Update on the Selection Criteria of Plastic Surgery Residents: A Survey of Program Directors and Associate Program Directors

Plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) is recognized as a highly competitive specialty. Since the first assessment of resident selection criteria in 2007, PRS residency programs have adopted holistic review processes and adapted to changes such as a decline in medical schools participating in the...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of plastic surgery 2024-05, Vol.92 (5S Suppl 3), p.S327-S330
Hauptverfasser: Asghari, Arya, Hines, Eric, Mocharnuk, Joseph, Leis, Amber, Wang, Eric D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page S330
container_issue 5S Suppl 3
container_start_page S327
container_title Annals of plastic surgery
container_volume 92
creator Asghari, Arya
Hines, Eric
Mocharnuk, Joseph
Leis, Amber
Wang, Eric D
description Plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) is recognized as a highly competitive specialty. Since the first assessment of resident selection criteria in 2007, PRS residency programs have adopted holistic review processes and adapted to changes such as a decline in medical schools participating in the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society as well as the recent transition to pass/fail grading for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step 1 examination (Schultz et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open . 2020;8:e2892; Tadisina et al. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2017;139:330e-331e). This study was devised to evaluate current PRS residency criteria in light of these changes. An anonymous, 12-item, electronic survey was generated and distributed using Alchemer. An email was sent to 171 program directors (PDs) and associate program directors (APDs) of PRS residency programs. Survey questions were developed to collect data regarding respondent demographics and their desired criteria when assessing residency applicants. Complete responses were collected and analyzed with summary statistics and multivariate logistic regression using RStudio (version 1.3.109). In total, 44 (25.7% response rate) of the 171 PDs and APDs completed the survey. Of the 16 programs (36.4%) with a USMLE cutoff score, 7 (43.8%) reported a range of 230 to 239 and 6 (37.5%) reported a range of 240 to 249. Without a score for step 1, the majority (48.8%) of respondents believe that step 2 scores will replace step 1 scores in terms of assessment criteria, and the content of recommendation letters was selected as the criterion with the greatest increase in weight (66.7%). In addition, 27.3% of programs require a step 2 score at the time of interview. The top 3 academic criteria in order of decreasing importance were the content of recommendation letters, clinical grades, and letter writers, whereas the top 3 nonacademic criteria were subinternship performance, maturity, and interview performance. Plastic and reconstructive surgery remains a highly competitive specialty for residency applicants. Our findings suggest that Alpha Omega Alpha membership remains diminished in importance, whereas USMLE cutoff scores have increased. With recent changes in the step 1 grading system, PDs and APDs will rely more heavily on step 2 scores and the content of recommendation letters.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003801
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2928585662</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2928585662</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c171t-1f631e76d0ff7b799ae96b6490d6dd22c3f04931793d1bd982e17958196755983</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplUFtLwzAUDqLonP4DkTz60pk0bS6-lXmFgcO555I2pzPSrjNJhYE_3s5NET0v5_Zd4EPojJIRJUpczrLpiPwqJgndQwOaMh4xQeQ-GhCayEiQhB2hY-9fCaGxTPghOmKSccUkHaCP-croALhd4vACeAY1lMH229jZAM5q3FZ4WmsfbIlnnVuAW-Mn8NbAMvgrnG2O77D-grl24XSDr63rRVrnsV4anHnflnbj8e9_gg4qXXs43fUhmt_ePI_vo8nj3cM4m0QlFTREtOKMguCGVJUohFIaFC94oojhxsRxySqSKEaFYoYWRskY-jmVVHGRpkqyIbrY6q5c-9aBD3ljfQl1rZfQdj6PVSxTmXIe99BkCy1d672DKl8522i3zinJN7nnfe7539x72vnOoSsaMD-k76DZJweXfcs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2928585662</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Update on the Selection Criteria of Plastic Surgery Residents: A Survey of Program Directors and Associate Program Directors</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload</source><creator>Asghari, Arya ; Hines, Eric ; Mocharnuk, Joseph ; Leis, Amber ; Wang, Eric D</creator><creatorcontrib>Asghari, Arya ; Hines, Eric ; Mocharnuk, Joseph ; Leis, Amber ; Wang, Eric D</creatorcontrib><description>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) is recognized as a highly competitive specialty. Since the first assessment of resident selection criteria in 2007, PRS residency programs have adopted holistic review processes and adapted to changes such as a decline in medical schools participating in the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society as well as the recent transition to pass/fail grading for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step 1 examination (Schultz et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open . 2020;8:e2892; Tadisina et al. