katherine mcmackin md, joseph lombardi md, nicholas … mcmackin_abstract.pdftrends in the 10-year...

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


Process

• Applicants• Submit ERAS

• Programs• Review

applications• Offer

interviews• Applicants• Accept/reject

interviews


Process





interviews

• Applicants• Attend

interviews• Cancel

unnecessary interviews

• Programs• Host

interviews


Process





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


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


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


Pre Interview

Reference 11

US Dollars


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







Trends







• 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







• 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









• 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

https://www.aamc.org/services/eras/stats/359278/stats.html

katherine mcmackin md, joseph lombardi md, nicholas … mcmackin_abstract.pdftrends in the 10-year...

Documents