malignant programs

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

MSfour

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I'm just starting 4th year and will be going into gas. Does anyone know *based on evidence*, not rumors, what mid-top tier programs are malignant (esp. West Coast programs). 2 types of malignancy: 1) the program is just plain weak in terms of teaching, quality of faculty, etc. or 2) the program is well-regarded academically but treats its residents like dogs**t. Thanks.

Members don't see this ad.
 
"1) the program is just plain weak in terms of teaching, quality of faculty, etc."

-USC comes to mind.

"the program is well-regarded academically but treats its residents like dogs**t"

UCLA and UCSF are two I've heard of that do not treat their residents too well. One guy I know of left one of them for a smaller-named school, and did very well on the job market anyway. I also think that UCI is supposed to be kinda rough on residents. On the other hand, the first two are world-class, and it's probably not a bad tradeoff overall. I'd look at them yourself, perhaps doing a rotation there.
 
From Scutwork.com and word of mouth it appears that residents get worked pretty hard at U. Washington, Johns Hopkins, UCSF, Mass General, Cornell, Brigham & Womens, and Columbia.

I've heard that Beth Israel Deaconess, UPenn, Mayo Clinic, Duke, and Stanford aren't as bad.

Bottom line though is that you're going to bust your hump at any of these top programs. Don't believe any program director that tells you otherwise.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
BID is a place I've heard great things about. Probably the best of the three Harvard programs from a happiness standpoint.
 
sean wilson said:
"the program is well-regarded academically but treats its residents like dogs**t"

UCLA and UCSF are two I've heard of that do not treat their residents too well. One guy I know of left one of them for a smaller-named school, and did very well on the job market anyway. I also think that UCI is supposed to be kinda rough on residents. On the other hand, the first two are world-class, and it's probably not a bad tradeoff overall. I'd look at them yourself, perhaps doing a rotation there.

That's absolutely ridiculous. I've done anesthesia electives at both UCLA and UCSF and I can tell you personally that both programs treat their residents extremely well and everyone is quite happy. I wish people would not perpetuate these kinds of rumors.

Thyroid Ablation
 
Glad you've been there in person, as I recommended that this person do, too. That does not change the fact, however, that people I've known have been in the program (UCSF) or been through as a resident and felt differently.
 
I see your point, but I'd like to think that after spending 4 weeks with residents in each program, and actively talking to them about their experiences, I would be able to identify if there was an mistreatment going on.

I was a UCLA medical student, and I can tell you from personal experience that the anesthesiology residents are probably the happiest housestaff in the entire hospital, perhaps second only to pediatrics. In fact, if you walk through the cafeteria during lunch hour, you will invariably see a group of 8-10 residents in scrubs laughing and joking around. I'll give you 1 guess as to which department they're from.

There are lots of impressionable people out there, and I think it's irresponsible to badmouth programs with vague generalizations like "i heard that XYZ residency mistreats their residents." If people with actual experience at a particular program wish to share their thoughts, that's a different story.
 
"I think it's irresponsible to badmouth programs with vague generalizations like "i heard that XYZ residency mistreats their residents."

The person who I roughly quoted was originally from UCSF, and he left for nicer, less prestigous program. I make that clear in my first statement, and, although it's admittedly only one person's opinion, it speaks volumes to me as he wound up chief resident at his new place and had great job offers upon completion. In other words, leaving was his choice, not theirs.

I do agree that it is best for one to visit and rotate through, as there will be many people one can speak with regarding the program in question.
 
VentdependenT said:
Agree with above. What you endure during your gas clerkship isn't even close to what resident life is.


This is absolutely true. Just because they *seem* happy to you, doesn't mean that they *are.* And, you may not know the internal dynamics of the residency program - even after *rotating* there for a few weeks. Medical students are protected...even at UCLA. BTW pediatrics at UCLA isn't all that "Disney" either. Maybe the residents in these programs appear happy at lunch - but to extrapolate that to their respective programs...is naive.
 
When I interviewed at BID the residents giving the tour were bragging about how they were at Harvard but didn't work hard at all. I thought they were jacka$$es and didn't rank the program highly.
 
Gaslady,

You still work HARD at BID. BID is good in that the hours are a bit better, the program does not abuse the residents (malignant programs), yet, for being an non-malignant program, it still has the Harvard name. People coming out of BID are excellent top-tier anesthesiologists....at the same time they had the time to read, spend time with their families, and not be tortured and abused having to fill cases from shortages in the number of attendings.
 
