From the Editors

In her editorial, the JMGE Editor-in-Chief offers advice on how to write up medical education research for publication, suggesting that much of this can be accomplished concurrently with study planning and execution (page 133).

A second editorial uses an actual case to examine ethical considerations in authorship and recognizing residents' (and others') contributions to published scholarly works (page 138).

Review

A narrative review by Anderson affirms feedback as critical to learner development, recommending added education of faculty about its importance and effective ways to provide it (page 154).

Research and Innovation

Several articles address issues

Abstract

Background

Feedback to clinical learners about their performance is crucial to their development into competent clinicians. Most feedback is provided by clinicians who have little or no formal training for this aspect of their teaching role.

Method

Narrative review.

Findings

Feedback is most effective if provided by clinical mentors based on observations of behavior, with emphasis on correctable deficiencies. The difference between feedback, which is formative, and evaluation, which is summative, needs to be understood by both the giver and receiver. The ability to self-assess is an important related concept, with studies showing that self-assessment skills are lowest in individuals found to be the least competent in external assessments and in individuals with a high level of confidence.

Conclusions

Feedback is an important component in learners' development, and clinical faculty should be educated about the importance of providing feedback, and the means to do so effectively must be provided to them. Despite several decades of accumulated knowledge in this area, the evidence from learners is that we continue to starve them of this critical nutrient for their growth.

Abstract

Background

Little is known about the factors that influence applicants' decisions to select a graduate medical education training program. Programs may improve their recruitment by better understanding that process.

Methods

Following the Match for the years 2008 though 2010, an electronic survey was sent to 664 applicants to 15 Duke University graduate medical education programs. Those individuals were ranked high enough to match to Duke University but chose to match at another institution. We used quantitative and qualitative analyses to explore factors influencing candidates' decisions and to identify program and institutional improvements to better attract top candidates.

Results

Response rate was 63% (417/664). The quantitative analysis identified factors that were “very important” to applicants (current resident satisfaction, relationship between faculty and residents, collegiality of current residents, quantity and quality of faculty content/mentoring, faculty teaching expertise, diversity of patients and types of procedures, and location), and those that were “not important” to applicants (child care or education opportunities for children, salary, United States Medical Licensing Examination requirements, part-time training options, favorable environment for minorities or women). There were statistically significant differences among specialties. Qualitative analysis identified 3 themes as most influential in their choice: location, program relationships, and the interview experience.

Conclusion

The collection of 3 years of data across specialties identified factors that are important to applicants' choice of a training program. Some factors can be addressed quickly and with little effort, such as the format of the interview day. Others require programs and institutions to revisit their mission, priorities, and training culture to improve relationships between residents and faculty. Programs may wish to be more tactical in selecting the residents and faculty who meet with applicants and be more focused in planning how the interview time is used.

Abstract

Introduction

Residency programs seek to match the best candidates with their positions. To avoid ethical conflicts in this process, the National Residency Matching Program (NRMP or Match) has rules regarding appropriate conduct, including guidelines on contact between candidates and programs. Our study examined communication between obstetrics and gynecology (Ob-Gyn) programs and residency candidates after interviewing and prior to ranking.

Methods

Ob-Gyn program directors in the United States were sent a self-administered survey via e-mail. Data were collected and analyzed using descriptive methods to examine communication practices of these programs.

Results

The response rate was 40%. The findings showed that respondents had variable interpretations of the NRMP rules and suggest that programs may be communicating their match intentions especially to favored candidates. Respondents' open text comments highlighted program directors' frustrations with current NRMP rules.

Discussion

NRMP communication rules are intended to minimize pressure on residency candidates. Our findings suggest they may be leading to unforeseen stresses on program directors and candidates.

Conclusions

As educational leaders in medicine, we must consider what professional communications are acceptable without increasing the pressure on candidates during the ranking and match process.