Does Residency Selection Criteria Predict Performance in Orthopaedic Surgery Residency?

Background

More than 1000 candidates applied for orthopaedic residency positions in 2014, and the competition is intense; approximately one-third of the candidates failed to secure a position in the match. However, the criteria used in the selection process often are subjective and studies have differed in terms of which criteria predict either objective measures or subjective ratings of resident performance by faculty.

Questions/purposes

Do preresidency selection factors serve as predictors of success in residency? Specifically, we asked which preresidency selection factors are associated or correlated with (1) objective measures of resident knowledge and performance; and (2) subjective ratings by faculty.

Methods

Charts of 60 orthopaedic residents from our institution were reviewed. Preresidency selection criteria examined included United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 scores, Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores, number of clinical clerkship honors, number of letters of recommendation, number of away rotations, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) honor medical society membership, fourth-year subinternship at our institution, and number of publications. Resident performance was assessed using objective measures including American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) Part I scores and Orthopaedics In-Training Exam (OITE) scores and subjective ratings by faculty including global evaluation scores and faculty rankings of residents. We tested associations between preresidency criteria and the subsequent objective and subjective metrics using linear correlation analysis and Mann-Whitney tests when appropriate.

Results

Objective measures of resident performance namely, ABOS Part I scores, had a moderate linear correlation with the USMLE Step 2 scores (r = 0.55, p < 0.001) and number of clinical honors received in medical school (r = 0.45, p < 0.001). OITE scores had a weak linear correlation with the number of clinical honors (r = 0.35, p = 0.009) and USMLE Step 2 scores (r = 0.29, p = 0.02). With regards to subjective outcomes, AOA membership was associated with higher scores on the global evaluation (p = 0.005). AOA membership also correlated with higher global evaluation scores (r = 0.60, p = 0.005) with the strongest correlation existing between AOA membership and the “interpersonal and communication skills” subsection of the global evaluations.

Conclusions

We found that USMLE Step 2, number of honors in medical school clerkships, and AOA membership demonstrated the strongest correlations with resident performance. Our goal in analyzing these data was to provide residency programs at large a sense of which criteria may be “high yield” in ranking applicants by analyzing data from within our own pool of residents. Similar studies across a broader scope of programs are warranted to confirm applicability of our findings. The continually emerging complexities of the field of orthopaedic surgery lend increasing importance to future work on the appropriate selection and training of orthopaedic residents.     

Do Men and Women Fracture Bones at Similar Bone Densities?

When the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for the definition of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women were identified similar proposals were not developed for men as there was insufficient evidence about the relationship between bone density and fracture in men. We have therefore examined the relationship between bone density and vertebral fracture in men and women attending for assessment of possible osteoporosis. Two hundred and sixty-four women (age 64 [SD 10] years) and 37 men (age 55 [10] years) were studied. Bone density was measured in the lumbar spine and femoral neck by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and expressed both as bone mineral density (BMD; g/cm²) and as T-scores. In both sexes there was a sigmoid relationship between the cumulative frequency of vertebral fracture and bone density at both sites. There was a linear relationship between the log odds of fracture and bone mass for both sexes and both sites (r= 0.97–0.99; p<0.0001). The slope of these lines was significantly steeper for men than women. The BMD at which there was 50% risk of fracture was higher in men than women (0.908 vs 0.844 g/cm²). The difference between the slopes was similar when the bone mass was expressed as a T-score. However, the T-score associated with 50% prevalence of fracture was similar in the two sexes (F: −2.77 vs M: −2.60). We conclude that although there is a different relationship between bone density and fracture in the two sexes the current WHO definition of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women can be appropriately applied to men. Received: 24 February 1999 / Accepted: 12 July 1999     

Has Diversity Increased in Orthopaedic Residency Programs since 1995?

