Archives of Plastic Surgery

  • 제51권1호
  • /
  • Pages.139-145
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2234-6163(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-6171(eISSN)
대한성형외과학회 (Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Identifying Barriers Faced by Applicants without a Home Residency Program when Matching into Plastic Surgery

  • Steven L. Zeng (Duke University School of Medicine) ;
  • Gloria X. Zhang (Duke University School of Medicine) ;
  • Denisse F. Porras (Duke University School of Medicine) ;
  • Caitrin M. Curtis (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Wake Forest University) ;
  • Adam D. Glener (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Duke University) ;
  • Andres Hernandez (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Duke University) ;
  • William M. Tian (Duke University School of Medicine) ;
  • Emmanuel O. Emovon (Duke University School of Medicine) ;
  • Brett T. Phillips (Department of Plastic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2023.05.15
  • 심사 : 2023.10.25
  • Published : 2024.01.15
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

Abstract

Background Applying into plastic surgery (PS) is competitive. Lacking a home residency program (HRP) is another barrier. Our goal is to characterize challenges faced by PS applicants without HRPs and identify solutions. Methods Surveys were designed for current integrated PS residents and applicants in the 2022 Match without HRPs. Surveys were distributed electronically. Only U.S. allopathic graduate responses were included. Results Of 182 individuals surveyed, 74 responded (39%, 33 residents, 41 applicants). Sixty-six percent reported feeling disadvantaged due to lack of an HRP. Seventy-six percent of applicants successfully matched. Of these, 48% felt they required academic time off (research year) versus 10% of unmatched applicants. Ninety-seven percent of matched applicants identified a mentor versus 40% of unmatched applicants (p < 0.05). Matched applicants identified mentors through research (29%) and cold calling/emailing (25%). Matched versus unmatched applicants utilized the following resources: senior students (74 vs. 10%, p < 0.05) and social media (52 vs. 10%, p < 0.05). Among residents, 16 had PS divisions (48%). Thirty-six percent with divisions felt they had opportunities to explore PS, compared with 12% without divisions. Residents without divisions felt disadvantaged in finding research (94 vs. 65%, p < 0.05), delayed in deciding on PS (50 vs. 28%), and obtaining mentors (44 vs. 35%) and letters of recommendation (31 vs. 24%). Conclusion PS residents and applicants without HRPs reported feeling disadvantaged when matching. The data suggest that access to departments or divisions assists in matching. We identified that external outreach and research were successful strategies to obtain mentorship. To increase awareness for unaffiliated applicants, we should increase networking opportunities during local, regional, and national meetings.

