Example: marketing

Results of the 2016 NRMP Program Director Survey ...

Results of the 2016 nrmp . Program Director Survey specialties matching Service October 2016. Requests for permission to use these data as well as questions about the content of this publication or the national resident matching Program data and reports may be directed to Mei Liang, Director of Research, nrmp , at Questions about the nrmp should be directed to Mona M. Signer, President and CEO, nrmp , at Suggested Citation national resident matching Program , Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the 2016 nrmp Program Director Survey , specialties matching Service. national resident matching Program , Washington, DC. 2016. Copyright 2016 national resident matching Program . All rights reserved. Permission to use, copy and/or distribute any documentation and/or related images from this publication shall be expressly obtained from the nrmp . Table of Contents Introduction.

Introduction NRMP Program Director Survey, Specialties Matching Service, 2016 1 In May 2016, the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) conducted its first survey of the directors of all programs

Tags:

  Programs, Survey, National, Creditors, Matching, Resident, Nrmp, National resident matching program, Specialties, Nrmp program director survey, Specialties matching

Information

Domain:

Source:

Link to this page:

Please notify us if you found a problem with this document:

Other abuse

Transcription of Results of the 2016 NRMP Program Director Survey ...

1 Results of the 2016 nrmp . Program Director Survey specialties matching Service October 2016. Requests for permission to use these data as well as questions about the content of this publication or the national resident matching Program data and reports may be directed to Mei Liang, Director of Research, nrmp , at Questions about the nrmp should be directed to Mona M. Signer, President and CEO, nrmp , at Suggested Citation national resident matching Program , Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the 2016 nrmp Program Director Survey , specialties matching Service. national resident matching Program , Washington, DC. 2016. Copyright 2016 national resident matching Program . All rights reserved. Permission to use, copy and/or distribute any documentation and/or related images from this publication shall be expressly obtained from the nrmp . Table of Contents Introduction.

2 1. Response rates .. 2. All 3. Charts for Individual specialties Abdominal Transplant Surgery .. 12. Adolescent 21. Allergy and Immunology .. 30. Cardiovascular Disease .. 39. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry .. 48. Colon and Rectal Surgery .. 57. Developmental-Behavioral 66. Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism .. 75. Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery .. 84. Gastroenterology .. 93. Geriatric Medicine .. 102. Gynecologic Oncology .. 111. Hand Surgery .. 120. Hematology and Oncology .. 129. Hospice and Palliative 138. Infectious Disease .. 147. Interventional Radiology .. 156. Maternal-Fetal Medicine .. 165. Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine .. 174. 183. Neuroradiology .. 192. Obstetric Anesthesiology .. 201. Pain Medicine .. 210. Pediatric Anesthesiology .. 219. Pediatric Cardiology .. 228. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine .. 237. Pediatric Emergency Medicine.

3 246. Pediatric Endocrinology .. 255. Pediatric Gastroenterology .. 264. Pediatric Hematology/Oncology .. 273. Pediatric Hospital Medicine .. 282. Pediatric Infectious Diseases .. 291. Pediatric Nephrology .. 300. Pediatric Pulmonology .. 309. Pediatric Rheumatology .. 318. Pediatric Surgery .. 327. Psychosomatic 336. Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine .. 345. Reproductive Endocrinology .. 354. Rheumatology .. 363. Sleep 372. Sports Medicine .. 381. Surgical Critical Care .. 390. Thoracic Surgery .. 399. Vascular Neurology .. 408. Vascular Surgery .. 417. Introduction In May 2016, the national resident matching Program ( nrmp ) conducted its first Survey of the directors of all programs participating in the specialties matching Service . The primary purpose of the Survey was to shed light on the factors that Program directors use to (1) select applicants to interview and (2) rank applicants for their Fellowship Match.

4 This Survey is based largely on the Program Director Survey conducted for the Main Residency Match . The Survey solicited information on: the factors used for both interview selection and for ranking applicants, the number of applications received, screened, and reviewed, as well as the number of interview invitations extended and the number of applicants interviewed, whether the Program typically interviews and ranks specific applicant groups, use of test scores in considering which applicants to interview and rank, dedicated time for research, and challenges faced by programs in recruting applicants to their specialty. The Survey was sent to 3,807 fellowship Program directors and 1,474 responses were received for a percent response rate. Response rates among specialties ranged from 0 percent (Oncology, 6 recipients and 0 responses) to percent (Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 67 recipients and 42 responses).

5 specialties for which 10 or more fellowship Program directors responded are included in this report. Response rates are listed in the table on the next page. Readers also should keep in mind that Fellowship Matches are conducted throughout the year and that some Match Days occur as long as one year prior to the start of training. Results are presented for all subspecialties combined and by specialty. Specialty-specific Results are included for selected items from the Survey . Most graphs display responses to individual Survey questions, and numbers of responses are presented. For graphs displaying data from multiple Survey questions, the N's are shown. Graphs are suppressed for questions with fewer than three responses. The nrmp hopes Program directors and applicants find these data useful in discussions about and preparation for subspecialty training. _____. The nrmp 's data reporting and research activities are guided by its Data Release and Research Committee.

