...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Education >Advising special population emergency medicine residency applicants: a survey of emergency medicine advisors and residency program leadership
【24h】

Advising special population emergency medicine residency applicants: a survey of emergency medicine advisors and residency program leadership

机译:咨询特殊人口急救医学居住者:急救医学顾问和居住计划领导的调查

获取原文
           

摘要

Background The objective of this study was to determine the advising and emergency medicine (EM) residency selection practices for special population applicant groups for whom traditional advice may not apply. Methods A survey was distributed on the Council of Residency Directors in EM and Clerkship Directors in EM Academy listservs. Multiple choice, Likert-type scale, and fill-in-the-blank questions addressed the average EM applicant and special population groups (osteopathic; international medical graduate (IMG); couples; at-risk; re-applicant; dual-accreditation applicant; and military). Percentages and 95% confidence intervals [CI] were calculated. Results One hundred four surveys were completed. Of respondents involved in the interview process, 2 or more standardized letters of evaluation (SLOEs) were recommended for osteopathic (90.1% [95% CI 84–96]), IMG (82.5% [73–92]), dual-accreditation (46% [19–73]), and average applicants (48.5% [39–58]). Recommendations for numbers of residency applications to submit were 21–30 (50.5% [40.7–60.3]) for the average applicant, 31–40 (41.6% [31.3–51.8]) for osteopathic, and??50 (50.9% [37.5–64.4]) for IMG. For below-average Step 1 performance, 56.0% [46.3–65.7] were more likely to interview with an average Step 2 score. 88.1% [81.8–94.4] will consider matching an EM-EM couple. The majority were more likely to interview a military applicant with similar competitiveness to a traditional applicant. Respondents felt the best option for re-applicants was to pursue the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) for a preliminary residency position. Conclusion Advising and residency selection practices for special population applicants differ from those of traditional EM applicants. These data serve as an important foundation for advising these distinct applicant groups in ways that were previously only speculative. While respondents agree on many advising recommendations, outliers exist.
机译:背景本研究的目的是确定特殊人口申请人团体的建议和急诊医学(EM)居住委员会,为其不适用。方法在EM Academy Listservs的EM和Clerksip Diaptors的居留董事会分发了一项调查。多项选择,李克特型比例和填补空白问题涉及平均EM申请人和特殊人口群(骨疗法;国际医学毕业生(IMG);夫妻; at-antive;重新申请人;双重认证申请人;和军队)。计算百分比和95%置信区间[CI]。结果完成了一百四项调查。参与面试过程的受访者,建议对骨质疗法(90.1%[95%[95%[95%CI 84-96]),IMG(82.5%[73-92]),双认证( 46%[19-73])和平均申请人(48.5%[39-58])。储存股份数量的建议是21-30(50.5% 37.5-64.4]用于IMG。对于低于平均水平的步骤1,56.0%[46.3-65.7]更有可能采访平均步骤2得分。 88.1%[81.8-94.4]将考虑匹配EM-EM夫妇。大多数人更有可能采访一个与传统申请人相似竞争力的军事申请人。受访者认为重新申请人的最佳选择是为了追求初步居住地位的补充要约和验收计划(SOAP)。结论特殊人口申请人的建议和居住卫生选择与传统EM申请人的申请人不同。这些数据是以先前投机的方式建议这些独特的申请人群体的重要基础。虽然受访者同意许多建议的建议,但存在异常值。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号