Impact of ACAPS Coordinated Interview Release Policy: Applicant and Program Attitudes, Adherence, and Interview Trends.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 1529-4242
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1306050
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2023
01 04 2023
Historique:
medline:
31
3
2023
pubmed:
3
2
2023
entrez:
2
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The authors studied the impact of a new, coordinated interview release date for integrated plastic surgery residencies. A cross-sectional study of all 2020 integrated plastic surgery residencies and applicants was performed. Voluntary, anonymous surveys were administered following implementation of the interview policy. Program response rates were 55.6% for the initial survey and 57.1% for the follow-up survey. Programs released an average of 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8 to 2.4) rounds of interview invitations and invited 39.0 (95% CI, 35.3 to 42.6) applicants to interview. Policy adherence was high (91.1%). Most programs believed the interview policy was an improvement for applicants (46.5% yes; 9.1% no) and programs (41.9% yes; 27.0% no). Median rank of matched candidates was 13, and 55.1% of programs matched candidates within the top quartile of their rank list. The average candidate applied to 72 programs, attended 11 interviews, and ranked 12 programs. Interview distribution was bimodal, with peaks at six and 15 total interview invitations. Applicants within the top fifth, tenth, and fifteenth percentile for total interview invites disproportionately accounted for 15.3%, 26.6%, and 36.5%, respectively, of all invitations received. Survey data suggested applicant satisfaction with travel planning, improved scheduling, and cost savings following implementation of the interview policy. Applicants were somewhat dissatisfied with interview distribution. A coordinated interview release date is facile to adopt and does not adversely impact program interview trends or match rates. Applicants benefit from improved scheduling, travel planning, and cost savings; however, interview distribution continues to favor top-tier candidates.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The authors studied the impact of a new, coordinated interview release date for integrated plastic surgery residencies.
METHODS
A cross-sectional study of all 2020 integrated plastic surgery residencies and applicants was performed. Voluntary, anonymous surveys were administered following implementation of the interview policy.
RESULTS
Program response rates were 55.6% for the initial survey and 57.1% for the follow-up survey. Programs released an average of 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8 to 2.4) rounds of interview invitations and invited 39.0 (95% CI, 35.3 to 42.6) applicants to interview. Policy adherence was high (91.1%). Most programs believed the interview policy was an improvement for applicants (46.5% yes; 9.1% no) and programs (41.9% yes; 27.0% no). Median rank of matched candidates was 13, and 55.1% of programs matched candidates within the top quartile of their rank list. The average candidate applied to 72 programs, attended 11 interviews, and ranked 12 programs. Interview distribution was bimodal, with peaks at six and 15 total interview invitations. Applicants within the top fifth, tenth, and fifteenth percentile for total interview invites disproportionately accounted for 15.3%, 26.6%, and 36.5%, respectively, of all invitations received. Survey data suggested applicant satisfaction with travel planning, improved scheduling, and cost savings following implementation of the interview policy. Applicants were somewhat dissatisfied with interview distribution.
CONCLUSIONS
A coordinated interview release date is facile to adopt and does not adversely impact program interview trends or match rates. Applicants benefit from improved scheduling, travel planning, and cost savings; however, interview distribution continues to favor top-tier candidates.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36729728
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010017
pii: 00006534-990000000-01377
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
908-915Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Références
National Resident Matching Program. Results and data: 2020 main residency match. Available at: https://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/MM_Results_and-Data_2020-rev.pdf .Accessed February 11, 2021.
Weissbart SJ, Hall SJ, Fultz BR, Stock JA. The urology match as a prisoner’s dilemma: a game theory perspective. Urology. 2013;82:791797–791798.
Weissbart SJ, Kim SJ, Feinn RS, Stock JA. Relationship between the number of residency applications and the yearly match rate: time to start thinking about an application limit?. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7:81–85.
Burbano FM, Yao A, Burish N, et al. Solving congestion in the plastic surgery match: a game theory analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:634–639.
Claiborne JR, Crantford JC, Swett KR, David LR. The plastic surgery match: predicting success and improving the process. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:698–703.
Egro FM, Smith BT, Nguyen VT. Systematic review of the cost of applying to integrated plastic surgery residency. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:820e–821e.
Susarla SM, Swanson EW, Slezak S, Lifchez SD, Redett RJ. The perception and costs of the interview process for plastic surgery residency programs: can the process be streamlined?. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:302e–309e.
Graboyes EM, Goebel JA. Reforming the otolaryngology-head and neck surgery match: should we embrace a consortia match?. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;142:728–730.
Polacco MA, Lally J, Walls A, Harrold LR, Malekzadeh S, Chen EY. Digging into debt: the financial burden associated with the otolaryngology match. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;156:1091–1096.
Tadisina KK, Orra S, Gharb BB, Kwiecien G, Bernard S, Zins JE. Applying to integrated plastic surgery residency programs: trends in the past 5 years of the match. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:1344–1353.
Ward M, Pingree C, Laury AM, Bowe SN. Applicant perspectives on the otolaryngology residency application process. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;143:782–787.
Whipple ME, Law AB, Bly RA. A computer simulation model to analyze the application process for competitive residency programs. J Grad Med Educ. 2019;11:30–35.
American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons. 2019-2020 integrated plastic surgery interview update: American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons (ACAPS). Available at: https://acaplasticsurgeons.org/multimedia/files/2019/Interview-Policy.pdf . Accessed April 6, 2020.
Lee AH, Young P, Liao R, Yi PH, Reh D, Best SR. I dream of Gini: quantifying inequality in otolaryngology residency interviews. Laryngoscopy. 2019;129:627–633.
Frush BW, Byerley J. High-value interviewing: a call for quality improvement in the match process. Acad Med. 2019;94:324–327.
Burk-Rafel J; Association of American Medical Colleges. Insights. You missed a late-night email. Could you lose your dream residency? Available at: https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/you-missed-late-night-email-could-you-lose-your-dream-residency . Accessed April 6, 2020.