Is Doximity Accurate?

[DancingAstronaut]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Doximity publishes information about all of the anesthesiology residency programs in regards to ranking, specialization %, board pass rate %, publications, etc. Does anyone know if this information is accurate? Thanks.

 

[deleted171991]

No.

 

[Mman]

Doximity publishes information about all of the anesthesiology residency programs in regards to ranking, specialization %, board pass rate %, publications, etc. Does anyone know if this information is accurate? Thanks.

their ranking system is based off questionnaires from current anesthesiologists which, while has it flaws, is probably as good as any other ranking system you will find

 

[Psai]

None of their numbers seem to jive with what people are saying on interview day

 

[TeslaCoil]

Is there any other more credible ranking system that somebody could share? Thanks!

 

[deleted547339]

Is there any other more credible ranking system that somebody could share? Thanks!

Word of mouth.

 

[TeslaCoil]

In that case, I'm curious about Rochester, it is a good bit higher in the doximity rankings than I would have guessed...

 

[partydoc]

Rochester is a well respected program. Dont focus on a number ranking

 

[Psai]

I interviewed at Rochester and thought it was an excellent program with great people running it. When I talked to them, it was clear that all of my interviewers read my file thoroughly and knew everything me which is nice. I also thought that the way they did their cby year made a lot of sense, where they do some ob then ob anesthesia, peds surgery then peds anesthesia etc. Rankings don't mean much beyond giving you a general sense of where things lie.

 

[deleted171991]

I also thought that the way they did their cby year made a lot of sense, where they do some ob then ob anesthesia, peds surgery then peds anesthesia etc.

That doesn't really make sense to me, to be honest. I know that many medical students think that doing anesthesia during CBY gives them an advantage. IMO it's a waste of valuable internship time, unless the interns function as CA-1s (and not as students/observers), with all the pressure and responsibilities that come with that.

The value of a CBY should lie in the opportunity of doing both medical and surgical (mostly the former) useful rotations, plus electives. Many medical students, who go into anesthesia because they hate both medicine and "clinic", don't realize that they will be the internists in the OR (and possibly outside). Surgical rotations are much less valuable, except for monkey skills, and that's the main reason they should be done. There are very few surgeons who can teach an up-to-date evidence-based approach to fixing medical problems. As an anesthesiologist, one will treat co-existing medical diseases (or the medical aspects of the surgical disease); the surgical ones will not be your responsibility.

Just my 2 cents, regardless of the program.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

I interviewed at Rochester and thought it was an excellent program with great people running it. When I talked to them, it was clear that all of my interviewers read my file thoroughly and knew everything me which is nice. I also thought that the way they did their cby year made a lot of sense, where they do some ob then ob anesthesia, peds surgery then peds anesthesia etc. Rankings don't mean much beyond giving you a general sense of where things lie.

Ditto. I ranked them high. Enjoyed my interview there.

 

[Psai]

That doesn't really make sense to me, to be honest. I know that many medical students think that doing anesthesia during CBY gives them an advantage. IMO it's a waste of valuable internship time, unless the interns are allowed to function as CA-1s, with all the pressure and responsibilities that come with that.

The value of a CBY should lie in the opportunity of doing both medical and surgical (mostly the former) useful rotations, plus electives. Many medical students, who go into anesthesia because they hate both medicine and "clinic", don't realize that they will be the internists in the OR (and possibly outside). Surgical rotations are much less valuable, except for monkey skills, and that's the main reason they should be done. There are very few surgeons who can teach an up-to-date evidence-based approach to fixing medical problems. As an anesthesiologist, one will treat co-existing medical diseases (or the medical aspects of the surgical disease); the surgical ones will not be your responsibility.

Just my 2 cents, regardless of the program.

"In 2012, we implemented a newly structured curriculum that we believe is unique and provides unparalleled education for our residents. For the first few (3-5) months, interns participate in core rotations including medicine wards, surgical subspecialties, chronic pain, medical consult services, and critical care. In September, (8 interns) and November (8 interns), begin a 6-week orientation in anesthesiology. The remainder of your “internship” rotations will be paired with anesthesiology subspecialties throughout the rest of the CBY and CA1 years (i.e. Neurology /Neuro Anesthesia, Peds Surgery/Peds Anesthesia, OGBYN/OB Anesthesia, Cardiology/Cardiac Anesthesia). This year also includes 1 month of vacation taken in 4, 1-week blocks."

So it's not as though they completely neglect medicine for their interns.

 

[TeslaCoil]

Yea I had a very positive experience at Rochester...

While we're at it how about baystate, it was one of the programs I expected to be higher on doximity...

 

[pgg]

It sounds kind of neat to follow a peds surgery month as a CA-0 with a month of peds anesthesia. But I wonder if that peds anesthesia month will be the best use of the CA-0's time, since he's had essentially no BASIC anesthesia at that point.

