The First DO-specific NRMP Charting Outcome!

[AlteredScale]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

There is a world ( Presumably life too) outside of IM, MT.

I think he discusses it because a lot of information regarding match lists, "broken ceilings", and "making new ground" is misconstrued especially when it comes to analyzing where DOs match into IM. I've been looking at them for the past three something years and seriously every time you'll only find a handful matching (from "top DO schools") into academic IM whereas even MD schools far out of top 25 or 50 for that matter will consistent place their students into academic medical centers for IM with ease meaning most of the IM matches are academic.

Beyond that, there's much to be had with regards to keeping the reality of going DO upfront. It


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[AlteredScale]

I'm inclined to agree. The numbers really aren't that far off once you actually get to the match.

However, the people who start at a DO school are statistically much more likely to get to the match than Carib students because the school's accreditation actually depends on it. DO is actually a viable, sane alternative (provided you don't want a surgical subspecialty) as opposed to the Carib which is basically a gamble. Fact is, DO is the most practical choice for non-trads/people who don't want to postpone years of attending salary or accrue MORE debt in the form of SMPs. Again, provided these same people are sure they don't want a competitive specialty.

Who's better off? The guy who got into an MD program after multiple failed cycles, is 300k in debt thanks to an SMP, and is now doing a PMR residency, or the guy who got in the first time, has less debt, and is doing PMR at the same place, only with DO behind his name?

300K for an SMP?!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I think he discusses it because a lot of information regarding match lists, "broken ceilings", and "making new ground" is misconstrued especially when it comes to analyzing where DOs match into IM. I've been looking at them for the past three something years and seriously every time you'll only find a handful matching (from "top DO schools") into academic IM whereas even MD schools far out of top 25 or 50 for that matter will consistent place their students into academic medical centers for IM with ease meaning most of the IM matches are academic.

Beyond that, there's much to be had with regards to keeping the reality of going DO upfront. It


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

If half the people in our class had a 240 we would probably see significantly better matches too. I think denying that DOs who want it do make it into high places is just as disingenuous as believing that a DO with a 200 is going to match mid tier IM.

As much as you want to acknowledge him, you have to also spend sometime admitting that his way of looking at things is in its own way extremely insular. Which was the point of my post, btw.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

300K for an SMP?!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I imagine 100k + 200k for medical school.

There are some people who did SMP at good programs in our class too. Needless to say what DO schools do right is offer redemption.

 

[IslandStyle808]

I have quite purposefully stayed out of this thread because the charting outcomes data, as a few have pointed out, are pretty useless and unenlightening however i've now been mentioned in about half a dozen posts and there is one falsehood quoted above that needs to be corrected.

I have indeed stated that IMGs and DOs have similar match outcomes. The PD survey and the match lists of all DO schools support this.

Often DOs will quote that 72% of PDs will consider DOs and just leave it at that completely out of context. To put it in context that same number is 98% for US MDs and 64% from US IMGs. Now I'm no math genius but 72% seems a heck of a lot closer to 64% than it is to 98% (8% difference vs 26% difference). When you parse the numbers out even further you see that they're actually even more similar. When broken down you find that those programs that say they interview DOs "often" or "seldom" adds up to 86%. Which incidentally is the exact same for US IMGs. It's 98% for US MDs with 95% in the "often" category vs. only 52% for DOs. It's true that DOs have an edge in the "often category on IMGs by about 20% but are still 33% behind US MDs. So yes the numbers for DOs in the PD survey are clearly a lot closer to those of US IMGs than US MDs.

Rank lists are admittedly nuanced but if you look at IM you'll see that the programs that DOs match into (small community programs in undesirable locations) are almost identical to those on Caribbean match lists whereas at US MD schools the majority of programs are university teaching hospitals.

Source: @Goro posted a screenshot of the charts here http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...they-think-of-do-grads-just-ask-them.1223016/

So the actual match rates of first desired specialities don't matter in your mind either. I'll give a few examples: Anesthesia (USMD 97%, DO 89% and US IMG 72%), Radiology (USMD 98%, DO 90%, US IMG 64%), Internal Medicine (USMD 98%, DO 87%, US IMG 52%), Pediatrics (USMD 97%, DO 90%, IMG 55%), and PM&R (USMD 89%, DO 77%, IMG 43%). I'm no math genius either, but I do believe those match rates for first desired specialty are closer to the MD numbers than IMG numbers. And yes 8% is a rather significant difference, but again there are differences depending on field. For instance, even in PM&R US DO are pretty much dead even with US MD in the "often ranked" category.

