Developing scholarly communication competencies: How a post-master’s degree residency program can provide career preparation

Scholarly communication librarianship is a messy field. Its margins are ill-defined and ever- changing. There is a lack of curricular training in library schools and a lack of opportunities for early-career candidates. As a result, preparing librarians for a scholarly communication career presents a challenge. In this piece I discuss this messiness and describe my personal experiences in a residency position, showing how these kinds of positions support the professional development of scholarly communication librarians, with specific reference to the NASIG Core Competencies for scholarly communication librarians.

Time and Financial Costs for Students Participating in the National Residency Matching Program (the Match©): 2015 to 2020

Purpose The purpose of this study was to provide information to assist students, faculty, and staff in making critical career-determining decisions regarding the residency NRMP “Match©” process. Method A 47-item survey questionnaire was developed and piloted on a regional campus in 2015. The questionnaire also incorporated a request for comments about the interviewing experience and suggestions to improve the process. The questionnaire was distributed each year in late February to early March from 2016 to 2020, after rank lists had been submitted but before announcement of Match© results. Results The overall response rate was 86.1% (897/1042). Annual response rates ranged from 70.0% in 2020 to 97.0% in 2018. Respondents’ average age was 27.3 (± 2.7) years and 50.0% (448/897) were male. Most applied to family medicine (164/897: 18.2%) and internal medicine (140/897; 15.6%). Eight specialties had fewer than ten applicants over the six-year period. The number of students applying to individual specialties fluctuated, but no specialty showed a consistent upward or downward trend over the study period. Conclusion This study indicates a huge difference in numbers of applications, expenses, and days interviewing. Students crave more guidance, a more efficient system, transparent communication with programs, and less pressure during the process. Reducing the escalating volume of applications is central to improving to system. Despite efforts to better inform applicants, student behavior is unlikely to change until they feel safe in the belief that lower, more realistic numbers of applications, and interviews are likely to result in securing an appropriate residency position.

Advising special population emergency medicine residency applicants: a survey of emergency medicine advisors and residency program leadership

Background The objective of this study was to determine the advising and emergency medicine (EM) residency selection practices for special population applicant groups for whom traditional advice may not apply. Methods A survey was distributed on the Council of Residency Directors in EM and Clerkship Directors in EM Academy listservs. Multiple choice, Likert-type scale, and fill-in-the-blank questions addressed the average EM applicant and special population groups (osteopathic; international medical graduate (IMG); couples; at-risk; re-applicant; dual-accreditation applicant; and military). Percentages and 95% confidence intervals [CI] were calculated. Results One hundred four surveys were completed. Of respondents involved in the interview process, 2 or more standardized letters of evaluation (SLOEs) were recommended for osteopathic (90.1% [95% CI 84–96]), IMG (82.5% [73–92]), dual-accreditation (46% [19–73]), and average applicants (48.5% [39–58]). Recommendations for numbers of residency applications to submit were 21–30 (50.5% [40.7–60.3]) for the average applicant, 31–40 (41.6% [31.3–51.8]) for osteopathic, and > 50 (50.9% [37.5–64.4]) for IMG. For below-average Step 1 performance, 56.0% [46.3–65.7] were more likely to interview with an average Step 2 score. 88.1% [81.8–94.4] will consider matching an EM-EM couple. The majority were more likely to interview a military applicant with similar competitiveness to a traditional applicant. Respondents felt the best option for re-applicants was to pursue the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) for a preliminary residency position. Conclusion Advising and residency selection practices for special population applicants differ from those of traditional EM applicants. These data serve as an important foundation for advising these distinct applicant groups in ways that were previously only speculative. While respondents agree on many advising recommendations, outliers exist.

Minding the Mindfulness Research in Healthcare: More Data on Diversity are Urgently Needed

Securing a residency position has become increasingly competitive, thereby making the interview crucial in matching successfully. In this commentary, what I consider “Ten Commandments” of a successful interview are elaborated. Although this is geared to those applying in dermatology, the principles are applicable for any medical student applying for a residency program.