Background  

Diversity among health professionals is believed to be an important step toward improving patient communication and addressing health disparities. Orthopaedic surgery traditionally has been overly represented by Caucasian males, and it remains one of the least racially and gender-diversified surgical subspecialties. As the US population becomes increasingly diverse, a concomitant increase in ethnic diversity and gender diversity is needed to ensure that all Americans receive high-quality, culturally competent health care.     

Does Research Participation Make a Difference in Residency Training?

Background

The American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery requirements state that an orthopaedic residency must offer at least 5 years of clinical education and some exposure to research. To expose residents to basic research, some programs, including ours, have a research track that allows for 1 year of basic science research. The degree to which research productivity during residency—which may be something that can perhaps be influenced by interventions like research tracks during residency—affects residency graduates’ future research contributions is unknown.

Questions/purposes

Our research goals were to determine whether (1) residents who published in a peer-reviewed journal during residency were more likely to publish in their careers after graduation; (2) residents who participated in an elective research year were more likely to publish at least one paper in a peer-reviewed journal during residency; and (3) residents who participated in the research year were more likely to choose academic careers.

Methods

Using questionnaires, online PubMed searches, and office contact, the career paths (academic versus private practice) and publications in peer-reviewed journals of all 122 Case Western Reserve University orthopaedics residents who completed training from 1987 to 2006 were analyzed.

Results

Seventy-five percent of residents who published peer-reviewed research during residency continued with peer-reviewed publications in their careers versus 55% of residents who did not publish during residency (p = 0.02). No difference in career paths was observed between the Case Western Reserve University research and traditional track-trained surgeons. During residency, however, research track-trained surgeons were more likely to publish in peer-reviewed journals (71% versus 41% of traditional track-trained surgeons, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Residents who publish in a peer-reviewed journal during residency are more likely to continue publishing in their future careers as orthopaedic surgeons. Future studies are needed to elucidate the causative factors in the association between publishing in a peer-reviewed journal during training and further contributions later in an orthopaedic surgeon’s career.     

Does Orthopaedic Surgical Training Induce Hypertension? A Pilot Study

Background  

Elevated blood pressure (BP) is associated with increased cardiovascular risks manifested by ischemic heart disease and stroke. Studies of cardiothoracic surgeons and neurosurgeons suggest surgery induces a hemodynamic stress malresponse. However, it is unclear whether these occur in orthopaedic surgeons.     

Do Men and Women Use the Same Criteria in Selecting a General Surgery Residency Program? Results of a 20-Year Study in a Non-University Program

BACKGROUND: To assess applicant preferences in general surgery program selection, we surveyed current and former residents of our non-university general surgery residency program over the last 20 years, with particular emphasis on male and female selection preferences. METHODS: Surveys were distributed to current and former categorical residents. Respondents were asked to rate 25 residency criteria using a Likert scale. Responses by males and females were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Results are reported as mean scores, with p-values indicating statistical significance of trends toward higher scores. RESULTS: Of 50 former (76% male, 24% female) and 18 current residents (56% male, 44% female), 56 responded (38 male, 18 female), for an overall response rate of 82%. For both male and female respondents, the top 4 selection criteria by mean average score were identical: variety and number of cases, friendly training environment, camaraderie among residents, and quality of relationships with attendings. Selection criteria that received significantly higher scores among women were camaraderie among residents, the number of female residents, and the number of female attendings (p < 0.05). For men, a suburban location, compensation and benefits, and the reputation of the program director received significantly higher scores (p < 0.05). Gender-related selection preference was most marked for the number of female residents (mean, 2.4 for women vs 1.3 for men) and the number of female attendings (mean, 2.3 for women vs 1.4 for men). These 2 criteria, however, were ranked 20th and 21st (of the 25), respectively, by the female respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The most important selection criteria, regardless of gender, relate to operative experience, training environment, and quality relationships. Gender-based preferences seem to play only a minor role in general surgery program selection.     

What Do Physician Extenders in a General Surgery Residency Really Do?