I also check the ranking lists made in the specialities forms and the tiers that DOs match in vary. Just because DO match at most to mid tier programs in IM, doesn't mean this is the same for PM&R, Anesthesia, Peds, or other specialities (it could be higher or could be lower). While I usually agree with your post, but what I would like to see in your posts is more acknowledgement of these nuances.

 

[IslandStyle808]

I think he discusses it because a lot of information regarding match lists, "broken ceilings", and "making new ground" is misconstrued especially when it comes to analyzing where DOs match into IM. I've been looking at them for the past three something years and seriously every time you'll only find a handful matching (from "top DO schools") into academic IM whereas even MD schools far out of top 25 or 50 for that matter will consistent place their students into academic medical centers for IM with ease meaning most of the IM matches are academic.

Beyond that, there's much to be had with regards to keeping the reality of going DO upfront. It


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I highly suggest looking at the tiers in the specialties forums. MT makes these conclusions based of what he know which is IM, and one cannot make conclusions of the entire DO matching process based off of that one field. We match into the top tier in PM&R. We match into the upper-mid tier in Anesthesia, Peds, and Pathology. We barely match into the Rad Onc, Derm, Plastic Surgery, etc. Our matching potential is definitely different depending on the field. Our matching potential is still better than IMGs and FMGs in general, it is important to acknowledge this also.

 

[AlteredScale]

I highly suggest looking at the tiers in the specialties forums. MT makes these conclusions based of what he know which is IM, and one cannot make conclusions of the entire DO matching process based off of that one field. We match into the top tier in PM&R. We match into the upper-mid tier in Anesthesia, Peds, and Pathology. We barely match into the Rad Onc, Derm, Plastic Surgery, etc. Our matching potential is definitely different depending on the field. Our matching potential is still better than IMGs and FMGs in general, it is important to acknowledge this also.

I totally understand your point IS 🙂 I think in efforts to see the fact that DOs definitely have a HUGE hurdle to jump it's important to see a specialty such as IM where one doesn't usually need a 240 or 250 to match into a decent place. To me what is interesting is that I've seen MD students with 210-220 match into a midterm university IM program that would be unlikely for a DO student with even a 240 to have a shot in. Outside of the md student having better LORs or research or stronger clinical training third year, I still believe there's still a preference for MDs over DOs in some programs. I think that disparity is so achingly apparent in match lists whereas seeing PM&R matches UChicago MC or Yale or MGH makes it easy to draw or jump to conclusions.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[AlteredScale]

If half the people in our class had a 240 we would probably see significantly better matches too. I think denying that DOs who want it do make it into high places is just as disingenuous as believing that a DO with a 200 is going to match mid tier IM.

As much as you want to acknowledge him, you have to also spend sometime admitting that his way of looking at things is in its own way extremely insular. Which was the point of my post, btw.

Totally understand. I think however (and this is what I said above) is that there is a drastic difference to the access of IM programs between an MD and DO student both with a 240. Even with a 250 a DO student would still not be considered for IM programs at a large swatch of locations that would normally match an MD student with a 230-240 with a decent CV. In general surgery or any surgery you better be absolutely killing and even then, matching university surgical res is extremely hard to do.

And yes I understand not everyone wants to go to a university IM program or do surgery but it's the charade of "this person matched xyz a Columbia University" that sometimes makes it seem that as a DO you essentially won't make life extremely hard in terms of matching to strong academic residencies in preferentially nice cities/states.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Totally understand. I think however (and this is what I said above) is that there is a drastic difference to the access of IM programs between an MD and DO student both with a 240. Even with a 250 a DO student would still not be considered for IM programs at a large swatch of locations that would normally match an MD student with a 230-240 with a decent CV. In general surgery or any surgery you better be absolutely killing and even then, matching university surgical res is extremely hard to do.

