Dataset Information

The impact of COVID-19 on thoracic surgery residency programs in the US: A program director survey.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has altered how the current generation of thoracic surgery residents are being trained. The aim of this survey was to determine how thoracic surgery program directors (PDs) are adapting to educating residents during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Thoracic surgery PDs of integrated, traditional (2 or 3 year), and combined 4 + 3 general/thoracic surgery training programs in the United States were surveyed between 17th April and 1st May 2020 during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in much of the United States. The 15-question electronic survey queried program status, changes to the baseline surgical practice, changes to didactic education, deployment/scheduling of residents, and effect of the pandemic on case logs and preparedness for resident graduation.

Results

All 23 institutions responding had ceased elective procedures, and most had switched to telemedicine clinic visits. Online virtual didactic sessions were implemented by 91% of programs, with most (69.6%) observing same or increased attendance. PDs reported that 82.7% of residents were on a non-standard schedule, with most being deployed in a 1 to 2 week on, 1 to 2 week off block schedule. Case volumes were affected for both junior and graduating trainees, but a majority of PDs report that graduating residents will graduate on time without perceived negative effect on first career/fellowship position.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has radically changed the educational approach of thoracic surgery programs. PDs are adapting educational delivery to optimize training and safety during the pandemic. Long-term effects remain uncertain and require additional study.

SUBMITTER: Coyan GN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7460964 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The impact of COVID-19 on thoracic surgery residency programs in the US: A program director survey.

Coyan Garrett N GN Aranda-Michel Edgar E Kilic Arman A Luketich James D JD Okusanya Olugbenga O Chu Danny D Morell Victor O VO Schuchert Matthew M Sultan Ibrahim I

Journal of cardiac surgery 20200816 12

<h4>Objective</h4>The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has altered how the current generation of thoracic surgery residents are being trained. The aim of this survey was to determine how thoracic surgery program directors (PDs) are adapting to educating residents during the COVID-19 pandemic.<h4>Methods</h4>Thoracic surgery PDs of integrated, traditional (2 or 3 year), and combined 4 + 3 general/thoracic surgery training programs in the United States were surveyed between 17th April and 1st M ...[more]

PMID: 32881042

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale and objectivesVirtual residency interviews have become crucial in maintaining CDC-recommended precautionary measures throughout the ongoing COVID-era. However, scant literature exists regarding the direct impact the pandemic has had on the radiology program selection process, including preferred modalities of residency interviews and social media utilization. This survey aimed to understand how radiology programs adapted to changes in the 2020-2021 virtual application cycle.Materials and methodsA 32-question survey was distributed to 194 residency programs between July and August of 2021. Data were analyzed primarily by using descriptive statistics and Paired Student's T-testing.ResultsA total of 31 programs completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 16%. When queried about the perceived success of virtual interviews during the 2020-2021 application cycle, 21 programs (68%) said the new interview format was very successful. Twenty-seven of the programs (87%) believed they were able to adequately gauge applicants through virtual interviews. However, when surveyed about personal preferences for interviews, the responses were more evenly distributed between virtual (11/31, 35%) and in-person (14/31, 45%). Pre-COVID, the top three criteria programs used to rank candidates were USMLE Step 1 score (20/31, 65%), letters of recommendation (17/31, 55%), and MSPE (12/31, 39%). Within the virtual, COVID-19 era, these criteria remained statistically unchanged (p = 0.22): USMLE Step 1 score (21/31, 68%), letters of recommendation (17/31, 55%), and MSPE (14/31, 45%). About half of programs who had not previously utilized social media (12 of 23, 52%) created accounts, mostly via Twitter or Instagram.ConclusionThe primary findings indicate that programs perceived success with virtually interviewing and ranking applicants, the criteria to rank applicants remain unchanged despite the virtual environment, and programs' social media utilization increased.

Project description:Background Beginning January 26, 2022, the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 changed from a numerical score to pass/fail (P/F). The purpose of this study was to determine the perspective of ophthalmology program directors regarding this change in evaluating applicants. Methods After institutional review board approval, a survey was sent out to program directors of all 125 ophthalmology programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Survey questions asked for program demographics, the utility of USMLE Step 1 and 2 Clinical Knowledge scores in assessing applicants, and the importance of 16 different applicant metrics before and after Step 1 becomes P/F. The metrics examined were: letters of recommendation; clerkship grades; class ranking; Alpha Omega Alpha Membership; Gold Humanism Honor Society Membership; Dean's Letter; involvement and leadership; personal statement; number of abstracts, presentations, and publications; mean number of research experiences in the specialty; Step 2 Clinical Knowledge score; volunteering; preclinical grades; away rotation in the specialty; the applicant having another graduate degree; and graduation from a top 40 National Institutes of Health-funded program. Data were analyzed using nonoverlapping 95% confidence intervals. Results The survey was completed by 50 (40%) program directors. Sixty-eight percent of respondents stated a student's ranking would be considered more after USMLE Step 1 scores become P/F, and 60% stated medical schools should share clerkship shelf exam scores with residency programs. There were no significant differences in program directors' rankings of applicant metrics following the transition to P/F Step 1. Conclusion Based on our data, program directors will likely not place a greater emphasis on Step 2 scores, despite it being the only remaining objective measure for all applicants following the switch to a P/F Step 1. Nevertheless, program directors expressed an interest in receiving other objective measures, such as shelf exam scores and class ranking, as part of the application process. Notably, we found no significant changes in the rankings of various applicant metrics before and after the transition to P/F Step 1, indicating that the metrics that were important to program directors prior to the change remain just as critical in the new era of admissions.

Project description:Pass/fail (P/F) grading has emerged as an alternative to tiered clerkship grading. Systematically evaluating existing literature and surveying program directors (PD) perspectives on these consequential changes can guide educators in addressing inequalities in academia and students aiming to improve their residency applications. In our survey, a total of 1578 unique PD responses (63.1%) were obtained across 29 medical specialties. With the changes to United States Medical Licensure Examination (USMLE), responses showed increased importance of core clerkships with the implementation of Step 2CK cutoffs. PDs believed core clerkship performance was a reliable representation of an applicant's preparedness for residency, particularly in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's (ACGME)Medical Knowledge and Patient Care and Procedural Skills. PDs disagreed with P/F core clerkships because it more difficult to objectively compare applicants. No statistically significant differences in responses were found in PD preferential selection when comparing applicants from tiered and P/F core clerkship grading systems. If core clerkships adopted P/F scoring, PDs would further increase emphasis on narrative assessment, sub-internship evaluation, reference letters, academic awards, professional development and medical school prestige. In the meta-analysis, of 6 studies from 2,118 participants, adjusted scaled scores with mean difference from an equal variance model from PDs showed residents from tiered clerkship grading systems overall performance, learning ability, work habits, personal evaluations, residency selection and educational evaluation were not statistically significantly different than from residents from P/F systems. Overall, our dual study suggests that while PDs do not favor P/F core clerkships, PDs do not have a selection preference and do not report a difference in performance between applicants from P/F vs. tiered grading core clerkship systems, thus providing fertile grounds for institutions to examine the feasibility of adopting P/F grading for core clerkships.

Dataset Information

The impact of COVID-19 on thoracic surgery residency programs in the US: A program director survey.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The impact of COVID-19 on thoracic surgery residency programs in the US: A program director survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets