Postinterview Communication in Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Interviews: A Survey of Match Applicants

Alexandra M Arguello; Bridgette Love; Brent A Ponce; Gerald McGwin; Joshua C Patt; Michael D Johnson; S Elizabeth Ames; Raffi Avedian; Monica Kogan

doi:10.2106/JBJS.OA.20.00140

Postinterview Communication in Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Interviews: A Survey of Match Applicants

JB JS Open Access. 2022 Mar 4;7(1):e20.00140. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.20.00140. eCollection 2022 Jan-Mar.

Authors

Alexandra M Arguello¹, Bridgette Love¹, Brent A Ponce¹, Gerald McGwin¹, Joshua C Patt², Michael D Johnson¹, S Elizabeth Ames³, Raffi Avedian⁴, Monica Kogan⁵

Affiliations

¹ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
² Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC.
³ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.
⁴ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA.
⁵ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.

Abstract

Background: To maintain the integrity of the match, postinterview communication (PIC) from programs to applicants is monitored and discouraged. The most recent report on the prevalence of PIC in orthopaedics found that 64% of surveyed applicants in 2014 and 2015 had received some form of PIC during their match cycle. In July 2019, the American Orthopaedic Association's Council of Orthopaedic Residency Directors (AOA/CORD) released a guideline recommending the elimination of all PIC in any form. The goal of this follow-up study was to determine the current prevalence of PIC with orthopaedic surgery applicants and assess the perspectives of medical students who recently applied for orthopaedic surgery residency positions.

Methods: A 35-question survey was e-mailed to all orthopaedic surgery residency applicants of 4 geographically diverse residency programs in postmatch March 2020. The survey was open for 1 month, and the responses were reported using descriptive statistics.

Results: Of the 229 respondents (21% response rate), 91 (39.7%) received PIC during the 2019 to 2020 residency match cycle. The program director was most commonly identified (80.2%) as the person who communicated with the applicants. At the interview day, 198 respondents (86.5%) were told that programs would not be contacting the applicants with PIC. However, over a quarter of respondents (25.3%) who received PIC answered that those programs contacted applicants after announcing they would not. Nearly half of the respondents (48.5%) agreed or strongly agreed that PIC causes added stress on applicants, and over half (52.9%) agreed or strongly agreed that all programs should stop participating in any form of PIC.

Conclusions: Although the prevalence of PIC seems to have decreased since the 2014 and 2015 match, there is still room for improvement toward eliminating PIC. The AOA/CORD position statement from July 2019 should be disseminated to all members of the residency selection team to ensure consistency from all programs. The primary limitation of this study was the 21% response rate.

Level of evidence: Level IV (survey study).

Publication types

Review