OBJECTIVE: The 80-hour workweek has forced surgical training programs to employ physician extenders to reduce work hours and improve the educational environment. The purpose of our study was to document objectively the specific workload provided by physician extenders and to evaluate any objective or subjective benefit provided to the residency program. METHOD: Over 4 consecutive months, all orders written by 2 physician extenders associated exclusively with the general surgery residency program at our institution were reviewed. They were categorized as daytime or evening orders and were subdivided into admission, routine preoperative and postoperative, acute care, daily laboratories, pain medications, Pro re nata (PRN), wound care, and discharge orders. Acute care issues and PRN orders were individually examined and subdivided. The appropriateness, total volume, and the orders for each category were totaled and reviewed. RESULTS: Overall, 3101 total orders (1128 daytime and 1973 nighttime) were reviewed in a 4-month time period. On average, physician extenders at night wrote 35 orders per shift, compared with only 18.8 orders during the day. During the night, admission orders totaled 547 (27.7%), preoperative orders 442 (22%), acute care issues 324 (16.4%), PRN orders 239 (12%), and pain medication and PRN sleeping pills 156 (8%). During the day, routine postoperative orders totaled 305 (27%), daily laboratories 184 (16%), and discharge orders 253 (22%). CONCLUSION: Physician extenders wrote appropriate orders and reduced resident workload. Educational opportunities increased because fewer residents left conference for acute patient care issues, and 1 fewer resident was absent during the day secondary to 1 less resident being sent home postcall. Performance on the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) increased dramatically for a focused group of residents. As the expense of each extender is approximately $90,000, justification to administration is dependent on the institutional support and efficiency of the residency program. A clear simple outcome is that by improving standing orders and clinical pathways, and by using an electronic medical record system, noneducational work hours can be reduced significantly.     

Do Women Understand Urogynecologic Terminology?

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to describe women's stated knowledge of the primary urogynecologic diagnostic terms (urinary incontinence, pelvic floor disorder, and pelvic organ prolapse) and to assess factors associated with knowledge. METHODS: Before any education about pelvic floor disorders, 376 women presenting to primary care-level gynecologic clinics were asked whether they knew what the terms urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and pelvic floor disorder meant. χ(2) and t tests were used to compare characteristics of women with complete knowledge versus partial or no knowledge of terms. P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Of all women, 25% knew all 3 terms and 18% knew none. Moreover, 80%, 52%, and 27% of women reported that they knew the meaning of the terms urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and pelvic floor disorder, respectively. Of women with stress urinary incontinence symptoms, 88% knew the term urinary incontinence compared with 78% without stress urinary incontinence (P = 0.07). Of 41 women, 31 (76%) with the symptom of vaginal bulge knew the term pelvic organ prolapse compared with 49% without (P = 0.001). Only higher education and symptom of vaginal bulge were associated with complete knowledge of the 3 terms; 30% of women who completed college or higher reported complete knowledge compared with 18% who did not (P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Public health campaigns using terms pelvic organ prolapse or pelvic floor disorders are unlikely to reach most women. Further education and research are needed to improve women's health literacy in urogynecology.     

Tibial Macrostructure and Microarchitecture Adaptations in Women During 44 Weeks of Arduous Military Training