And yes I understand not everyone wants to go to a university IM program or do surgery but it's the charade of "this person matched xyz a Columbia University" that sometimes makes it seem that as a DO you essentially won't make life extremely hard in terms of matching to strong academic residencies in preferentially nice cities/states.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

True, you won't be matching a high tier place. But with a 230-240 as a DO you'll match a mid-tier program in the MW. And again, you're being pedantic, simply acknowledging that the pathway is begin opened up by minor DO incursion into the vault of MD only residencies is totally fair, no one is saying it's equal or easy. But likewise as I mentioned with the vast majority of DO students under a 230 I'm not sure how relevant the discussion is either.

 

[hallowmann]

You guys have done a good job at pointing out why some posters arguments are really quite skewed, selective, and generally fail to show the big picture. You've also pointed out rightfully so that no DOs are claiming that DO discrimination doesn't exist. There may be some saying its less than it was, which honestly I don't believe can be argued against given the ever increasing presence of DOs in some top (or rather "top" for a DO) programs and the increasing NRMP DO match rate for the past multiple years.

One thing that I believe should also be pointed out is that US IMGs constitute practically double the number of DOs in the NRMP match. Total IMGs (US and non-US) constitute 3 times as many active applicants as DOs in the NRMP match. With numbers like that, there will almost always be a large portion of programs that "consider" IMGs but not DOs by virtue of actually seeing IMG and and not DO applicants in the cycle.

As has been pointed out, its ludicrous to suggest that matching for DOs is much closer to IMGs than it is for MDs when you only look at one data point (i.e. the specific programs - not even specialty just specific programs - that they match into). In order to make that claim, you have to ignore the huge difference in match and placement rates of DOs and US IMGs. DO seniors match in the NRMP match at a rate of at most 8% below that of US MD seniors, and when considering all applicants (seniors and graduates) its only 10% lower than US MDs. Compare that to the US IMGs whose combined match rate is about 35% lower than that of US MDs. Then we have overall placement rates which are practically the same for US MDs and DOs.

Forget the fact that in many non-surgical specialties DOs do even better than those overall stats (e.g. EM, Anesthesia, Rads, PM&R, etc.)

 

[Jinxapotato]

You guys have done a good job at pointing out why some posters arguments are really quite skewed, selective, and generally fail to show the big picture. You've also pointed out rightfully so that no DOs are claiming that DO discrimination doesn't exist. There may be some saying its less than it was, which honestly I don't believe can be argued against given the ever increasing presence of DOs in some top (or rather "top" for a DO) programs and the increasing NRMP DO match rate for the past multiple years.

One thing that I believe should also be pointed out is that US IMGs constitute practically double the number of DOs in the NRMP match. Total IMGs (US and non-US) constitute 3 times as many active applicants as DOs in the NRMP match. With numbers like that, there will almost always be a large portion of programs that "consider" IMGs but not DOs by virtue of actually seeing IMG and and not DO applicants in the cycle.

As has been pointed out, its ludicrous to suggest that matching for DOs is much closer to IMGs than it is for MDs when you only look at one data point (i.e. the specific programs - not even specialty just specific programs - that they match into). In order to make that claim, you have to ignore the huge difference in match and placement rates of DOs and US IMGs. DO seniors match in the NRMP match at a rate of at most 8% below that of US MD seniors, and when considering all applicants (seniors and graduates) its only 10% lower than US MDs. Compare that to the US IMGs whose combined match rate is about 35% lower than that of US MDs. Then we have overall placement rates which are practically the same for US MDs and DOs.

Forget the fact that in many non-surgical specialties DOs do even better than those overall stats (e.g. EM, Anesthesia, Rads, PM&R, etc.)

In addition, it isn't unlikely that those IMG who made it to match only constitutes 50% of the original class, whereas it is rare for any established DO schools to loose 10% of their class...
When people ask if they should do DO, my response is always: you will be come a physician, but note that your field of practice will be limited compared to MD. I can't say that when people ask about Carrib...

 

[deleted564680]

I have quite purposefully stayed out of this thread because the charting outcomes data, as a few have pointed out, are pretty useless and unenlightening however i've now been mentioned in about half a dozen posts and there is one falsehood quoted above that needs to be corrected.

I have indeed stated that IMGs and DOs have similar match outcomes. The PD survey and the match lists of all DO schools support this.

