drewdog1973
Full Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Why not set up a substack like that?
-
Practice your interview with the new SDN AI Interview Coach. Choose a school, answer by voice or typing, and receive a personalized feedback report. Available now to all SDN members. Try the AI Interview Coach.
Programs that could be candidates for contracting/closing
Started by evilbooyaa
Maybe if your program doesn’t get enough likes over a 4 year period that could trigger an investigation that results in closure.
lol.
maybe some programs are absolutely drowning in qualified, interested applicants but most.... are not.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
That reads as “there aren’t enough applicants and they now have options. We REALLY don’t want to waste our time interviewing people interested in better programs than us.”
We went from being Amazon to a pawn shop in 5 years.
Pawn shops are legit businesses. I’m afraid the truth is closer to a yard sale ☹️
Porcupine87
New Member
UK has 6 faculty, this is not updated on the website you linked to. I informed the people who are in charge of the website
Porcupine87
New Member
UK has 6 faculty, this website is not up to date. I’m working on contacting those in marketing
Sure but it is still a bottom tier program with almost no chance of future employment for incoming residents. Inform marketing.
Last edited:
Still doesn't mean program is needed or exceptional in training
D
deleted941485
Example 4 is a poor excuse for a program. had a friend interview there for a fake academic job with zero academic time and tenure review job covering 2 sites and building a proton center. And the offer was laughable like in <20%ile.
That original comment that you responded to was posted in early March of 2020. Way to be on top of it UK!
A lot of these hellpit places have “not yet updated” websites. See a pattern here? This is often reflective of a place where people are incompetent, uncaring, too old, you are not a priority. You will get the same treatment as a resident or faculty. Pay attention to small details and effort put into detail. It often reflects A LOT; i cannot repeat this enough. I don’t think applicants really have an appreciation of what is important until it is too late. You’re in the hellpit. Congrats. Good luck to you. Have fun in the breadline.
maybe you should have paid attention to that dingy website which was not updated. Now you are in a place with minimal teaching and research opportunities, and career advancement and nobody cares about your success. And yeah your chair thinks there is “no evidence” the job market is bad. All is good. In the words of David Pumpkins, “any questions!!!?”
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
At least they have been honest this year during the interview process telling applicants they need someone with coding skills to maintain the website.
Name and shame!
Mediocre program, not good or bad. Very unlikely to land a job in 5 years. Sweet billing.
Programs with official issues, per the ACGME/RRC:
Harvard: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.
South Carolina: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2020.
Stony Brook: Initial Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2019.
SUNY Downstate: Probationary Accreditation effective 04/28/2020.
Texas A and M: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.
UC Irvine: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.
Oklahoma: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.
Tennessee: Initial Accreditation with Warning effective 04/28/2020.
UT San Antonio: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2020.
West Virginia: Initial Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2020.
apps.acgme.org
Harvard: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.
South Carolina: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2020.
Stony Brook: Initial Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2019.
SUNY Downstate: Probationary Accreditation effective 04/28/2020.
Texas A and M: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.
UC Irvine: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.
Oklahoma: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.
Tennessee: Initial Accreditation with Warning effective 04/28/2020.
UT San Antonio: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2020.
West Virginia: Initial Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2020.
ACGME - Accreditation Data System (ADS)
Joint center/harvard... Wow
Texas a and m? Forgot that pos existed?
Last edited:
Look at hellpit list in other thread. I did’t forget!!
Hahhvahd's probably on that list for shamelessly taking their own med students all the time LOL #elitism
Hard to believe that dumpster fires like Baylor, NY Methodist, Allegheny, LIJ, and such are not on that list
the Cornell example showed residents have to answer ACGME survey honestly if they want change.
unfortunately, there is so much pressure on residents not to report on ACGME due to power imbalance
this is particularly strong as smaller programs where there is no “strength in numbers”
lot of programs “coach” there residents to respond a certain way
some pull the internal survey card where you can answer honestly and program promises to make changes
ifs interesting that if you look at when programs are shut down, the residents typically end up at much “better programs” than where they were
but it’s still such a drastic shift in ones life (esp with working spouse, kids, family concerns etc)
takes a lot of courage to those that speak up. Lot of respect to Cornell residents speaking up recently though wish they never went it
UTMB and Baylor couldn't hog all the hellpit cards....
the bar with ACGME is stupid low. Its just how it is. They need to do enough to maintain the appearance of credibility but not much more.
"If you answer negatively, you're really just hurting yourself" - my Program Director re: the 2021 survey
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
this.
This is incredibly common in hellpit places. Residents are scared, vulnerable, not united in numbers. Easy to make everyone anxious and just lie and get out of hellpit at graduation.
institutional GMEs are also basically scams to protect the institution and the bottomline.
our PDs must have attended the same "how to avoid ACGME problems in terrible residency programs" seminar, because we've gotten fed the same line every year
acgme probably wanted to make a statement to avoid being accused of picking on just the gutter programs.
That's really, really unfortunate and this crap needs to be exposed.