We see eye to eye on these points:

ThyroidAblation said:
Well at the same time, I'm not sure how the opinion of ONE resident who LEFT a program can somehow be considered an objective and useful source

Obviously, the best way to assess a program is to be a resident there yourself for 3 years.

there's a lot of bad information out there that gets perpetuated online, among peers, and on the interview trail. You will never have 100% resident satisfaction at ANY program. To take the clearly-biased opinion of one or two residents who LEFT (or were booted from) a program and believe that it is objective and representative, is silly.

Thyroid Ablation


These statements I don't fully agree with.

ThyroidAblation said:
I think it's farcical to believe that an intelligent med student can spend 4 weeks on a rotation and NOT uncover the presence of mistreatment or "mailgnancy."

Unhappy residents are easy to spot - they complain, they hate being there, you can see it in their faces, they have nothing nice to say about the program, they can't wait to leave, etc. These residents have nothing to lose by telling you "not to come here," especially the CA-2's and CA-3's who will be gone by the time you show up as a CA-1.

there's absolutely NO WAY they can "shelter" you unless all you do is sit in your assigned room all day until it's time to go home.

And finally, to then prefer the statements rendered by 3rd party hearsay over an unbiased fellow medstudent (now intern) who has physically spent 4 weeks at a program (and isn't even going there next year) is nonsensical. Thyroid Ablation

True, you can't take one person's word...or even believe what you hear from one (or two) sources. However, medical student experience is frequently very different from that of the residents. And, yes, some programs are very good at sheltering "outsiders" from all the "problems" with the program - a program that they are going to graduate from (and subsequently advertise on their CVs). Why would I want everyone to know my program is dysfunctional...if that's going to be what's perpetuated among my peers?

I do believe that residents at very malignant programs can appear "happy" at breaks and lunch. Just like residents at malignant programs can appear happy at their spouses birthday party, or at their parents anniversary dinner. Oh, how happy you are to get the hell outta that OR...and any moment you are able to "get away" is a slice of heaven in comparison. I'm sure I appeared happy at lunch...because I *was* happy...at lunch.

Residents absolutely have "something to lose" by telling you (or ACGME) the "truth" about a program. Absolutely they do.

It's not about "believing" one resident over a medstudent. It's about actual experience versus peripheral exposure. That's it. You don't know until you know...rotators, students, visitors, etc, don't know, like the residents *know.* That's the point.

Overall, I'm hearing you TA, and I agree. It's wrong to make generalizations on limited information (about anything or anyone, or any groups of people). But, the statements from (even a disgruntled) resident are...not to be universally dismissed - particularly by someone who doesn't *really* know. And I guess my argument is that medstudents don't really know - they don't know what it's like to be residents in a program.
 
I have a med school classmate who did his residency at UAB(in Birmingham) who told me that it was pretty malignant. Mainly it had to do with work hours. I have also heard that Duke's program is pretty tense. One of my old cardiac faculty told me that if pre- and post-op evals were not done on time, it would reflect on your evaluation to the point of suspension or termination from the program. Can anyone confirm this?
 
gaslady said:
When I interviewed at BID the residents giving the tour were bragging about how they were at Harvard but didn't work hard at all. I thought they were jacka$$es and didn't rank the program highly.
***************************************


gaslady-

i should first reveal my bias that i will be doing residency at BID.

coud you please reveal more about why you thought they were jackasses? your use of the dollar signs makes me think you disaproved of their desire to maximize their income. based on their department newsletter, half of the residents, either directly or after fellowships, go into academics. were you turned off by the fact that they thought they did not have to work hard?

certainly one of the things that stod out to me the most regarding perspectives on the program is that one tends to associate the harvard status with a need to work more than average, and BID seems to be an exception in that it contradicts this theme. i was attracted to this idea, that you could train in new england but sti get good jobs in random places in the country b/c they've heard of the name. i would like to think that the residents there try to convey that as one of the positives about the program to prospectives on the tour...did you get the sense that this was not the case, and that they were simply trying to build their egos? maybe they changed tact before i got there. i felt confident in the experience i would have there because of they do better on the boards/inservices than the other boston hospitals and get good fellowships/jobs.

i read that you thought UPenn and Duke are great places to train, and i certainly agree. i'm concerned that maybe i missed something about BID that made you rank it so low?

thanks so mch in advance for your opinion! see you at an ASA meeting!

-joshmir
 
joshmir said:
coud you please reveal more about why you thought they were jackasses? your use of the dollar signs makes me think you disaproved of their desire to maximize their income.

Could be that she simply thought that she needed to u$e dollar $ign$ to sneak the word jacka$$ around the SDN auto-censor. You may be reading too much into that.