Often DOs will quote that 72% of PDs will consider DOs and just leave it at that completely out of context. To put it in context that same number is 98% for US MDs and 64% from US IMGs. Now I'm no math genius but 72% seems a heck of a lot closer to 64% than it is to 98% (8% difference vs 26% difference). When you parse the numbers out even further you see that they're actually even more similar. When broken down you find that those programs that say they interview DOs "often" or "seldom" adds up to 86%. Which incidentally is the exact same for US IMGs. It's 98% for US MDs with 95% in the "often" category vs. only 52% for DOs. It's true that DOs have an edge in the "often category on IMGs by about 20% but are still 33% behind US MDs. So yes the numbers for DOs in the PD survey are clearly a lot closer to those of US IMGs than US MDs.

Rank lists are admittedly nuanced but if you look at IM you'll see that the programs that DOs match into (small community programs in undesirable locations) are almost identical to those on Caribbean match lists whereas at US MD schools the majority of programs are university teaching hospitals.

Source: @Goro posted a screenshot of the charts here http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...they-think-of-do-grads-just-ask-them.1223016/

Definitely accurate. I just want to add that there is a regional skew/bias. The Northeast (which is home to a disproportionate amount of spots/residencies) tends to be more IMG > DO or at least more IMG friendly than the rest of the country. If you're a DO and want to be at a place outside of the NE then your chances are must better/higher as those areas tend to be DO >> IMG.

 

[235009]

There is a world ( Presumably life too) outside of IM, MT.

Unlike a lot of people on SDN I prefer to focus on what I know which also happens to be the second most common specialty that DOs match into (behind family medicine). It is the largest specialty with tons of variability in program and competitiveness. You guys oftentimes get wrapped up in "this one guy did this one awesome thing once" and miss the forest for the trees. Sure, people tend to do better in less competitive specialties (anethesia, PM&R, psych) but that's the case across the board and isn't unique to DOs. I totally 100% agree that going DO has been safer than Caribbean because DO schools tend to have lower attrition and backup residency programs. Whether that continues to be the case after the "merger" remains to be seen.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Unlike a lot of people on SDN I prefer to focus on what I know which also happens to be the second most common specialty that DOs match into (behind family medicine). It is the largest specialty with tons of variability in program and competitiveness. You guys oftentimes get wrapped up in "this one guy did this one awesome thing once" and miss the forest for the trees. Sure, people tend to do better in less competitive specialties (anethesia, PM&R, psych) but that's the case across the board and isn't unique to DOs. I totally 100% agree that going DO has been safer than Caribbean because DO schools tend to have lower attrition and backup residency programs. Whether that continues to be the case after the "merger" remains to be seen.

See, this is a reasonable post. If you'd post more like this you'd be borderline beloved.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

See, this is a reasonable post. If you'd post more like this you'd be borderline beloved.

I actually think he's gotten better as time has gone on. His posts have been much more reasonable and less inflammatory the past couple months and have been extremely helpful.

 

[Dr. Death]

Unlike a lot of people on SDN I prefer to focus on what I know which also happens to be the second most common specialty that DOs match into (behind family medicine). It is the largest specialty with tons of variability in program and competitiveness. You guys oftentimes get wrapped up in "this one guy did this one awesome thing once" and miss the forest for the trees. Sure, people tend to do better in less competitive specialties (anethesia, PM&R, psych) but that's the case across the board and isn't unique to DOs. I totally 100% agree that going DO has been safer than Caribbean because DO schools tend to have lower attrition and backup residency programs. Whether that continues to be the case after the "merger" remains to be seen.

I have a question for you, slightly off topic. Can you comment on the success and frequency of DOs getting IM fellowships? Not at top 20 programs but in the mid-lower end of the spectrum

 

[iwillnevergiveup]

Unlike a lot of people on SDN I prefer to focus on what I know which also happens to be the second most common specialty that DOs match into (behind family medicine). It is the largest specialty with tons of variability in program and competitiveness. You guys oftentimes get wrapped up in "this one guy did this one awesome thing once" and miss the forest for the trees. Sure, people tend to do better in less competitive specialties (anethesia, PM&R, psych) but that's the case across the board and isn't unique to DOs. I totally 100% agree that going DO has been safer than Caribbean because DO schools tend to have lower attrition and backup residency programs. Whether that continues to be the case after the "merger" remains to be seen.

Even after the merger, there is no way going IMG would become "safer" than going DO...this is not even a question..
What remains to be seen is how the dynamics will play out for DOs trying to specialize outside of primary care..
IF I had to venture a guess, it will probably just remain as we have today...We shall see.

