Cargando…

Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics

BACKGROUND: Because of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the Residency Review Committee (RRC) approval timelines, new residency programs cannot use Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) during their first year of applicants. AIM: We sought to identify dif...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Groke, Steven F., Madsen, Troy E., Strate, Laura, Knapp, Stuart, Dawson, Matt, Stroud, Susan, Hartsell, Stephen, Davis, Virgil
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047854/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21373291
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12245-010-0209-5
_version_ 1782199083799150592
author Groke, Steven F.
Madsen, Troy E.
Strate, Laura
Knapp, Stuart
Dawson, Matt
Stroud, Susan
Hartsell, Stephen
Davis, Virgil
author_facet Groke, Steven F.
Madsen, Troy E.
Strate, Laura
Knapp, Stuart
Dawson, Matt
Stroud, Susan
Hartsell, Stephen
Davis, Virgil
author_sort Groke, Steven F.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Because of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the Residency Review Committee (RRC) approval timelines, new residency programs cannot use Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) during their first year of applicants. AIM: We sought to identify differences between program directors’ subjective ratings of applicants from an emergency medicine (EM) residency program’s first year (in which ERAS was not used) to their ratings of applicants the following year in which ERAS was used. METHOD: The University of Utah Emergency Medicine Residency Program received approval from the ACGME in 2004. Applicants for the entering class of 2005 (year 1) did not use ERAS, submitting a separate application, while those applying for the following year (year 2) used ERAS. Residency program directors rated applicants using subjective components of their applications, assigning scores on scales from 0–10 or 0–5 (10 or 5 = highest score) for select components of the application. We retrospectively reviewed and compared these ratings between the 2 years of applicants. RESULTS: A total of 130 and 458 prospective residents applied during year 1 and year 2, respectively. Applicants were similar in average scores for research (1.65 vs. 1.81, scale 0–5, p = 0.329) and volunteer work (5.31 vs. 5.56, scale 0–10, p = 0.357). Year 1 applicants received higher scores for their personal statement (3.21 vs. 2.22, scale 0–5, p < 0.001), letters of recommendation (7.0 vs. 5.94, scale 0–10, p < 0.001), dean’s letter (3.5 vs. 2.7, scale 1–5, p < 0.001), and in their potential contribution to class characteristics (4.64 vs. 3.34, scale 0–10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While the number of applicants increased, the use of ERAS in a new residency program did not improve the overall subjective ratings of residency applicants. Year 1 applicants received higher scores for the written components of their applications and in their potential contributions to class characteristics.
format Text
id pubmed-3047854
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30478542011-03-03 Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics Groke, Steven F. Madsen, Troy E. Strate, Laura Knapp, Stuart Dawson, Matt Stroud, Susan Hartsell, Stephen Davis, Virgil Int J Emerg Med Original Research Article BACKGROUND: Because of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the Residency Review Committee (RRC) approval timelines, new residency programs cannot use Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) during their first year of applicants. AIM: We sought to identify differences between program directors’ subjective ratings of applicants from an emergency medicine (EM) residency program’s first year (in which ERAS was not used) to their ratings of applicants the following year in which ERAS was used. METHOD: The University of Utah Emergency Medicine Residency Program received approval from the ACGME in 2004. Applicants for the entering class of 2005 (year 1) did not use ERAS, submitting a separate application, while those applying for the following year (year 2) used ERAS. Residency program directors rated applicants using subjective components of their applications, assigning scores on scales from 0–10 or 0–5 (10 or 5 = highest score) for select components of the application. We retrospectively reviewed and compared these ratings between the 2 years of applicants. RESULTS: A total of 130 and 458 prospective residents applied during year 1 and year 2, respectively. Applicants were similar in average scores for research (1.65 vs. 1.81, scale 0–5, p = 0.329) and volunteer work (5.31 vs. 5.56, scale 0–10, p = 0.357). Year 1 applicants received higher scores for their personal statement (3.21 vs. 2.22, scale 0–5, p < 0.001), letters of recommendation (7.0 vs. 5.94, scale 0–10, p < 0.001), dean’s letter (3.5 vs. 2.7, scale 1–5, p < 0.001), and in their potential contribution to class characteristics (4.64 vs. 3.34, scale 0–10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While the number of applicants increased, the use of ERAS in a new residency program did not improve the overall subjective ratings of residency applicants. Year 1 applicants received higher scores for the written components of their applications and in their potential contributions to class characteristics. Springer-Verlag 2010-08-20 /pmc/articles/PMC3047854/ /pubmed/21373291 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12245-010-0209-5 Text en © Springer-Verlag London Ltd 2010
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Groke, Steven F.
Madsen, Troy E.
Strate, Laura
Knapp, Stuart
Dawson, Matt
Stroud, Susan
Hartsell, Stephen
Davis, Virgil
Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics
title Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics
title_full Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics
title_fullStr Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics
title_short Evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics
title_sort evaluating applicants to a new emergency medicine residency program: subjective assessment of applicant characteristics
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047854/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21373291
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12245-010-0209-5
work_keys_str_mv AT grokestevenf evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics
AT madsentroye evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics
AT stratelaura evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics
AT knappstuart evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics
AT dawsonmatt evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics
AT stroudsusan evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics
AT hartsellstephen evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics
AT davisvirgil evaluatingapplicantstoanewemergencymedicineresidencyprogramsubjectiveassessmentofapplicantcharacteristics