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2017;139:330e-331e). This study was devised to evaluate current PRS residency criteria in light of these changes. An anonymous, 12-item, electronic survey was generated and distributed using Alchemer. An email was sent to 171 program directors (PDs) and associate program directors (APDs) of PRS residency programs. Survey questions were developed to collect data regarding respondent demographics and their desired criteria when assessing residency applicants. Complete responses were collected and analyzed with summary statistics and multivariate logistic regression using RStudio (version 1.3.109). In total, 44 (25.7% response rate) of the 171 PDs and APDs completed the survey. Of the 16 programs (36.4%) with a USMLE cutoff score, 7 (43.8%) reported a range of 230 to 239 and 6 (37.5%) reported a range of 240 to 249. Without a score for step 1, the majority (48.8%) of respondents believe that step 2 scores will replace step 1 scores in terms of assessment criteria, and the content of recommendation letters was selected as the criterion with the greatest increase in weight (66.7%). In addition, 27.3% of programs require a step 2 score at the time of interview. The top 3 academic criteria in order of decreasing importance were the content of recommendation letters, clinical grades, and letter writers, whereas the top 3 nonacademic criteria were subinternship performance, maturity, and interview performance. Plastic and reconstructive surgery remains a highly competitive specialty for residency applicants. Our findings suggest that Alpha Omega Alpha membership remains diminished in importance, whereas USMLE cutoff scores have increased. With recent changes in the step 1 grading system, PDs and APDs will rely more heavily on step 2 scores and the content of recommendation letters.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0148-7043</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1536-3708</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003801</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38369381</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Female ; Humans ; Internship and Residency ; Male ; Personnel Selection - standards ; School Admission Criteria ; Surgery, Plastic - education ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; United States</subject><ispartof>Annals of plastic surgery, 2024-05, Vol.92 (5S Suppl 3), p.S327-S330</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c171t-1f631e76d0ff7b799ae96b6490d6dd22c3f04931793d1bd982e17958196755983</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38369381$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Asghari, Arya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hines, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mocharnuk, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leis, Amber</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Eric D</creatorcontrib><title>Update on the Selection Criteria of Plastic Surgery Residents: A Survey of Program Directors and Associate Program Directors</title><title>Annals of plastic surgery</title><addtitle>Ann Plast Surg</addtitle><description>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) is recognized as a highly competitive specialty. Since the first assessment of resident selection criteria in 2007, PRS residency programs have adopted holistic review processes and adapted to changes such as a decline in medical schools participating in the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society as well as the recent transition to pass/fail grading for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step 1 examination (Schultz et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open . 2020;8:e2892; Tadisina et al. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2017;139:330e-331e). This study was devised to evaluate current PRS residency criteria in light of these changes. An anonymous, 12-item, electronic survey was generated and distributed using Alchemer. An email was sent to 171 program directors (PDs) and associate program directors (APDs) of PRS residency programs. Survey questions were developed to collect data regarding respondent demographics and their desired criteria when assessing residency applicants. Complete responses were collected and analyzed with summary statistics and multivariate logistic regression using RStudio (version 1.3.109). In total, 44 (25.7% response rate) of the 171 PDs and APDs completed the survey. Of the 16 programs (36.4%) with a USMLE cutoff score, 7 (43.8%) reported a range of 230 to 239 and 6 (37.5%) reported a range of 240 to 249. Without a score for step 1, the majority (48.8%) of respondents believe that step 2 scores will replace step 1 scores in terms of assessment criteria, and the content of recommendation letters was selected as the criterion with the greatest increase in weight (66.7%). In addition, 27.3% of programs require a step 2 score at the time of interview. The top 3 academic criteria in order of decreasing importance were the content of recommendation letters, clinical grades, and letter writers, whereas the top 3 nonacademic criteria were subinternship performance, maturity, and interview performance. Plastic and reconstructive surgery remains a highly competitive specialty for residency applicants. Our findings suggest that Alpha Omega Alpha membership remains diminished in importance, whereas USMLE cutoff scores have increased. With recent changes in the step 1 grading system, PDs and APDs will rely more heavily on step 2 scores and the content of recommendation letters.