Cargando…

Is it a match? a novel method of evaluating medical school success

Background: Medical education program evaluation allows for curricular improvements to both Undergraduate (UME) and Graduate Medical Education (GME). UME programs are left with little more than match rates and self-report to evaluate success of graduates in The Match. Objective: This manuscript shar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chang, Leslie L., Nagler, Alisa, Rudd, Mariah, Grochowski, Colleen O’Connor, Buckley, Edward G., Chudgar, Saumil M., Engle, Deborah L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5841542/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29436292
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2018.1432231
_version_ 1783304770412347392
author Chang, Leslie L.
Nagler, Alisa
Rudd, Mariah
Grochowski, Colleen O’Connor
Buckley, Edward G.
Chudgar, Saumil M.
Engle, Deborah L.
author_facet Chang, Leslie L.
Nagler, Alisa
Rudd, Mariah
Grochowski, Colleen O’Connor
Buckley, Edward G.
Chudgar, Saumil M.
Engle, Deborah L.
author_sort Chang, Leslie L.
collection PubMed
description Background: Medical education program evaluation allows for curricular improvements to both Undergraduate (UME) and Graduate Medical Education (GME). UME programs are left with little more than match rates and self-report to evaluate success of graduates in The Match. Objective: This manuscript shares a novel method of program evaluation through a systematic assessment of Match outcomes. Design: Surveys were developed and distributed to Program Training Directors (PTDs) at our institution to classify residency programs into which our UME graduates matched using an ordinal response scale and open-ended responses. Outcomes-based measures for UME graduates were collected and analyzed. The relationship between PTD survey data and UME graduates’ outcomes were explored. Open-ended response data were qualitatively analyzed using iterative cycles of coding and identifying themes. Results: The PTD survey response rate was 100%. 71% of our graduates matched to programs ranked as ‘elite’ (36%) or ‘top’ (35%) tier. The mean total number of ‘Honors’ grades achieved by UME graduates was 2.6. Data showed that graduates entering elite and top GME programs did not consistently earn Honors in their associated clerkships. A positive correlation was identified between USMLE Step 1 score, number of honors, and residency program rankings for a majority of the programs. Qualitative analysis identified research, faculty, and clinical exposure as necessary characteristics of ‘elite’ programs:. Factors considered by PTDs in the rating of programs included reputation, faculty, research, national presence and quality of graduates. Conclusions: This study describes a novel outcomes-based method of evaluating the success of UME programs. Results provided useful feedback about the quality of our UME program and its ability to produce graduates who match in highly-regarded GME programs. The findings from this study can benefit Clerkship Directors, Student Affairs and Curriculam Deans, and residency PTDs as they help students determine their competitiveness forspecialties and specific residency programs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5841542
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58415422018-03-12 Is it a match? a novel method of evaluating medical school success Chang, Leslie L. Nagler, Alisa Rudd, Mariah Grochowski, Colleen O’Connor Buckley, Edward G. Chudgar, Saumil M. Engle, Deborah L. Med Educ Online Short Communication Background: Medical education program evaluation allows for curricular improvements to both Undergraduate (UME) and Graduate Medical Education (GME). UME programs are left with little more than match rates and self-report to evaluate success of graduates in The Match. Objective: This manuscript shares a novel method of program evaluation through a systematic assessment of Match outcomes. Design: Surveys were developed and distributed to Program Training Directors (PTDs) at our institution to classify residency programs into which our UME graduates matched using an ordinal response scale and open-ended responses. Outcomes-based measures for UME graduates were collected and analyzed. The relationship between PTD survey data and UME graduates’ outcomes were explored. Open-ended response data were qualitatively analyzed using iterative cycles of coding and identifying themes. Results: The PTD survey response rate was 100%. 71% of our graduates matched to programs ranked as ‘elite’ (36%) or ‘top’ (35%) tier. The mean total number of ‘Honors’ grades achieved by UME graduates was 2.6. Data showed that graduates entering elite and top GME programs did not consistently earn Honors in their associated clerkships. A positive correlation was identified between USMLE Step 1 score, number of honors, and residency program rankings for a majority of the programs. Qualitative analysis identified research, faculty, and clinical exposure as necessary characteristics of ‘elite’ programs:. Factors considered by PTDs in the rating of programs included reputation, faculty, research, national presence and quality of graduates. Conclusions: This study describes a novel outcomes-based method of evaluating the success of UME programs. Results provided useful feedback about the quality of our UME program and its ability to produce graduates who match in highly-regarded GME programs. The findings from this study can benefit Clerkship Directors, Student Affairs and Curriculam Deans, and residency PTDs as they help students determine their competitiveness forspecialties and specific residency programs. Taylor & Francis 2018-02-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5841542/ /pubmed/29436292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2018.1432231 Text en © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Short Communication
Chang, Leslie L.
Nagler, Alisa
Rudd, Mariah
Grochowski, Colleen O’Connor
Buckley, Edward G.
Chudgar, Saumil M.
Engle, Deborah L.
Is it a match? a novel method of evaluating medical school success
title Is it a match? a novel method of evaluating medical school success
title_full Is it a match? a novel method of evaluating medical school success
title_fullStr Is it a match? a novel method of evaluating medical school success
title_full_unstemmed Is it a match? a novel method of evaluating medical school success
title_short Is it a match? a novel method of evaluating medical school success
title_sort is it a match? a novel method of evaluating medical school success
topic Short Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5841542/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29436292
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2018.1432231
work_keys_str_mv AT changlesliel isitamatchanovelmethodofevaluatingmedicalschoolsuccess
AT nagleralisa isitamatchanovelmethodofevaluatingmedicalschoolsuccess
AT ruddmariah isitamatchanovelmethodofevaluatingmedicalschoolsuccess
AT grochowskicolleenoconnor isitamatchanovelmethodofevaluatingmedicalschoolsuccess
AT buckleyedwardg isitamatchanovelmethodofevaluatingmedicalschoolsuccess
AT chudgarsaumilm isitamatchanovelmethodofevaluatingmedicalschoolsuccess
AT engledeborahl isitamatchanovelmethodofevaluatingmedicalschoolsuccess