katherine mcmackin md, joseph lombardi md, nicholas … mcmackin_abstract.pdftrends in the 10-year...
Post on 16-Mar-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Trends in the 10-Year History of the Vascular Integrated Residency Match:More Work, Higher Cost, Same Result
Katherine McMackin MD,1 Joseph Lombardi MD,1 Nicholas Hoell BS,2
George Kilzi JD,2 Francis J Caputo MD1
1Cooper University Hospital, Division of Vascular Surgery, Camden, NJ2Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ
Disclosures
• None
Introduction
Purpose
• To examine trends for application submission for Vascular Surgery Integrated Residencies
Methods
• Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS)• The National Residency Match Program (NRMP) • NRMP Results and Data 2008- 2017 for North American Seniors was used to
create database of applicant and application information• applications sent per applicant • average number of applications received per residency program• the number of applicants a program needs to rank to fill all positions in a program
• Applicant pool depth and applicant behavior regarding percentage of programs applied to was calculated
• Cost• Charting Outcome data 2014 and 2016
• application board scores• experiences
Pre Interview Interview Post Interview
Process
Pre Interview Interview Post Interview
Process
• Applicants• Submit ERAS
• Programs• Review
applications• Offer
interviews• Applicants• Accept/reject
interviews
Pre Interview Interview Post Interview
Process
• Applicants• Submit ERAS
• Programs• Review
applications• Offer
interviews• Applicants• Accept/reject
interviews
• Applicants• Attend
interviews• Cancel
unnecessary interviews
• Programs• Host
interviews
Pre Interview Interview Post Interview
Process
• Applicants• Submit ERAS
• Programs• Review
applications• Offer
interviews• Applicants• Accept/reject
interviews
• Applicants• Attend
interviews• Cancel
unnecessary interviews
• Programs• Host
interviews
• Applicants• Submit rank
lists• Programs• Submit rank
lists
Pre Interview
9
1922
30
4146
5157 56
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017YEAR
NUMBER OF RESIDENCY POSITIONS AVAILABLE
Positions
Positions
Pre Interview
Reference 1-10
4153
59
75 74 70 7283
98 102
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017YEAR
NUMBER OF APPLICANTS
Applicant Pool
US Seniors
Pre Interview
Reference 11
4.6
2.8 2.7 2.5
1.81.5 1.4 1.5
1.8 1.7
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017YEAR
Applicants/spot
Applicant Pool DepthPre Interview
Reference 1-11
3.1
8.1
13.2 14.4
19.822.5 21.3
27.3
33.5 35.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017YEAR
AVERAGE NUMBER OF PROGRAMS APPLIED TO BY AN APPLICANT
Applicant• ERAS Submissions
Pre Interview
Reference 11
34.4442.63
60.00
48.00 48.29 48.9141.76
47.89
59.82 58.50
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Year
Percentage of Programs Applied To
Applicant• ERAS Submissions
Percent
Pre Interview
Reference 1-11
17
29.432.7
42 42.9
34.931.2
43.5
62.2 63.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Year
Average Number of Applications Received by Programs
Number of ApplicationsReceived by ResidencyPrograms (average)
Pre Interview Programs• Applications Received
• Receiving more applications
Applications
Reference 11
Pre Interview Programs• Applications Review
Minutes
• Receiving more applications• Spending more time on application review
17 29.4 32.7 42 42.9 34.9 31.2 43.562.2 63.8
119
206229
294 300
244218
305
435 447
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017YEAR
Time Spent On Application Review
Number of ApplicationsReceived by ResdidencyPrograms
Time Spent On Review(minutes)
Reference 11
Applications Application Fees (US Dollars)
Up to 10 $99
11-20 $13 Each
21-30 $19 Each
31 or more $26 Each
• ERAS• Tiered system
Applicant• ERAS Submissions
Pre Interview
Reference 12-13
99 99140.6 156.2
226.4276.5 253.7
367.7
510551.6
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Year
Cost of Applications
Applicant• ERAS Submissions
Pre Interview
Reference 11
US Dollars
Pre Interview Interview Post Interview
Trends
• Applicants• Submitting more
applications• Gross• % of total
• Higher cost• Programs• Receiving more
applications• Spending more time
on application review
Interview
Trends
Interview Number of Ranks Submitted
Ranks
49166
316
449
612 591526
782
985 948
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Year
Ranks
Reference 1-10
Interview
5.4
8.7
14.4 15.0 14.9