 

[235009]

I actually think he's gotten better as time has gone on. His posts have been much more reasonable and less inflammatory the past couple months and have been extremely helpful.

Well nowadays there are a few other posters who back me up so it's easier

I have a question for you, slightly off topic. Can you comment on the success and frequency of DOs getting IM fellowships? Not at top 20 programs but in the mid-lower end of the spectrum

Well one of the top 3 criteria that fellowship PDs identify as being important in a candidate is going to a university residency program. Few DOs end up in those programs. There's also a wide range of competitiveness when it comes to fellowships. Cards or GI are very competitive while ID and renal can't find enough warm bodies to fill their spots.

Even after the merger, there is no way going IMG would become "safer" than going DO...this is not even a question..
What remains to be seen is how the dynamics will play out for DOs trying to specialize outside of primary care..
IF I had to venture a guess, it will probably just remain as we have today...We shall see.

Unsubstantiated black/white comments like really annoy me.
Fact is that the "merger" is going to get rid of all the DO protected residency programs which they rely on heavily to get their high match and placement rates. Unlike US MDs DOs aren't universally preferred by program directors and DO match and placement rates will almost certainly decline. to what extent remains to be seen but it certainly makes no sense to say that everything will remain the same when thousands of residency spots are no longer DO-only.

 

[Rekt]

..
Unsubstantiated black/white comments like really annoy me.
Fact is that the "merger" is going to get rid of all the DO protected residency programs which they rely on heavily to get their high match and placement rates. Unlike US MDs DOs aren't universally preferred by program directors and DO match and placement rates will almost certainly decline. to what extent remains to be seen but it certainly makes no sense to say that everything will remain the same when thousands of residency spots are no longer DO-only.

Anti-DO people keep saying this, but refuse to comment on where the spots are disappearing to. Sure, some residencies will close due to the merger, but not a significant amount. Do the rest of the spots just suddenly disappear? If MDs start matching into AOA legacy spots, what about the spots they would have taken in the normal ACGME match if the merger did not occur?It's hard to believe that MD students will flock to legacy AOA spots. Thus, it's more likely bottom tier MD students will get pushed to AOA legacy spots and bottom tier DO students will be forced into family practice. Unless you're inferring that IMGs are going to takeover legacy AOA residencies, then it's just purely a reallocation.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Well nowadays there are a few other posters who back me up so it's easier



Well one of the top 3 criteria that fellowship PDs identify as being important in a candidate is going to a university residency program. Few DOs end up in those programs. There's also a wide range of competitiveness when it comes to fellowships. Cards or GI are very competitive while ID and renal can't find enough warm bodies to fill their spots.



Unsubstantiated black/white comments like really annoy me.
Fact is that the "merger" is going to get rid of all the DO protected residency programs which they rely on heavily to get their high match and placement rates. Unlike US MDs DOs aren't universally preferred by program directors and DO match and placement rates will almost certainly decline. to what extent remains to be seen but it certainly makes no sense to say that everything will remain the same when thousands of residency spots are no longer DO-only.

As stated before I have my doubts that we will see significant reductions at once of DO match rates. Overtime sure, but until probably 2025 I think DOs will likely have at least a static match incidence. Beyond that I have no doubt we will probably see the progressive transformation of around 80%+ of DO programs into primary care focused schools.

Regarding competitive IM subspecialties and more as a question of interest. What do you consider actually legitimately accessible to DOs, lets say from lower tier university programs and 'communivesity' programs.

 

[235009]

Anti-DO people keep saying this, but refuse to comment on where the spots are disappearing to. Sure, some residencies will close due to the merger, but not a significant amount. Do the rest of the spots just suddenly disappear? If MDs start matching into AOA legacy spots, what about the spots they would have taken in the normal ACGME match if the merger did not occur?It's hard to believe that MD students will flock to legacy AOA spots. Thus, it's more likely bottom tier MD students will get pushed to AOA legacy spots and bottom tier DO students will be forced into family practice. Unless you're inferring that IMGs are going to takeover legacy AOA residencies, then it's just purely a reallocation.

I almost don't want to respond to you because you're implying i'm "anti-DO". What does that even mean? I'm just pro-reality and am way further in the process than you. I don't have any skin in the game. I've already made it.