</description><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internship and Residency</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Personnel Selection - standards</subject><subject>School Admission Criteria</subject><subject>Surgery, Plastic - education</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0148-7043</issn><issn>1536-3708</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNplUFtLwzAUDqLonP4DkTz60pk0bS6-lXmFgcO555I2pzPSrjNJhYE_3s5NET0v5_Zd4EPojJIRJUpczrLpiPwqJgndQwOaMh4xQeQ-GhCayEiQhB2hY-9fCaGxTPghOmKSccUkHaCP-croALhd4vACeAY1lMH229jZAM5q3FZ4WmsfbIlnnVuAW-Mn8NbAMvgrnG2O77D-grl24XSDr63rRVrnsV4anHnflnbj8e9_gg4qXXs43fUhmt_ePI_vo8nj3cM4m0QlFTREtOKMguCGVJUohFIaFC94oojhxsRxySqSKEaFYoYWRskY-jmVVHGRpkqyIbrY6q5c-9aBD3ljfQl1rZfQdj6PVSxTmXIe99BkCy1d672DKl8522i3zinJN7nnfe7539x72vnOoSsaMD-k76DZJweXfcs</recordid><startdate>20240501</startdate><enddate>20240501</enddate><creator>Asghari, Arya</creator><creator>Hines, Eric</creator><creator>Mocharnuk, Joseph</creator><creator>Leis, Amber</creator><creator>Wang, Eric D</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20240501</creationdate><title>Update on the Selection Criteria of Plastic Surgery Residents: A Survey of Program Directors and Associate Program Directors</title><author>Asghari, Arya ; Hines, Eric ; Mocharnuk, Joseph ; Leis, Amber ; Wang, Eric D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c171t-1f631e76d0ff7b799ae96b6490d6dd22c3f04931793d1bd982e17958196755983</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internship and Residency</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Personnel Selection - standards</topic><topic>School Admission Criteria</topic><topic>Surgery, Plastic - education</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Asghari, Arya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hines, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mocharnuk, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leis, Amber</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Eric D</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Annals of plastic surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Asghari, Arya</au><au>Hines, Eric</au><au>Mocharnuk, Joseph</au><au>Leis, Amber</au><au>Wang, Eric D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Update on the Selection Criteria of Plastic Surgery Residents: A Survey of Program Directors and Associate Program Directors</atitle><jtitle>Annals of plastic surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Ann Plast Surg</addtitle><date>2024-05-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>92</volume><issue>5S Suppl 3</issue><spage>S327</spage><epage>S330</epage><pages>S327-S330</pages><issn>0148-7043</issn><eissn>1536-3708</eissn><abstract>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) is recognized as a highly competitive specialty. Since the first assessment of resident selection criteria in 2007, PRS residency programs have adopted holistic review processes and adapted to changes such as a decline in medical schools participating in the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society as well as the recent transition to pass/fail grading for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step 1 examination (Schultz et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open . 2020;8:e2892; Tadisina et al. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2017;139:330e-331e). This study was devised to evaluate current PRS residency criteria in light of these changes. An anonymous, 12-item, electronic survey was generated and distributed using Alchemer. An email was sent to 171 program directors (PDs) and associate program directors (APDs) of PRS residency programs. Survey questions were developed to collect data regarding respondent demographics and their desired criteria when assessing residency applicants. Complete responses were collected and analyzed with summary statistics and multivariate logistic regression using RStudio (version 1.3.109). In total, 44 (25.7% response rate) of the 171 PDs and APDs completed the survey. Of the 16 programs (36.4%) with a USMLE cutoff score, 7 (43.8%) reported a range of 230 to 239 and 6 (37.5%) reported a range of 240 to 249. Without a score for step 1, the majority (48.8%) of respondents believe that step 2 scores will replace step 1 scores in terms of assessment criteria, and the content of recommendation letters was selected as the criterion with the greatest increase in weight (66.7%). In addition, 27.3% of programs require a step 2 score at the time of interview. The top 3 academic criteria in order of decreasing importance were the content of recommendation letters, clinical grades, and letter writers, whereas the top 3 nonacademic criteria were subinternship performance, maturity, and interview performance. Plastic and reconstructive surgery remains a highly competitive specialty for residency applicants. Our findings suggest that Alpha Omega Alpha membership remains diminished in importance, whereas USMLE cutoff scores have increased. With recent changes in the step 1 grading system, PDs and APDs will rely more heavily on step 2 scores and the content of recommendation letters.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>38369381</pmid><doi>10.1097/SAP.0000000000003801</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0148-7043
ispartof Annals of plastic surgery, 2024-05, Vol.92 (5S Suppl 3), p.S327-S330
issn 0148-7043
1536-3708
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2928585662
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload
subjects Female
Humans
Internship and Residency
Male
Personnel Selection - standards
School Admission Criteria
Surgery, Plastic - education
Surveys and Questionnaires
United States
title Update on the Selection Criteria of Plastic Surgery Residents: A Survey of Program Directors and Associate Program Directors
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T04%3A18%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Update%20on%20the%20Selection%20Criteria%20of%20Plastic%20Surgery%20Residents:%20A%20Survey%20of%20Program%20Directors%20and%20Associate%20Program%20Directors&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20plastic%20surgery&rft.au=Asghari,%20Arya&rft.date=2024-05-01&rft.volume=92&rft.issue=5S%20Suppl%203&rft.spage=S327&rft.epage=S330&rft.pages=S327-S330&rft.issn=0148-7043&rft.eissn=1536-3708&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/SAP.0000000000003801&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2928585662%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2928585662&rft_id=info:pmid/38369381&rfr_iscdi=true