Also, you guys are getting to do your training at Beth Israel and Duke and Stanford and USC and UCLA and UCSF... I'm a U.S.-IMG that will be happy - no ecstatic - to get into a mid-tier program. I'm working my a$$ off right now trying to get good LoRs, networking, etc. to get a program somewhere. You're going to do just fine at BID when you finish your CBY. Don't sweat it so much.

An associate director once told me this: "The program that you get into and do your training is the best program, at least for you." It is true. At the end, provided you are board eligible, that's all that matters. If you really have your heart set on a top-notch fellowship, it may matter. But, a lot of attendings I've interacted with are "plain" anesthesiologists, and they are doing pain management, peds, cardio, etc. Their opinion is that fellowships are butter on the toast, and not really that necessary to do what you want and make $$$ (if that's your goal)... at least for now.

Just my $0.02. Good luck at BID.

-Skip
 
My use of the $$ had nothing to do with money. The personalities I met during the interview didn't impress me. It may have been an off interview day for them, but it was too much of a risk so I put them low on my list.

Joshmir, I'll send you a PM with more specifics.
 
HomerSimpson said:
I have a med school classmate who did his residency at UAB(in Birmingham) who told me that it was pretty malignant. Mainly it had to do with work hours. I have also heard that Duke's program is pretty tense. One of my old cardiac faculty told me that if pre- and post-op evals were not done on time, it would reflect on your evaluation to the point of suspension or termination from the program. Can anyone confirm this?

Duke may have been that way at one time (I don't really know) but there are no threats of suspension or termination for pre and postops. I guess if you call a new fridge and beverage bar in the office and sectional leather couch and plasma screen TV in the lounge tense, then Duke is tense.

Duke recently developed an online checklist for postop checks that is available from any computer in the hospital or via a secure connection from home, or from the wireless iPAQ issued to all residents. Postops need to be done within 48 hours unless the patient is discharged before then. Postops on weekends from Friday cases are covered by the weekend call team. Recently, it was brought to the residents' attention that the postops on the weekends weren't consistently being done. The administration allowed the residents to deal with the situation and the call coverage was voted upon by the residents. Postops from cases done by CRNAs are done by CRNAs. Rarely, a resident will go to do a postop and find that a CRNAs already did it, because a CRNA was in for part of the case.

At Duke, preops from patients coming from home are done in the preop screening clinic. These evaluations are very complete. Preops for inpatients are done by the person who is assigned that room for the next day. Occasionally the schedule will change in the evening after the resident looks at their schedule and has gone home for the day, with an inpatient added. A decent amount of the time, those are inpatients who are rescheduled and their preop is already done. Other times you look up some info from home and just fit in the paperwork before surgery. CA-1s tend to have a majority of same day admissions, whereas CA-2s have more inpatients because they are doing subspecialty rotations where the patients are sicker.

If someone consistently wasn't doing their work with either I think it would negatively impact your evaluation at any program. It's irresponsbile and unprofessional to do an anesthetic on a patient that you're responsible for preoping without either doing the preop or having someone else do it and reviewing that info.
A simple example of this would be a patient who had a significant history of postop nausea and vomiting. You don't do the preop or review the info, so you don't give any prophylaxis. Postop the patient has horrible N/V that isn't responsive to zofran and requires multiple agents. Basically that patient is suffering because you didn't do your work. If they were supposed to go home afterwards, now they will be admitted because they can't hold anything down.
Another example would be a patient who had a history of difficult intubation that you don't know about because you didn't review their old OR records. You put them off to sleep are able to ventilate, but can't intubate them. Eventually they are intubated after multiple attempts and postop have significant sore throat, hoarseness that take weeks to go away or may even be permanent. Or even worse you can't ventilate or intubate them and they have an emergency cricothyroidotomy. If you had done your work and reviewed their records you might have elected to do an awake fiberoptic from the beginning and none of that would have happened. The attendings will review the patient's history, but they run more than one room and rely on the residents to know their patients.

I could go on and on with examples, but the point is clear. The ramifications of not doing preops goes much further than potential discipline by your program. It speaks of your professionalism as a physician and is essential to ensure patient safety. In addition, the ACGME has now added professionalism to one of the core competencies that residents (all fields) are required to be evaluated on. In addition, when you are looking for jobs what is your program going to say in it's recommendations for you if you consistently didn't do your postop checks and had incomplete or missing preops?? Are they going to lie and risk having their reputation diminished when they have no reason to think that your behavior will change after graduation? Probably not!

There may be differences between how programs handle pre and postops. This may factor into workload and hours and would be something good to ask about on interview. But be wary of any program where postops aren't getting done, because this can threaten the programs accreditation.
 
Top