Bone adapts to unaccustomed, high-impact loading but loses mechanosensitivity quickly. Short periods of military training (≤12 weeks) increase the density and size of the tibia in women. The effect of longer periods of military training, where the incidence of stress fracture is high, on tibial macrostructure and microarchitecture in women is unknown. This observational study recruited 51 women (age 19 to 30 years) at the start of 44 weeks of British Army Officer training. Tibial volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD), geometry, and microarchitecture were measured by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HRpQCT). Scans of the right tibial metaphysis (4% site) and diaphysis (30% site) were performed at weeks 1, 14, 28, and 44. Measures of whole-body areal bone mineral density (aBMD) were obtained using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Blood samples were taken at weeks 1, 28, and 44, and were analyzed for markers of bone formation and resorption. Trabecular vBMD increased from week 1 to 44 at the 4% site (3.0%, p < .001). Cortical vBMD decreased from week 1 to 14 at the 30% site (−0.3%, p < .001). Trabecular area decreased at the 4% site (−0.4%); trabecular bone volume fraction (3.5%), cortical area (4.8%), and cortical thickness (4.0%) increased at the 4% site; and, cortical perimeter increased at the 30% site (0.5%) from week 1 to 44 (p ≤ .005). Trabecular number (3.5%) and thickness (2.1%) increased, and trabecular separation decreased (−3.1%), at the 4% site from week 1 to 44 (p < .001). Training increased failure load at the 30% site from week 1 to 44 (2.5%, p < .001). Training had no effect on aBMD or markers of bone formation or resorption. Tibial macrostructure and microarchitecture continued to adapt across 44 weeks of military training in young women. Temporal decreases in cortical density support a role of intracortical remodeling in the pathogenesis of stress fracture. © 2021 Crown copyright. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR). This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.     

Whose Appendicectomy? – Do Laparoscopic Appendicectomies Impair SHO Training?

INTRODUCTION

Open appendicectomy is an ideal procedure for junior surgical trainees to develop operative skills. However, in recent years, we have noticed a decline in the number of appendicectomies performed by basic surgical trainees and a shift towards increasing use of laparoscopic appendicectomy. The aim of this study was to determine whether the growing popularity of laparoscopic appendicectomy is having a detrimental impact on the training experience of SHOs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We undertook a retrospective review of all cases of appendicectomies performed in one district hospital over a 7-year period (August 1999 to August 2006.) A standard performa was used to extract data from the original case notes of these patients relating to the operating surgeon and technique.

RESULTS

Data were obtained for 857 appendicectomies. Between February 2002 and July 2003, there was asignificant decline in the proportion of appendicectomies performed by SHOs from 78.7% to 29.3% (P < 0.001). Either side of this decline there were no significant changes in the proportion of SHO appendicectomies. The number of appendicectomies performed laparoscopically only began to rise after February 2004, with ayear-on-year increase. The number of appendicectomies performed by SHOs remained stable during this time. No laparoscopic appendicectomy was performed by an SHO.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence that the popularisation of laparoscopic appendicectomy has contributedtothe decline of appendicectomies performed by SHOs. Nevertheless, with the continual rise in popularity of this procedure, it is important to balance training opportunities for both junior and higher surgical trainees.     

Orthopaedic Surgeons’ Cardiovascular Response During Total Hip Arthroplasty

The literature contains limited and contradictory information regarding the amount of physical effort and/or emotional stress needed to perform surgery. We therefore investigated cardiovascular response to psychophysical stress in orthopaedic surgeons while they were performing surgery. We monitored 29 male orthopaedic surgeons from four university centers while they performed total hip arthroplasties. Changes in their cardiovascular parameters were recorded by ambulatory monitoring methods. Exercise stress testing of each participant was used as a control state. We compared the cardiovascular response during surgery to energy requirements of everyday activities. Preoperative and postoperative testing showed lower values of cardiovascular parameters than during physically less difficult parts of the operation; physically more difficult phases of the operation additionally increased the values of parameters. We concluded performing total hip arthroplasty increases surgeons’ cardiovascular parameters because of psychologic stress and physical effort. Excitement of the cardiovascular system during total hip arthroplasty appears similar to the excitement during moderate-intensity daily activities, such as walking the dog, leisurely bicycling, or climbing stairs. Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. Each author certifies that his or her institution has approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent was obtained.     

How Do Medical Students Perceive Diversity in Orthopaedic Surgery,and How Do Their Perceptions Change After an Orthopaedic Clinical Rotation?

