• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.44 no.5
• /
• pp.428-433
• /
• 2017

Background Candidate characteristics for hand surgery fellowship training remains unknown, as very little data is available in the literature. This study aims to provide information on the criteria that are employed to select candidates for the hand surgery fellowship match. Methods A 38-question survey was sent in April 2015 to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recognized hand surgery fellowship program directors (n=81) involved in the U.S. match. The survey investigated factors used for the selection of applicants, including medical school, residency training, research experience, fellowship interview, and candidate characteristics. A 5-point Likert scale was used to grade 33 factors from "not at all important" (1) to "essential in making my decision" (5); or for five controversial factors from "very negative impact" (1) to "very positive impact in making my decision" (5). Results A total of 52% (42 out of 81) of responses were received from hand surgery fellowship program directors. The most important influential factors were interactions with faculty during interview and visit ($4.6{\pm}0.6$), interpersonal skills ($4.6{\pm}0.5$), overall interview performance in the selection process ($4.6{\pm}0.6$), professionalism and ethics ($4.6{\pm}0.7$), and letters of recommendation from hand surgeons ($4.5{\pm}0.7$). Factors that have a negative impact on the selection process include visa requirement ($2.1{\pm}1.2$), graduate of non-plastic surgery residency program ($2.4{\pm}1.3$), and graduate of a foreign medical school ($2.4{\pm}1.1$). Conclusions This study provides data on hand surgery fellowship directors' perception on the criteria important for fellowship applicant selection, and showed that interview-related criteria and letters of recommendation are the important factors.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.51 no.1
• /
• pp.139-145
• /
• 2024

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.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.48 no.1
• /
• pp.107-113
• /
• 2021

Background Applicants to integrated plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) residency in the United States spend exorbitant amounts of time and money throughout the interview process. Outside of first-hand experience through a visiting rotation, applicants utilize various resources in learning about a program. Today's applicants are "Millennials," the demographic cohort raised during the information age and proficient with digital technology. The authors evaluated whether programs have a presence on social media, and whether applicants are following these accounts. Methods An online survey was sent to applicants to a single integrated plastic surgery program evaluating basic demographics, social media utilization, and sources of information accessed throughout the residency application process. A manual search of popular social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter) was performed in October 2019. Accounts affiliated with integrated PRS programs were identified and analyzed. Results Eighty-four of 222 applicants (37.8%) completed the survey. Ninety-six percent of applicants were within the Millennial demographic. Ninety-six percent of applicants had some form of social media presence, with Facebook (90%) and Instagram (87%) being the most popular platforms. Seventy-three percent of applicants reported following a PRS residency social media account. As of October 2019, 59 integrated residency programs (73%) have active Instagram accounts. Conclusions Applicants still rely on the program website when researching potential residencies, but social media is being rapidly adopted by programs. Program social media accounts should be used as a dynamic form of communication to better inform applicants of program strengths and weaknesses.