- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 13
This thread is important. In the past there were a number of "hints" that a program was problematic. Freida, the spawn of the ill-reputed AMA used to have a question on its data form Entitled: Program completion rate followed by a percentage. Anything less than nearly 100% would be suspicious in my book and certainly reason to ask pointed questions to the PDs before wasting money on ERAS slots.
I now note that AMA/FREIDA no longer lists this statistic. They simply report YES/NO, in the Program evaluation session.
So, I looked at other statistics and found something interesting. In listing a specialty residency slots by PGY, some programs are pretty uniform and constant:
IE Program A:
PGY1: 20
PGY2: 10
PGY3: 10
While another Program B:
PGY1: 25
PGY2: 12
PGY3: 9
In both of these cases, the programs offer a "preliminary" year which explains the drastic differences between PGY1 (intern) and PGY2. In Program A example, PGY2 and 3 are the same, and is probably a reasonable indication that the program intends to honor its commitment to its trainees and do its best. As others have said, if you get through med school, have good character and pass the Steps, you are trainable.
Consider program B: Again, PGY1/PGY2 differences not so worrisome, but why is the PGY3 position 3 shy of the PGY2 position and what happens to the PGY2 three who do not apparently have slots? Attrition at PGY3 level? or is this program a musical chairs game and you'd better be good or you won't have a seat when the music stops?
If I were looking at a program such as B, you can better believe that if I were looking at programs, the PD would be called prior to ERAS submission to ask specifically how this program worked and why there was a discrepancy between slots.
Some years ago, I looked at programs that were identified in a survey of PGY1s/MS4s as "malignant." One of the characteristics I looked at was the FREIDA reported program completion rate. There was a correlation between higher malignancy reports and lower program completion rates.
Serendipity? Perhaps. I had no means of determining true correlation, so at this point this is just an observation which may or may not be related.
Unfortunately, AMA, bastion of integrity that it is, no longer publishes this number. Had it continued that number, it would have been an interesting study of the list being compiled here. In my original, admittedly not particularly rigorous survey/comparison of 300 med student -> PGY1 and examination of the Program Graduation Rates value, a value of less than 96% was a large red flag.
All programs will have problems from time to time, and all residents will have problems from time to time. People get sick, pregnant, have car accidents, or someone dies. They need time, and these events will be reflected in that statistic, but when that statistic passed a threshold, it was a big red flag for a program that might be a rattlesnake in disguise. Just what this threshold might be is indeterminate.
Another interesting thing I learned: FREIDA used to report program Vacation/Leave time in days off/year. I learned from that survey that some institutions were craftily dishonest. They reported 14 or 21 days off. Then required residents to take the time in 8 or 9 day minimum blocks. So, 14/8=1 week, and so sorry, but you only have 6 days and policy is 8 day minimum. Net result: 1 week. I note that FREIDA now reports time in weeks, which hopefully quashed that bit of program dis-ingenuity.
I now note that AMA/FREIDA no longer lists this statistic. They simply report YES/NO, in the Program evaluation session.
So, I looked at other statistics and found something interesting. In listing a specialty residency slots by PGY, some programs are pretty uniform and constant:
IE Program A:
PGY1: 20
PGY2: 10
PGY3: 10
While another Program B:
PGY1: 25
PGY2: 12
PGY3: 9
In both of these cases, the programs offer a "preliminary" year which explains the drastic differences between PGY1 (intern) and PGY2. In Program A example, PGY2 and 3 are the same, and is probably a reasonable indication that the program intends to honor its commitment to its trainees and do its best. As others have said, if you get through med school, have good character and pass the Steps, you are trainable.
Consider program B: Again, PGY1/PGY2 differences not so worrisome, but why is the PGY3 position 3 shy of the PGY2 position and what happens to the PGY2 three who do not apparently have slots? Attrition at PGY3 level? or is this program a musical chairs game and you'd better be good or you won't have a seat when the music stops?
If I were looking at a program such as B, you can better believe that if I were looking at programs, the PD would be called prior to ERAS submission to ask specifically how this program worked and why there was a discrepancy between slots.
Some years ago, I looked at programs that were identified in a survey of PGY1s/MS4s as "malignant." One of the characteristics I looked at was the FREIDA reported program completion rate. There was a correlation between higher malignancy reports and lower program completion rates.
Serendipity? Perhaps. I had no means of determining true correlation, so at this point this is just an observation which may or may not be related.
Unfortunately, AMA, bastion of integrity that it is, no longer publishes this number. Had it continued that number, it would have been an interesting study of the list being compiled here. In my original, admittedly not particularly rigorous survey/comparison of 300 med student -> PGY1 and examination of the Program Graduation Rates value, a value of less than 96% was a large red flag.
All programs will have problems from time to time, and all residents will have problems from time to time. People get sick, pregnant, have car accidents, or someone dies. They need time, and these events will be reflected in that statistic, but when that statistic passed a threshold, it was a big red flag for a program that might be a rattlesnake in disguise. Just what this threshold might be is indeterminate.
Another interesting thing I learned: FREIDA used to report program Vacation/Leave time in days off/year. I learned from that survey that some institutions were craftily dishonest. They reported 14 or 21 days off. Then required residents to take the time in 8 or 9 day minimum blocks. So, 14/8=1 week, and so sorry, but you only have 6 days and policy is 8 day minimum. Net result: 1 week. I note that FREIDA now reports time in weeks, which hopefully quashed that bit of program dis-ingenuity.