BackgroundA diverse physician workforce improves the quality of care for all patients, and there is a need for greater diversity in orthopaedic surgery. It is important that medical students of diverse backgrounds be encouraged to pursue the specialty, but to do so, we must understand students’ perceptions of diversity and inclusion in orthopaedics. We also currently lack knowledge about how participation in an orthopaedic clinical rotation might influence these perceptions.Questions/purposes(1) How do the perceptions of diversity and inclusion in orthopaedic surgery compare among medical students of different gender identities, races or ethnicities, and sexual orientations? (2) How do perceptions change after an orthopaedic clinical rotation among members of demographic groups who are not the majority in orthopaedics (that is, cis-gender women, underrepresented racial minorities, other racial minorities, and nonheterosexual people)?MethodsWe surveyed students from 27 US medical schools who had completed orthopaedic rotations. We asked about their demographic characteristics, rotation experience, perceptions of diversity and inclusion in orthopaedics, and personal views on specialty choice. Questions were derived from diversity, equity, and inclusion climate surveys used at major academic institutions. Cis-gender men and cis-gender women were defined as those who self-identified their gender as men or women, respectively, and were not transgender. Forty-five percent (59 of 131) of respondents were cis-men and 53% (70 of 131) were cis-women; 49% (64 of 131) were white, 20% (26 of 131) were of underrepresented racial minorities, and 31% (41 of 131) were of other races. Eighty-five percent (112 of 131) of respondents were heterosexual and 15% (19 of 131) reported having another sexual orientation. We compared prerotation and postrotation perceptions of diversity and inclusion between majority and nonmajority demographic groups for each demographic domain (for example, cis-men versus cis-women). We also compared prerotation to postrotation perceptions within each nonmajority demographic group. To identify potential confounding variables, we performed univariate analysis to compare student and rotation characteristics across the demographic groups, assessed using an alpha of 0.05. No potential confounders were identified. Statistical significance was assessed at a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha of 0.0125. Our estimated response percentage was 26%. To determine limitations of nonresponse bias, we compared all early versus late responders and found that for three survey questions, late responders had a more favorable perception of diversity in orthopaedic surgery, whereas for most questions, there was no difference.ResultsBefore rotation, cis-women had lower agreement that diversity and inclusion are part of orthopaedic culture (mean score 0.96 ± 0.75) compared with cis-men (1.4 ± 1.1) (mean difference 0.48 [95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.81]; p = 0.004), viewed orthopaedic surgery as less diverse (cis-women 0.71 ± 0.73 versus cis-men 1.2 ± 0.92; mean difference 0.49 [95% CI 0.20 to 0.78]; p = 0.001) and more sexist (cis-women 1.3 ± 0.92 versus cis-men 1.9 ± 1.2; mean difference 0.61 [95% CI 0.23 to 0.99]; p = 0.002), believed they would have to work harder than others to be valued equally (cis-women 2.8 ± 1.0 versus cis-men 1.9 ± 1.3; mean difference 0.87 [95% CI 0.45 to 1.3]; p < 0.001), and were less likely to pursue orthopaedic surgery (cis-women 1.4 ± 1.4 versus cis-men 2.6 ± 1.1; mean difference 1.2 [95% CI 0.76 to 1.6]; p < 0.001). Before rotation, underrepresented minorities had less agreement that diversity and inclusion are part of orthopaedic surgery culture (0.73 ± 0.72) compared with white students (1.5 ± 0.97) (mean difference 0.72 [95% CI 0.35 to 1.1]; p < 0.001). Many of these differences between nonmajority and majority demographic groups ceased to exist after rotation. Compared with their own prerotation beliefs, after rotation, cis-women believed more that diversity and inclusion are part of orthopaedic surgery culture (prerotation mean score 0.96 ± 0.75 versus postrotation mean score 1.2 ± 0.96; mean difference 0.60 [95% CI 0.22 to 0.98]; p = 0.002) and that orthopaedic surgery is friendlier (prerotation 2.3 ± 1.2 versus postrotation 2.6 ± 1.1; mean difference 0.41 [95% CI 0.14 to 0.69]; p = 0.004), more diverse (prerotation 0.71 ± 0.73 versus postrotation 1.0 ± 0.89; mean difference 0.28 [95% CI 0.08 to 0.49]; p = 0.007), less sexist (prerotation 1.3 ± 0.92 versus postrotation 1.9 ± 1.0; mean difference 0.63 [95% CI 0.40 to 0.85]; p < 0.001), less homophobic (prerotation 2.1 ± 1.0 versus postrotation 2.4 ± 0.97; mean difference 0.27 [95% CI 0.062 to 0.47]; p = 0.011), and less racist (prerotation 2.3 ± 1.1 versus postrotation 2.5 ± 1.1; mean difference 0.28 [95% CI 0.099 to 0.47]; p = 0.003). Compared with before rotation, after rotation cis-women believed less that they would have to work harder than others to be valued equally on the rotation (prerotation 2.8 ± 1.0 versus postrotation 2.5 ± 1.0; mean difference 0.31 [95% CI 0.12 to 0.50]; p = 0.002), as did nonheterosexual students (prerotation 2.4 ± 1.4 versus postrotation 1.8 ± 1.3; mean difference 0.56 [95% 0.21 to 0.91]; p = 0.004). Underrepresented minority students saw orthopaedic surgery as less sexist after rotation compared with before rotation (prerotation 1.5 ± 1.1 versus postrotation 2.0 ± 1.1; mean difference 0.52 [95% CI 0.16 to 0.89]; p = 0.007).ConclusionEven with an estimated 26% response percentage, we found that medical students of demographic backgrounds who are not the majority in orthopaedics generally perceived that orthopaedic surgery is less diverse and inclusive than do their counterparts in majority groups, but these views often change after a clinical orthopaedic rotation.Clinical RelevanceThese perceptions may be a barrier to diversification of the pool of medical student applicants to orthopaedics. However, participation in an orthopaedic surgery rotation is associated with mitigation of many of these negative perceptions among diverse students. Medical schools have a responsibility to develop a diverse workforce, and given our findings, schools should promote participation in a clinical orthopaedic rotation. Residency programs and orthopaedic organizations can also increase exposure to the field through the rotation and other means. Doing so may ultimately diversify the orthopaedic surgeon workforce and improve care for all orthopaedic patients.     

