Resident selection protocols in plastic surgery: A national survey of plastic surgery program directors

Jeffrey E. Janis, Daniel A. Hatef

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

57 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the transition of many plastic surgery training programs from the traditional to the integrated/coordinated model, critical evaluation of the process by which medical students are selected for residency is needed. To increase the understanding of this process and to improve the manner in which candidates are vetted, a survey study was designed. METHODS: A 29-question online survey was designed to discern desired qualities regarding resident selection, interview processes, resident participation, and program director satisfaction with the current process. This survey was sent to all 49 integrated/coordinated program directors in the United States. RESULTS: Forty-three of 49 program directors (87.8 percent) responded. High-quality letters of recommendation (author and substance) and performance on subinternship rotations and interviews were considered the most important qualities in selecting residents. Candidates interview performance and rank order list position were considered by many to be indicative of resident quality, but responses varied. Forty-two of 43 program directors reported that their own residents participate in the interview and/or selection process. Overall, only 43.2 percent of respondents found the current process adequate for identifying potential problems. Furthermore, 39.5 percent of programs have dismissed a resident for academic or ethical reasons within the last 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Residency selection is a relatively subjective, unstandardized process. Because medical school performance is not always indicative of ultimate resident quality, it is imperative that integrated/coordinated plastic surgery training programs improve selection protocols to discern who will most likely become a successful resident. A number of program directors are dissatisfied with the process, and better systems for selection would be beneficial.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1929-1939
Number of pages11
JournalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume122
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2008

Fingerprint

Plastic Surgery
Interviews
Internship and Residency
N,N-dimethyl-3,3-diphenyl-1-methylallylamine
Education
Medical Schools
Medical Students
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Resident selection protocols in plastic surgery : A national survey of plastic surgery program directors. / Janis, Jeffrey E.; Hatef, Daniel A.

In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 122, No. 6, 12.2008, p. 1929-1939.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5d9f9524032642e0990d5e8e39a998f2,
title = "Resident selection protocols in plastic surgery: A national survey of plastic surgery program directors",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: With the transition of many plastic surgery training programs from the traditional to the integrated/coordinated model, critical evaluation of the process by which medical students are selected for residency is needed. To increase the understanding of this process and to improve the manner in which candidates are vetted, a survey study was designed. METHODS: A 29-question online survey was designed to discern desired qualities regarding resident selection, interview processes, resident participation, and program director satisfaction with the current process. This survey was sent to all 49 integrated/coordinated program directors in the United States. RESULTS: Forty-three of 49 program directors (87.8 percent) responded. High-quality letters of recommendation (author and substance) and performance on subinternship rotations and interviews were considered the most important qualities in selecting residents. Candidates interview performance and rank order list position were considered by many to be indicative of resident quality, but responses varied. Forty-two of 43 program directors reported that their own residents participate in the interview and/or selection process. Overall, only 43.2 percent of respondents found the current process adequate for identifying potential problems. Furthermore, 39.5 percent of programs have dismissed a resident for academic or ethical reasons within the last 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Residency selection is a relatively subjective, unstandardized process. Because medical school performance is not always indicative of ultimate resident quality, it is imperative that integrated/coordinated plastic surgery training programs improve selection protocols to discern who will most likely become a successful resident. A number of program directors are dissatisfied with the process, and better systems for selection would be beneficial.",
author = "Janis, {Jeffrey E.} and Hatef, {Daniel A.}",
year = "2008",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1097/PRS.0b013e31818d20ae",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "122",
pages = "1929--1939",
journal = "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0032-1052",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Resident selection protocols in plastic surgery

T2 - A national survey of plastic surgery program directors

AU - Janis, Jeffrey E.

AU - Hatef, Daniel A.

PY - 2008/12

Y1 - 2008/12

N2 - BACKGROUND: With the transition of many plastic surgery training programs from the traditional to the integrated/coordinated model, critical evaluation of the process by which medical students are selected for residency is needed. To increase the understanding of this process and to improve the manner in which candidates are vetted, a survey study was designed. METHODS: A 29-question online survey was designed to discern desired qualities regarding resident selection, interview processes, resident participation, and program director satisfaction with the current process. This survey was sent to all 49 integrated/coordinated program directors in the United States. RESULTS: Forty-three of 49 program directors (87.8 percent) responded. High-quality letters of recommendation (author and substance) and performance on subinternship rotations and interviews were considered the most important qualities in selecting residents. Candidates interview performance and rank order list position were considered by many to be indicative of resident quality, but responses varied. Forty-two of 43 program directors reported that their own residents participate in the interview and/or selection process. Overall, only 43.2 percent of respondents found the current process adequate for identifying potential problems. Furthermore, 39.5 percent of programs have dismissed a resident for academic or ethical reasons within the last 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Residency selection is a relatively subjective, unstandardized process. Because medical school performance is not always indicative of ultimate resident quality, it is imperative that integrated/coordinated plastic surgery training programs improve selection protocols to discern who will most likely become a successful resident. A number of program directors are dissatisfied with the process, and better systems for selection would be beneficial.

AB - BACKGROUND: With the transition of many plastic surgery training programs from the traditional to the integrated/coordinated model, critical evaluation of the process by which medical students are selected for residency is needed. To increase the understanding of this process and to improve the manner in which candidates are vetted, a survey study was designed. METHODS: A 29-question online survey was designed to discern desired qualities regarding resident selection, interview processes, resident participation, and program director satisfaction with the current process. This survey was sent to all 49 integrated/coordinated program directors in the United States. RESULTS: Forty-three of 49 program directors (87.8 percent) responded. High-quality letters of recommendation (author and substance) and performance on subinternship rotations and interviews were considered the most important qualities in selecting residents. Candidates interview performance and rank order list position were considered by many to be indicative of resident quality, but responses varied. Forty-two of 43 program directors reported that their own residents participate in the interview and/or selection process. Overall, only 43.2 percent of respondents found the current process adequate for identifying potential problems. Furthermore, 39.5 percent of programs have dismissed a resident for academic or ethical reasons within the last 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Residency selection is a relatively subjective, unstandardized process. Because medical school performance is not always indicative of ultimate resident quality, it is imperative that integrated/coordinated plastic surgery training programs improve selection protocols to discern who will most likely become a successful resident. A number of program directors are dissatisfied with the process, and better systems for selection would be beneficial.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=58149384975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=58149384975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31818d20ae

DO - 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31818d20ae

M3 - Article

C2 - 19050546

AN - SCOPUS:58149384975

VL - 122

SP - 1929

EP - 1939

JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0032-1052

IS - 6

ER -