Keywords

References

  1. National Resident Matching ProgramResults and Data: 2022 Main Residency Match®. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC.2022 
  2. Asserson DB, Sarac BA, Janis JE. A 5-year analysis of the integrated plastic surgery residency match: the most competitive specialty? J Surg Res 2022;277:303-309  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.04.023
  3. Shahriari S, Whisonant C, Moya A, Harrison J, Borah G. Plastic surgery match trends in 2022. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2022;10(10):e4562 
  4. Gordon AM, Sarac BA, Drolet BC, Janis JE. Total costs of applying to integrated plastic surgery: geographic considerations, projections, and future implications. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021;9(12):e4058 
  5. Sarac BA, Rangwani SM, Schoenbrunner AR, Drolet BC, Janis JE. The cost of applying to integrated plastic surgery residency. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021;9(01):e3317 
  6. Schultz KP, Shih L, Davis MJ, et al. Integrated plastic surgery applicant review: important factors and selection criteria. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020;8(07):e2892 
  7. Janis JE, Hatef DA. Resident selection protocols in plastic surgery: a national survey of plastic surgery program directors. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;122(06):1929-1939  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31818d20ae
  8. Patel AA, Wong MS, Nguyen VT, Janis JE. Analysis of reapplications to integrated and independent plastic surgery residency. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021;9(03):e3508 
  9. Rostam Kadivar Shahriari S, Whisonant C, Ederle A, Borah G. Orphan applicants in plastic surgery: where do medical students without an affiliated residency program match? Eplasty 2022;22:e21 
  10. Keane CA, Akhter MF, Sarac BA, Janis JE. Characteristics of successful integrated plastic surgery applicants from US allopathic medical schools without a home integrated program. J Surg Educ 2022;79(02):551-557  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.11.002
  11. Sasson DC, Shah ND, Yuksel SS, Applebaum SA, Gosain AK. Improving medical student recruitment into plastic surgery: a survey of orphaned medical students. J Surg Educ 2022;79(01):139-146  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.08.009
  12. Barker JC, Rendon J, Janis JE. Medical student mentorship in plastic surgery: the mentee's perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;137(06):1934-1942  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002186
  13. Janis JE, Barker JC. Medical student mentorship in plastic surgery: the mentor's perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;138(05):925e-935e  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002670
  14. Drolet BC, Brower JP, Lifchez SD, Janis JE, Liu PY. Away rotations and matching in integrated plastic surgery residency: applicant and program director perspectives. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;137(04):1337-1343  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002029
  15. Raborn LN, Janis JE. Current views on the new united states medical licensing examination Step 1 Pass/Fail Format: a review of the literature. J Surg Res 2022;274:31-45  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.01.002
  16. Asaad M, Drolet BC, Janis JE, Giatsidis G. Applicant familiarity becomes most important evaluation factor in USMLE Step I Conversion to Pass/Fail: a survey of plastic surgery program directors. J Surg Educ 2021;78(05):1406-1412  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.01.007
  17. Lin LO, Makhoul AT, Hackenberger PN, et al. Implications of Pass/Fail Step 1 scoring: plastic surgery program director and applicant perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020;8(12):e3266 
  18. Valentine L, Mason R, Cassidy R. Setting orphaned medical students up for success in plastic surgery. J Surg Educ 2022;79(05):1103-1104  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2022.04.005
  19. Faletsky A, Zitkovsky H, Guo L. The impact of COVID-19 on plastic surgery home program match rates. Ann Plast Surg 2022;88(01):4-6  https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000002981
  20. Haley C, Lee J, Xun H, et al. The negative impact of COVID-19 on medical education amongst medical students interested in plastic surgery: a cross-sectional survey study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021;9(03):e3535 
  21. Raborn LN, Janis JE. Overcoming the impact of COVID-19 on surgical mentorship: a scoping review of long-distance mentorship in surgery. J Surg Educ 2021;78(06):1948-1964  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.05.001
  22. Baghchechi M, Oviedo P, McLean P, Dean R, Dobke M. Disparity in opportunities: is it harder to match into plastic surgery residency without a home plastic surgery division? Ann Plast Surg 2021;87(04):384-388  https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000002943
  23. Ruffolo AM, Sommer NZ, Neumeister MW. Strategies to reduce congestion in the resident match: what can plastic surgery learn from other specialties? Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2023;11(03):e4830 
  24. Jackson KR, Makhoul AT, Janis JE, Drolet BC. The plastic surgery common application: improving efficiency and reducing inequity in the application process. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2022;10(01):e4078 
  25. Burgess A, van Diggele C, Mellis C. Mentorship in the health professions: a review. Clin Teach 2018;15(03):197-202  https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12756
  26. Hernandez JA, Mullens CL. Paging all academic plastic surgeons: a call to action for medical student mentorship. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;143(05):1132e-1133e  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005551
  27. American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons. Paired Orphaned and Sister Mentorship Institutions. Accessed May 22, 2022, at: https://acaplasticsurgeons.org/mentorship-institutions.cgi 
  28. Zheng MY, Overland M, Escobar D, et al. Formal mentorship as an opportunity to expand the urology pipeline: Under Represented Trainees Entering Residency (UReTER) Program Evaluation 2020-2021. Urology 2022;162:108-113  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.06.052
  29. Doremus NV, Sobel AD, Gil JA, Mulcahey MK. Evaluation of orthopaedic interest groups in American medical schools. R I Med J (2013) 2018;101(07):21-24 
  30. Agarwal P, Khalafallah AM, Hersh EH, Ivan ME, Mukherjee D. Impact of American Association of Neurological Surgeons Medical Student Interest Groups on Participation in Organized Neurosurgery, Research Productivity, and Residency Match Success. World Neurosurg 2020;138:e437-e444  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.02.153
  31. Chartier C, Chandawarkar AA, Gould DJ, Stevens WG. Insta-grated plastic surgery residencies: 2020 update. Aesthet Surg J 2021;41(03):372-379  https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjaa172
  32. Chandawarkar AA, Gould DJ, Stevens WG. Insta-grated plastic surgery residencies: the rise of social media use by trainees and responsible guidelines for use. Aesthet Surg J 2018;38(10):1145-1152  https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy055
  33. Koltun WA. Building an academic colorectal division. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2014;27(02):75-80  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1376173
  34. AkhterMF, Keane CA, Sarac BA, et al. Recommendations on attaining departmental status: a survey of division chiefs turned department chairs. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2022;10(12):e4700