Do Both Areal BMD and Injurious Falls Explain the Higher Incidence of Fractures in Women than in Men?

The higher incidence of fractures in women than in men is generally attributed to the lower areal bone mineral density (areal BMD, g/cm²) of the former. The purpose of the present study was to investigate both areal BMD and injurious falls as risk factors for fractures. In a first cohort, areal BMD was measured in 5,131 men and women (age range 40–95 years). In a second cohort, consisting of 26,565 men and women (age range 40–69 years), a health survey was conducted including questions about lifestyle and medication. Main outcome measures included validated prospective injurious falls and fractures in both cohorts. The higher areal BMD and femoral neck BMD in men compared to women (P < 0.001) were explained by a higher diameter of the femoral neck. Importantly, the diameter of the femoral neck was not associated with fractures in either sex (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94–1.04, P > 0.05 for all), suggesting that a higher areal BMD and lower incidence of osteoporosis in men do not explain their lower incidence of fractures. In contrast, women were more prone to sustain injurious falls than men in both cohorts investigated (HR for women = 1.61 and 1.84, P < 0.001 for both), resulting in a higher incidence of fractures (HR for women = 2.24 and 2.36, P < 0.001 for both). The number of injurious falls and fractures occurring each month during the study period showed a very strong correlation in both women (r = 0.95, P < 0.00001) and men (r = 0.97, P < 0.00001). In summary, low areal BMD, and thus osteoporosis, may not explain the higher fracture incidence in women than in men. Instead, a higher incidence of injurious falls in women was strongly associated with the higher fracture risk.     

Are Narrative Letters of Recommendation for Medical Students Interpreted as Intended by Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Programs?

