These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Variable Practice, Variable Results: Impact of Postinterview Communication Practices Among Critical Care Medicine/Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship Applicants and Program Directors.
    Author: John MM, Starks H, Allam JS, Moore J, Frank JA, Bosslet GT, Burkart KM, Çoruh B.
    Journal: Chest; 2024 May; 165(5):1186-1197. PubMed ID: 37977268.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Although postinterview communication (PIC) guidelines exist, adherence is voluntary. There are no studies of PIC practices in critical care medicine (CCM) and pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellowship recruitment. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the frequency, format, goals, and content of PIC between CCM/PCCM applicants and program directors? What is the impact of PIC on applicant and program rank order lists (ROLs)? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: CCM/PCCM applicants and program directors were separately surveyed after the 2022-2023 National Resident Matching Program Specialty Match. Surveys included multiple-choice, Likert-scale, and two free text questions. Thematic content analysis of free text responses was performed. RESULTS: One-third of eligible participants responded (applicants: n = 373 [34%]; program directors: n = 86 [32%]). Applicant respondents applied to CCM (19%), PCCM (69%), or both (12%). Program directors represented CCM (17%), PCCM (57%), or both (26%) programs. Applicant (66%) and program director (49%) respondents reported initiating PIC. PIC did not impact ROL decision for most applicants (73%) or program directors (83%), though 21% of applicants and 17% of program directors moved programs or applicants up on their ROL in response to PIC. One-quarter (23%) of applicants strongly agreed or agreed that PIC was helpful in creating their ROL, 27% strongly disagreed or disagreed, and 29% were neutral. PIC challenges identified by both groups included time; lack of uniformity; peer pressure; misleading language; and uncertainty about motives, rules, and response protocols. INTERPRETATION: PIC is common among CCM/PCCM applicants and program directors. About 50% of applicants and 20% of program directors share ranking intentions via PIC. Although PIC did not impact ROL for most applicants and program directors, a minority of applicants and program directors moved programs up on their ROL after receiving PIC from the other party. Applicants have mixed perspectives on PIC value. Applicants and program directors alike desire clear guidance on PIC to minimize ambiguous and misleading communication.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]