stated that they had supplemental income, with an average monthly supplemental income of $1971 ± $1558. Conclusions:. This study quantifies the recent total and per-interview cost of applying to integrated plastic surgery residency. It also identifies the importance of cost to applicants and how the cost burden of residency applications is supported.

Background:. As early as 2022, United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 results will be reported as pass or fail, rather than as 3-digit numeric scores. This survey examines the perspectives of plastic surgery applicants and program directors (PD) regarding this score reporting change. Methods:. A 24-item survey was distributed to integrated applicants from the 2018–19 and 2019–20 application cycles. An analogous 28-item survey was sent to integrated and independent plastic surgery training program directors. Data were analyzed using summary tables and marginal homogeneity tests. Results:. 164 applicants (33.2%) and 64 PDs (62.1%) completed the survey. Most applicants (60.3%) and PDs (81.0%) were not in favor of the score reporting change. As a result of binary scoring, a majority of respondents anticipate that residency programs will use Step 2 CK scores to screen applicants (applicants: 95.7%, PDs: 82.8%), prioritize students from more prestigious medical schools (applicants: 91.5%, PDs: 52.4%), and that dedicated research time will become more important (applicants: 87.9%, PDs: 45.3%). Most applicants (66.4%) and PDs (53.1%) believe that there will be an increase in plastic surgery applicants. Applicants and PDs anticipate that the top 3 metrics used by programs when deciding to offer an interview will change as a result of binary Step 1 scoring. Conclusions:. Most plastic surgery applicants and PDs do not support the change in United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scoring to pass or fail. The majority believe that other metrics (such as Step 2 CK scores, research experience, and medical school reputation) will become more important in the application process.

Background Scoring for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 was recently announced to be reported as binary as early as 2022. The general perception among program directors (PDs) in all specialties has largely been negative, but the perspective within ophthalmology remains uncharacterized. Objective This article characterizes ophthalmology residency PDs' perspectives regarding the impact of pass/fail USMLE Step 1 scoring on the residency application process. Methods A validated 19-item anonymous survey was electronically distributed to 111 PDs of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited ophthalmology training programs. Results Fifty-six PDs (50.5%) completed the survey. The median age of respondents was 48 years and the majority were male (71.4%); the average tenure as PD was 7.1 years. Only 6 (10.7%) PDs reported the change of the USMLE Step 1 to pass/fail was a good idea. Most PDs (92.9%) indicated that this will make it more difficult to objectively compare applicants, and many (69.6%) did not agree that the change would improve medical student well-being. The majority (82.1%) indicated that there will be an increased emphasis on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores, and many (70.4%) felt that medical school reputation will be more important in application decisions. Conclusion Most ophthalmology PDs who responded to the survey do not support binary Step 1 scoring. Many raised concerns regarding shifted overemphasis on Step 2 CK, uncertain impact on student well-being, and potential to disadvantage certain groups of medical students including international medical graduates. These concerns highlight the need for reform in the ophthalmology application process.

Residents’ work overload is a rising issue in Taiwan. Duty hours of the residents in the United States have been limited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Common Program Requirements since 2003; similar standards were not implemented in Taiwan until 2013. Taiwanese duty hour standards are the work hour limits adopted as part of the required teaching hospital accreditation status. In January 2015, the Ministry of Health and Welfare conducted a national survey for all house officers in Taiwan. We collected data including those on demographics and perceptions of residents regarding duty hour limits. Most respondents reported positive perceptions of the duty hour standards. They felt that these limits will improve resident education, quality of life, and patient safety. The strong incentive to follow the regulations (through teaching hospital accreditation) could help protect residents (and patients) from unsafe working conditions. However, further studies on the influence of shortened duty hour on professional development are necessary for future improvement.