Our CA-1s get peds cases from day 1, but they're healthy peds. They don't get a month of subspecialty peds and the bigger cases until they've had a few months of general CA-1 anesthesia, and they don't go to the peds hospital for a big dose of weird peds until CA-2 year.

Likewise, I'm not sure a month of outpatient neurology clinic has any kind of synergistic usefulness when paired with a neuroanesthesia month. I mean, they're both sort of about brains, but neurologists are about as emphatically non-surgical as any specialty can be. I can think of about three things a neurologist would handle that have any path at all to a surgical treatment.

 

[Psai]

I understand what you guys are saying. I just thought it was an interesting setup and that it was nice that they are trying something new.

 

[Consigliere]

Doximity's data is just about as accurate as SDN's.

 

[deleted547339]

Doximity's data is just about as accurate as SDN's.

I would even argue it's less accurate.

 

[urge]

Doximity publishes information about all of the anesthesiology residency programs in regards to ranking, specialization %, board pass rate %, publications, etc. Does anyone know if this information is accurate? Thanks.

Total garbage. Programs tell their trainees to pump their numbers on the survey.

Pretty much any ranking system based on unscientific survey is garbage. U.S. News and World Report is in that league also.

 

[Mman]

Total garbage. Programs tell their trainees to pump their numbers on the survey.

Pretty much any ranking system based on unscientific survey is garbage. U.S. News and World Report is in that league also.

If every program tells their graduates to do the same thing it all offsets and then people are left with their real opinions about other programs as they only ones that matters.

 

[Gern Blansten]

If every program tells their graduates to do the same thing it all offsets and then people are left with their real opinions about other programs as they only ones that matters.

Well, not all programs did do this, and if they did, the numbers would be skewed by the size of the residency. If you look at the results, that is exactly what you see. Most of the smaller programs are at the bottom. The big programs are at the top. The places with name recognition are also at the top, even if the name recognition is for the medical center as a whole, and not necessarily for the anesthesiology department. Today is the first time I have ever seen the actual list, so I am pretty sure that no one in my department has buffed any numbers or even filled out the survey.
Overall, it is a pretty biased way to evaluate programs against one another.

 

[mybubbles627]

Total garbage. Programs tell their trainees to pump their numbers on the survey.

Pretty much any ranking system based on unscientific survey is garbage. U.S. News and World Report is in that league also.

If doximity is garbage what is an accurate representation of rankings? Asking people seems to only get a matter of opinion as well.

 

[partydoc]

Why are people obsessed with these numbers?

Rather than an absolute number ranking, try thinking of programs in tiers. There's about 5-10 programs everyone agrees are top in the country. Then about every 20 or so programs are in tiers. With a bottom few programs rounding out the list.

You can use the search function and get a general idea of the list. Also ask around and you will get an idea where a program falls.

 

[urge]

If doximity is garbage what is an accurate representation of rankings? Asking people seems to only get a matter of opinion as well.

There is no accurate way. It's not a boxing match where you can pit one against the other.

Either go by name recognition, NIH grants, or clinical volume numbers.

I would say go for the one that matches your personality. Those who don't fit personality wise have a horrible time in residency regardless of their true clinical performance. Bad evaluations pop out of nowhere regardless of the clinical performance of those who don't fit. And vice versa fit those with the right personality. Regardless of how bad they are, good evaluations keep coming.

PS: Don't go to a clinical program expecting to come out a NIH researcher, and don't go to a research oriented program expecting to be a clinical beast. As far as I can tell, they are mutually exclusive.

 

[repititionition]

There is no accurate way. It's not a boxing match where you can pit one against the other.

Either go by name recognition, NIH grants, or clinical volume numbers.

I would say go for the one that matches your personality. Those who don't fit personality wise have a horrible time in residency regardless of their true clinical performance. Bad evaluations pop out of nowhere regardless of the clinical performance of those who don't fit. And vice versa fit those with the right personality. Regardless of how bad they are, good evaluations keep coming.

PS: Don't go to a clinical program expecting to come out a NIH researcher, and don't go to a research oriented program expecting to be a clinical beast. As far as I can tell, they are mutually exclusive.

What are some great clinical programs (since it's easy to figure out who the research powerhouses are)?

 

[Folken]

What are some great clinical programs (since it's easy to figure out who the research powerhouses are)?

Well, every non-research powerhouse program will claim to have great clinical training. Think about it - if you can't hang your hat on either great research or clinical training, what is there to boast about?

I mean, I guess programs in highly desirable locations can claim that?

 

[repititionition]

Well, every non-research powerhouse program will claim to have great clinical training. Think about it - if you can't hang your hat on either great research or clinical training, what is there to boast about?

I mean, I guess programs in highly desirable locations can claim that?

Of course they will!

The "prestige" questions are frequent (and ridiculous), but I'm wondering if the board has a sense of what programs those of us not destined for K grants should be thinking about but might be overlooking (and yes, I know that this is going to be regional, but let's start broad).

 

[Psai]

It's interesting how some of the top programs on doximity didn't even fill their class in the past few years