BackgroundNarrative letters of recommendation are an important component of the residency application process. However, because narrative letters of recommendation are almost always positive, it is unclear whether those reviewing the letters understand the writer’s intended strength of support for a given applicant.Questions/purposes(1) Is the perception of letter readers for narrative letters of recommendation consistent with the intention of the letter’s author? (2) Is there inter-reviewer consistency in selection committee members’ perceptions of the narrative letters of recommendation?MethodsLetter writers who wrote two or more narrative letters of recommendation for applicants to one university-based orthopaedic residency program for the 2014 to 2015 application cycle were sent a survey linked to a specific letter of recommendation they authored to assess the intended meaning regarding the strength of an applicant. A total of 247 unstructured letters of recommendation and accompanying surveys were sent to their authors, and 157 surveys were returned and form the basis of this study (response percentage 64%). The seven core members of the admissions committee (of 22 total reviewers) at a university-based residency program were sent a similar survey regarding their perception of the letter. To answer our research question about whether letter readers’ perceptions about a candidate were consistent with the letter writer’s intention, we used kappa values to determine agreement for survey questions involving discrete variables and Spearman correlation coefficients (SCCs) to determine agreement for survey questions involving continuous variables. To answer our research question regarding inter-reviewer consistency among the seven faculty members, we compared the letter readers’ responses to each survey question using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).ResultsThere was a negligible to moderate correlation between the intended and perceived strength of the letters (SCC 0.26 to 0.57), with only one of seven letter readers scoring in the moderate correlation category. When stratifying the applicants into thirds, there was only slight agreement (kappa 0.07 to 0.19) between the writers and reviewers. There were similarly low kappa values for agreement about how the writers and readers felt regarding the candidate matching into their program (kappa 0.14 to 0.30). The ICC for each question among the seven faculty reviewers ranged from poor to moderate (ICC 0.42 to 0.52).ConclusionOur results demonstrate that the reader’s perception of narrative letters of recommendation did not correlate well with the letter writer’s intended meaning and was not consistent between letter readers at a single university-based urban orthopaedic surgery residency program.Clinical RelevanceGiven the low correlation between the intended strength of the letter writers and the perceived strength of those letters, we believe that other options such as a slider bar or agreed-upon wording as is used in many dean’s letters may be helpful.     

What Is the Current Status of Global Health Activities and Opportunities in US Orthopaedic Residency Programs?

Background

Interest in developing national health care has been increasing in many fields of medicine, including orthopaedics. One manifestation of this interest has been the development of global health opportunities during residency training.

Questions/purposes

We assessed global health activities and opportunities in orthopaedic residency in terms of resident involvement, program characteristics, sources of funding and support, partner site relationships and geography, and program director opinions on global health participation and the associated barriers.

Methods

An anonymous 24-question survey was circulated to all US orthopaedic surgery residency program directors (n = 153) by email. Five reminder emails were distributed over the next 7 weeks. A total of 59% (n = 90) program directors responded.

Results

Sixty-one percent of responding orthopaedic residencies facilitated clinical experiences in developing countries. Program characteristics varied, but most used clinical rotation or elective time for travel (76%), which most frequently occurred during Postgraduate Year 4 (57%) and was used to provide pediatric (66%) or trauma (60%) care. The majority of programs (59%) provided at least some funding to traveling residents and sent accompanying attendings on all ventures (56%). Travel was most commonly within North America (85%), and 51% of participating programs have established international partner sites although only 11% have hosted surgeons from those partnerships. Sixty-nine percent of residency directors believed global health experiences during residency shape future volunteer efforts, 39% believed such opportunities help attract residents to a training program, and the major perceived challenges were funding (73%), faculty time (53%), and logistical planning (43%).

Conclusions

Global health interest and activity are common among orthopaedic residency programs. There is diversity in the characteristics and geographical locations of such activity, although some consensus does exist among program directors around funding and faculty time as the largest challenges.