Residencies will close. Any AOA residency that acted as a safety net to DOs who barely scraped by is going to be a significant and measurable loss because these folks won't be able to compete on the open market where there are IMGs and FMGs with better scores and applications. This isn't about US MDs.... DOs will be competing with the IMGs and FMGs who outnumber them and will be applying to all of those spots regardless of where they are. Those folks are inevitably going to end up on the rank lists and matching at these programs.

As stated before I have my doubts that we will see significant reductions at once of DO match rates. Overtime sure, but until probably 2025 I think DOs will likely have at least a static match incidence. Beyond that I have no doubt we will probably see the progressive transformation of around 80%+ of DO programs into primary care focused schools.

Regarding competitive IM subspecialties and more as a question of interest. What do you consider actually legitimately accessible to DOs, lets say from lower tier university programs and 'communivesity' programs.

Not sure why you randomly pick 2025. AOA programs that don't achieve initial ACGME accreditation or those who don't apply for it will have to stop taking residents immediately which means the safety net will be shrinking starting in the next couple of years.

DOs match in every IM subspecialty. There are NBME stats for the subspecialties that gives you the # of DOs matched into each one but there's no denominator. The numbers are quite small for cardiology and GI and get bigger as the competitiveness of the specialty wanes. As with residencies though there is a range of fellowship programs from top university programs all the way down to small community programs.

EDIT: http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Results-and-Data-SMS-2016_Final.pdf

 

[kenjixshadow]

Sure, some residencies will close due to the merger, but not a significant amount.

This is quite incorrect. Lots of programs are going to close b/c they are either not applying to pre-accreditation or applied but were denied by the RRC. In fact, lots of them aren't even applying for pre-accreditation by January 2017. They won't even be able to participate in AOA match for the next cycle. For an example, only 27 out of 61 AOA EM programs applied for accreditation. The rest have 4 months left.
https://apps.acgme.org/ads/Public/Reports/ReportRun?ReportId=18&CurrentYear=2016&SpecialtyId=10
https://www.osteopathic.org/inside-...Documents/Program deadline charts 3-18-16.pdf

 

[NurWollen]

This is quite incorrect. Lots of programs are going to close b/c they are either not applying to pre-accreditation or applied but were denied by the RRC. In fact, lots of them aren't even applying for pre-accreditation by January 2017. They won't even be able to participate in AOA match for the next cycle. For an example, only 27 out of 61 AOA EM programs applied for accreditation. The rest have 4 months left.
https://apps.acgme.org/ads/Public/Reports/ReportRun?ReportId=18&CurrentYear=2016&SpecialtyId=10
https://www.osteopathic.org/inside-...Documents/Program deadline charts 3-18-16.pdf

How can we see which programs have been denied accreditation by the RRC? Is there a list? Do programs listed as denied now have "continued pre-accreditation" status? Or were those programs told to make some changes and re-apply?

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile

 

[deleted245139]

This is quite incorrect. Lots of programs are going to close b/c they are either not applying to pre-accreditation or applied but were denied by the RRC. In fact, lots of them aren't even applying for pre-accreditation by January 2017. They won't even be able to participate in AOA match for the next cycle. For an example, only 27 out of 61 AOA EM programs applied for accreditation. The rest have 4 months left.
https://apps.acgme.org/ads/Public/Reports/ReportRun?ReportId=18&CurrentYear=2016&SpecialtyId=10
https://www.osteopathic.org/inside-aoa/single-gme-accreditation-system/Documents/Program deadline charts 3-18-16.pdf

To add to this, the reality of this process is that each specialty has a unique road to approval, some easier than others. If you are a smaller market surg program for example, some of the more unique pathology may not be there, you may lack the capital and physical resources to perform specific procedures, etc... You then are forced in to a position where you either forge a colaborative agreement with a nearby university center, or pony up the money for personnel and resources.... Not easy.

This will differ specialty to specialty. Some programs started forging relationships with larger centers pre-merger for this very reason (arnot hospital in Elmira NY with strong in Rochester for EM is a good example). Some subspecialties are going to bow out just due to logistics.

It's going to be interesting to see it all shake out.

 

[hallowmann]

How can we see which programs have been denied accreditation by the RRC? Is there a list? Do programs listed as denied now have "continued pre-accreditation" status? Or were those programs told to make some changes and re-apply?