Anyone who is reading this, if your PD or any faculty has the above opinion or makes you feel that the institutional survey is not a place to be negative, feel free to PM me your institution anonymously and I'm happy to put together a list. I am looking for direct responses from current attendings, not "I heard that X institution was doing this" from the rumor mill/peanut gallery.
OK with doing it for recent graduates as well, say within the past 3 years (especially if PD has been maintained). Beyond that it may not be as accurate.
The big guns are reading SDN now and there have been a lot of call-outs here, and it's time to start taking action (IMO) on the next steps in the process, about resident suppression.
I fully agree. Can't give this enough likes. This kind of behavior is abusive. Its the academic equivalent of telling an abused wife she shouldn't turn her abusive husband into the cops because of all the supposed ways it will make her life harder. It shouldn't be tolerated. Just, yuck.
Thanks for posting that list. I wonder if there is a way to get details on reasons for "Warning"?
Programs with official issues, per the ACGME/RRC:
Harvard: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.
South Carolina: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2020.
Stony Brook: Initial Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2019.
SUNY Downstate: Probationary Accreditation effective 04/28/2020.
Texas A and M: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.
UC Irvine: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.
Oklahoma: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.
Tennessee: Initial Accreditation with Warning effective 04/28/2020.
UT San Antonio: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2020.
West Virginia: Initial Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2020.
ACGME - Accreditation Data System (ADS)
D
deleted941485
Yeah good luck prying that out of anyone or finding it on the Internet.
for anybody wondering jeez i wonder why this one hellpit place i constantly hear about always matches and is never on probation, the answer is people lie to applicants and embellish the survey. Also some of these programs are in “desirable” locations.
Last edited:
Anyone have info from the ADROP meeting? Heard rumors that mandatory increase in case and main site faculty minimums are being called for as well as a need for a certain number of Onc related specialties at main site.
Smaller/community programs look out
Smaller/community programs look out
If you don't have ALL OF: neurosurg, uro, H&N surg, breast surg, thoracic surg, hepatobiliary, MSK surgery, GYN onc, and colorectal surgery on-site, your system should not have a radiation oncology program. period.
It honestly never even crossed my mind that there are programs out there that DON'T have this. Aren't those like...absolute core disciplines at academic medical centers?
Especially Neurosurgery. We work so closely with that crew that even most of the attendings know who I am at this point, and I can't even say that about my own nurses!
drewdog1973
Full Member
Need 3 onc adjacent specialties or something like that, now
The more i think about it... If they increase the faculty to resident ratio to something like 1.3-1.5, it may actually hurt the biggest programs the most... Need 30 attendings for 20 residents etc
End result of these efforts is going to be better trained out of work/under employed radiation oncologists.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Don't catch the falling knife, Figure 1 from: Unfilled Positions in the 2021 Radiation Oncology Match
This number will (and should) continue to rise unless leadership acts to change the course i.e. cutting the number of spots, especially those programs that offer sub-par education. Medical students aren't dumb, they see the writing on the wall.
This number will (and should) continue to rise unless leadership acts to change the course i.e. cutting the number of spots, especially those programs that offer sub-par education. Medical students aren't dumb, they see the writing on the wall.
I think the proposal was to have TRAINING programs in those other specialties at the main site. I agree that there should be at least a service line for all those services at the main site. Whether it is staffed by residents/fellows vs attendings/PAs isn't as important IMHO.
The question is, does there need to be a neurosurg residency (and/or neuro-onc fellowship), urology residency (and/or uro-onc fellowship), ENT residency (and/or head and neck onc fellowship), breast fellowship, thoracic fellowship, HPB/surg onc fellowship, ortho onc fellowship, AND gyn onc fellowship offered at the main site? The 'proposal' was to have at least 3 'oncology adjacent' training programs (think it included med onc fellowship as an available option as well).
Gotcha. That makes sense.
From the RRC purposed rule changes:
1) "As part of our proposed revisions, we recommend that three or more of the following ACGME-accredited residency and/or fellowship training programs be active at the Sponsoring Institution and be directly involved in radiation oncology residency training at the primary clinical site: complex general surgical oncology; gynecologic oncology; hematology and medical oncology; hospice and palliative medicine; interventional radiology; micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology; musculoskeletal oncology; neurological surgery; otolaryngology - head and neck surgery; pediatric hematology/oncology, thoracic surgery; and urology."
Having just 3 of these is a really low bar. Should be 7 or more. At least this standard prevents private practice type places from opening residencies as has been seen in other specialties.
1) "As part of our proposed revisions, we recommend that three or more of the following ACGME-accredited residency and/or fellowship training programs be active at the Sponsoring Institution and be directly involved in radiation oncology residency training at the primary clinical site: complex general surgical oncology; gynecologic oncology; hematology and medical oncology; hospice and palliative medicine; interventional radiology; micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology; musculoskeletal oncology; neurological surgery; otolaryngology - head and neck surgery; pediatric hematology/oncology, thoracic surgery; and urology."
Having just 3 of these is a really low bar. Should be 7 or more. At least this standard prevents private practice type places from opening residencies as has been seen in other specialties.
Surely every current residency meets this requirement.