6 nrmp data and reports can be found at: nrmp Program Director Survey , specialties matching Service, 2016 1. Response Rates Specialty Surveys Sent Number Responding Response Rate Abdominal Transplant Surgery 55 20 Adolescent Medicine 24 15 Allergy and Immunology 74 22 Cardiovascular Disease 185 57 Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 103 42 Colon and Rectal Surgery 53 18 Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics 34 16 Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism 122 51 Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery 45 16 Gastroenterology 151 54 Geriatric Medicine 130 45 Gynecologic Oncology 41 10 Hand Surgery 79 34 Hematology and Oncology 130 48 Hospice and Palliative Medicine 106 42 Infectious Disease 133 59 Interventional Radiology 81 30 Maternal Fetal Medicine 73 26 Neonatal Perinatal Medicine 91 48 Nephrology 135 45 Neuroradiology 73 25 Obstetric Anesthesiology 25 10 Pain Medicine 84 21 Pediatric Anesthesiology 51 24 Pediatric Cardiology 55 28 Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 63 35 Pediatric Emergency Medicine 71 32 Pediatric Endocrinology 55 23 Pediatric Gastroenterology 54 23 Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 67 42 Pediatric Hospital Medicine 29 12 Pediatric Infectious Diseases 51 29 Pediatric Nephrology 41 17 Pediatric Pulmonology 46 20 Pediatric Rheumatology 28 10 Pediatric Surgery 37 12

7 Psychosomatic Medicine 50 17 Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine 136 58 Reproductive Endocrinology 34 12 Rheumatology 108 52 Sleep Medicine 67 26 Sports Medicine 143 62 Surgical Critical Care 101 36 Thoracic Surgery 58 18 Vascular Neurology 72 26 Vascular Surgery 92 24 All other 271 82 Total 3,807 1,474 nrmp Program Director Survey , specialties matching Service, 2016 2. All specialties Combined All specialties Table 1 General Information 2016 Survey Number of responses 1,474. Response rate Match Information*. Appointment Years 2016 2015 2014. Number of programs in the Match 4,036 3,674 3,552. Number of positions in the Match 9,320 8,503 8,243. Number of applicants ranking specialty 9,893 9,538 9,297. * Source: nrmp Data Warehouse nrmp Program Director Survey , specialties matching Service, 2016 4. All specialties Figure 1 Percentage of programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating for Each Factor in Selecting Applicants to Interview (N=1,228) Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 90% Residency performance evaluation ( Program Director letter)

8 87% Reputation of residency Program 86% Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 84% Perceived commitment to specialty 82% Personal statement 80% Perceived interest in Program 76% Evidence of professionalism and ethics 75% USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 74% Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 74% USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 72% Leadership qualities 70% Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 69% Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 69% Applicant was a resident in a core Program at same institution 66% Pass USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 65% Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 65% USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 62% Interest in academic career 61% Residency Program setting (univ. based vs. comm. based) 59% Clinical/laboratory research experience 57% Awards or special honors in medical school 56% Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 55% Other life experience 52% Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 51% Graduate of highly regarded medical school 51% Visa status* 50% Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 45% Awarded grant money for research 42% Grades in medical school 40% Lack of gaps in medical education 38% Medical school class ranking/quartile 38% Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the nrmp 38% Electives at your fellowship site 36% Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 31% Residency class ranking/quartile 26% Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 22% In Training Examination (ITE) 20% Residency Program size 19% Having finished another fellowship 14% Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important)

9 To 5 (very important). 100% 50% 0% 1 2 3 4 5. * International Medical Graduates only nrmp Program Director Survey , specialties matching Service, 2016 5. All specialties Figure 2 Percentage of programs Citing Each Factor and Mean Importance Rating for Each Factor in Ranking Applicants (N=1,164). Percent Citing Factor Average Rating Interactions with faculty during interview and visit 91% Interpersonal skills 91% Letters of recommendation in fellowship specialty 79% Interactions with house staff during interview and visit 77% Perceived commitment to specialty 73% Feedback from current residents and fellows 73% Perceived interest in Program 71% Demonstrated involvement and perceived interest in research 71% Reputation of residency Program 68% Residency performance evaluation ( Program Director letter) 65% Evidence of professionalism and ethics 64% Personal statement 59% Personal prior professional knowledge of the applicant 57% Leadership qualities 56% Peer reviewed publications/authored textbook chapters 52% Interest in academic career 51% Applicant was a resident in a core Program at same institution 50% USMLE Step 1/COMLEX Level 1 score 49% USMLE Step 2 CK/COMLEX Level 2 CE score 49% Any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX 44% Passing USMLE Step 2 CS/COMLEX Level 2 PE 44% Clinical/laboratory research experience 44% USMLE Step 3/COMLEX Level 3 score 43% Oral presentations/poster presentations/speaking engagements 42% Residency Program setting (univ.)

10 Based vs. comm. based) 40% Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 33% Other life experience 32% Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter) 32% Second interview/visit 32% Awards or special honors in medical school 30% Visa status* 30% Applicant was flagged with Match violation by the nrmp 29% Graduate of highly regarded medical school 28% Electives at your fellowship site 28% Awarded grant money for research 28% Volunteer/extracurricular experiences 27% Medical school class ranking/quartile 22% Lack of gaps in medical education 20% Grades in medical school 20% Residency class ranking/quartile 19% Fluency in language spoken by your patient population 17% Gold Humanism Honor Society (GHHS) membership 16% Residency Program size 14% In Training Examination (ITE) 13% Second interview/visit 12% Having finished another fellowship 9% 100% 50% 0% 1 2 3 4 5. Ratings on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).


Related search queries