12.8
10.3
13.7
17.615.8
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017YEAR
Ranks per Spot
Number of Ranks Submitted Per Spot
Ranks
Reference 1-10
Interview
Charting Outcomes of the Match 2014 2016
Step 1 Scores 237 239Step 2 Scores 250 250Number of Research Experiences 3.7 4.2Number of Volunteer Experiences 5.9 5.5
Applicant Data
Pre Interview Interview Post Interview
• Applicants• Submitting more
applications• Gross• % of total
• Higher cost• Programs• Receiving more
applications• Spending more time
on application review
Trends
Pre Interview Interview Post Interview
• Applicants• Submitting more
applications• Gross• % of total
• Higher cost• Programs• Receiving more
applications• Spending more time
on application review
• Applicants• Stable board
scores & experiences
• Programs• Stable
nationwide interviews
Trends
Post Interview
Trends
Post Interview
17
29.432.7
42 42.9
34.931.2
43.5
62.2 63.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Year
Applications Received
Number of ApplicationsReceived by ResidencyPrograms (average)
Programs• Applications and Ranks
3.4 2.3 3.2 3.9 4 4.6 4 5.1 3.9 4.2
17
29.432.7
42 42.9
34.931.2
43.5
62.2 63.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Year
Applications Received and Applicants Ranked
Number of RankedApplicants Needed to Fill AllPositions in a Program(average)Number of ApplicationsReceived by ResidencyPrograms (average)
Programs• Applications and Ranks
• Applications Rose• # needed to rank 2.3-5.1
Post Interview
Post InterviewApplicant• Rank List
Charting Outcomes of the Match
2014 2016
The average rank list depth for matched applicants
12.3 12.8
Pre Interview Interview Post Interview
• Applicants• Submitting more
applications• Gross• % of total
• Higher cost• Programs• Receiving more
applications• Spending more time
on application review
• Applicants• Stable rank list
length• Programs• Stable number of
applicants needed to fill all spots in a program
• Applicants• Stable board
scores & experiences
• Programs• Stable
nationwide interviews
Limitations• Retrospective
• Based on nationwide trends
• No applicant specific or program specific data
• Limited data on applicant rank list
Conclusion• The “magic number” of applications needed to submit or interviews to attend
to match is unknown
• The trend is towards increased application submission Pre Interview
• Programs are spending more time on application review
• Applicants are spending more money on application submission
• Stable number needed to rank on the part of programs
• Stable board scores and experiences
References • 1 National Resident Matching Program, Results and Data: 2008 Main Residency Match. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2008
• 2 National Resident Matching Program, Results and Data: 2009 Main Residency Match. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2009
• 3 National Resident Matching Program, Results and Data: 2010 Main Residency Match. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2010
• 4 National Resident Matching Program, Results and Data: 2011 Main Residency Match. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2011
• 5 National Resident Matching Program, Results and Data: 2012 Main Residency Match. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2012
• 6 National Resident Matching Program, Results and Data: 2013 Main Residency Match. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2013
• 7 National Resident Matching Program, Results and Data: 2014 Main Residency Match. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2014
• 8 National Resident Matching Program, Results and Data: 2015 Main Residency Match. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2015
• 9 National Resident Matching Program, Results and Data: 2016 Main Residency Match. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2016
• 10 National Resident Matching Program, Results and Data: 2017 Main Residency Match. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC. 2017
• 11 “Historical Specialty Specific Data” (4/12/17) © 2017 AAMC https://www.aamc.org/services/eras/stats/359278/stats.html
• 12 National Resident Matching Program, Charting Outcomes in the Match for U.S. Allopathic Seniors, 2014. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC 2014
• 13 National Resident Matching Program, Charting Outcomes in the Match for U.S. Allopathic Seniors, 2016. National Resident Matching Program,Washington, DC 2016
top related