Perceptions of the two-phase pharmacy residency match process

Purpose To evaluate residency applicant (RA) and residency program director (RPD) perceptions of Phase II of the Match process since its inception in 2016. Methods An online survey was issued to all Match-registered RAs and RPDs for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 Match periods. Study participant demographics, participant designation (RA or RPD), the year(s) and Phase(s) of the Match participated in were measured using categorical ranges, and overall perceptions of the Match process since Phase II of the Match was implemented were captured with 5-point Likert scales. Results A total of 2,599 individuals (RA and RPD) completed the survey for an overall survey response rate of 12.6%. The majority of RAs were female (73.2%), under the age of 30 (87.4%), Caucasian (67.4%), and recently graduated (90.9% graduated between 2016 and 2018). Most RAs participated in the 2018 Match period (61%), and overall 82% successfully matched to a residency position. RA perceptions relating to process cost-effectiveness and perceived fairness to all applicants differed significantly from RPD perceptions (2.23 versus 3.71 and 2.80 versus 3.67, respectively; p < 0.001 for each). There were no differences between RA and RPD perceptions related to the submission/review process. Conclusion The Phase II of the Match process has demonstrated improved organization and satisfaction from the RPD perspective compared to the previous process. RAs have identified several areas for improvement in the process. It is imperative that efforts are made to continue expanding program and position offerings as much as possible.

High dives and parallel plans: relationships between medical student elective strategies and residency match outcomes

Background: Medical students are anxious about not getting a preferred residency position. We described elective patterns of two recent cohorts and examined associated match outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of the final-year electives of all students who participated in the residency match (first iteration) at one school for 2017 and 2018. We categorized elective patterns and associated them with aggregated match outcomes. We examined high-demand/low-supply (HDLS) disciplines separately. Results: We described three elective patterns: High Dive, Parallel Plan(s), and No Clear Pattern. Many students had High Dive and Parallel Plans patterns; only a few showed No Clear Pattern. Match rates for High Dive and Parallel Plan patterns were high but many students matched to Family and Internal Medicine. When we separated out HDLS predominance, the match rate remained high but a significant number matched to disciplines in which they did not have a majority of electives. Most High Dive and Parallel Plan students who went unmatched did so with HDLS discipline electives. Conclusion: Many students chose High Dive and Parallel Plan strategies to both high-capacity and HDLS disciplines. Match rates were high for both patterns but students also matched to non-primary disciplines. Back-up planning may reside in the entire application, and not just electives selection.

Specialty Choice Stability: Are There Implications for Early Entry Into Residency?

Introduction: The medical education community is piloting early entry to residency as a potential outcome to competency-based education and as a way to more quickly train future physicians in specialties of need. However, there is limited knowledge of which specialties may be best suited to this streamlined training. Student career desires may change over the course of their undergraduate training. We aimed to understand which specialties have stable student interest from matriculation to residency match in an effort to highlight which fields may be reasonable to consider for such accelerated programs. Methods: Medical students at one school of medicine who matriculated in the years 2009-2013 were surveyed upon entry regarding the medical specialty they were most interested in pursuing. Six hundred fifty-four students were eligible for inclusion and 535 of the records met all requirements. On completion of medical school, final specialty choice for students obtaining a residency position was recorded. The data were analyzed to assess specialties with the highest versus the lowest rates of retention. Results: Of 535 included students, the top specialties with retention of interest (no change in specialty choice for that student) from matriculation to match were physical medicine and rehabilitation, (100%, n=3 retention/3 initial), psychiatry (57.1%, 4/7), internal medicine (48.5%, 47/97), and family medicine (47.7%, 41/86). The specialties with the lowest retention were pathology (0%, 0/2), preventive medicine (0%, 0/4), dermatology (12%, 1/8), neurology (16.7%, 3/18) and radiation oncology (16.7%, 1/6). Discussion: Some specialties that attract student interest before matriculation may be more likely to maintain interest compared to others. This suggests a need for further research to determine if residency entry can begin earlier than traditionally thought, with certain fields better suited for accelerated training.

Not a Cheap Investment: Estimating the Cost of the 2017 to 2018 Ophthalmology Residency Match to the Applicant and Program

Purpose To estimate the cost of the match process for all ophthalmology applicants and the departmental costs at the University of Kentucky during the 2017 to 2018 match cycle. Design Financial analysis. Methods Using the available national match statistics for the 2017 to 2018 ophthalmology residency match and the mean of all residency interview costs available in the literature, the estimated mean and total match costs were calculated for all applicants, including application fees and interviews. Program costs were estimated based on direct interview costs, lost productivity, and fixed costs. Results Of 625 applicants, 475 matched into an ophthalmology residency position in 2017 to 2018. The mean estimated cost was US$6,613 for matched applicants, and all applicants spent US$4,646,950 on the match in aggregate. Our department spent an estimated US$179,327 over four interview days with 12 faculty volunteers, or an average of US$3,736 per each of 48 interviewed applicants. Conclusions and Relevance Matching into an ophthalmology residency position is expensive not only for the applicant but also the program. Reforms to the process would likely be beneficial to both parties.