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile

That's what a denial is. If they have "continued pre-accreditation" that means they were reviewed and asked to resubmit following certain changes. That's the whole point of the transition. Programs can resubmit as many times as they want. If programs have only minor issues, they are usually moved along and await a more thorough review/attain conditional initial accreditation. At least this is what I gathered from admins here.

The AOA only requires that programs apply by specific deadlines to participate in the AOA match and most drag their feet. I remember looking at one of the previous deadlines (before they extended it), and a ton of surgical programs applied literally the same week as the (previous) deadline.

 

[zero0]

This is quite incorrect. Lots of programs are going to close b/c they are either not applying to pre-accreditation or applied but were denied by the RRC. In fact, lots of them aren't even applying for pre-accreditation by January 2017. They won't even be able to participate in AOA match for the next cycle. For an example, only 27 out of 61 AOA EM programs applied for accreditation. The rest have 4 months left.
https://apps.acgme.org/ads/Public/Reports/ReportRun?ReportId=18&CurrentYear=2016&SpecialtyId=10
https://www.osteopathic.org/inside-aoa/single-gme-accreditation-system/Documents/Program deadline charts 3-18-16.pdf

I really wish we could reach a consensus on this because this is what's going to make or break us right here. How many of the programs that haven't applied yet have no intention of doing so? I imagine no one has the answer yet.

 

[Rekt]

This is quite incorrect. Lots of programs are going to close b/c they are either not applying to pre-accreditation or applied but were denied by the RRC. In fact, lots of them aren't even applying for pre-accreditation by January 2017. They won't even be able to participate in AOA match for the next cycle. For an example, only 27 out of 61 AOA EM programs applied for accreditation. The rest have 4 months left.
https://apps.acgme.org/ads/Public/Reports/ReportRun?ReportId=18&CurrentYear=2016&SpecialtyId=10
https://www.osteopathic.org/inside-aoa/single-gme-accreditation-system/Documents/Program deadline charts 3-18-16.pdf

...and then you take two seconds and stroll through the AOA list and look at the programs that haven't applied yet and they post the date they intend to apply. Your assumption that more than half the DO EM programs will close is beyond silly and of current is pointless speculation. Will some close? Yeah, most likely. Are 34 programs going to close? No.

 

[Brorthopedic]

Someone from each side of the argument tell Siri to set a reminder to follow up in three months. Let's for once actually see who's full of **** and who isn't.

 

[zero0]

...and then you take two seconds and stroll through the AOA list and look at the programs that haven't applied yet and they post the date they intend to apply. Your assumption that more than half the DO EM programs will close is beyond silly and of current is pointless speculation. Will some close? Yeah, most likely. Are 34 programs going to close? No.

Thing about those "applied/intended to apply" dates is a lot of them have already passed, but their ACGME accreditation status still reads "Has NOT yet applied for ACGME Accreditation"?

I'm not sure what to make of this. They weren't rejected, otherwise it would say "pre-accreditation." I assume it means their application is still being processed, but some of these dates are several months in the past. Could it be that they said they'd apply, but after closer examination decided there's no way they can meet the requirements and just never bothered turning in an application?

For ex: http://opportunities.osteopathic.or...program_id=350041&hosp_id=350040&returnPage=1

 

[Doctor_Strange]

Everyone still agrees that DO > US-IMG by a far margin though, right?

Gotta say, as someone who will be graduating in 2021, reading this thread really makes me concerned for the options out there for specialities. Most of the discussion points and counterpoints appear reasonable and rational, so I am still uncertain where the truth is--I still cannot determine if the net effect of the merger will be none, negative, or positive for future DOs (acknowledging it varies by speciality). Sure, derm, ortho and the like will remain out of reach, but EM, gen surg, and other mid tier specialities I hope are still attainable. Perhaps being from the South has skewed my perception, but I really thought being a DO was far and away a better path than going to, for example, SGU if a person--like myself--has interest in EM or Gen Surg...

I guess I better start networking right away!

 

[Dr. Death]

Everyone still agrees that DO > US-IMG by a far margin though, right?

Gotta say, as someone who will be graduating in 2021, reading this thread really makes me concerned for the options out there for specialities. Most of the discussion points and counterpoints appear reasonable and rational, so I am still uncertain where the truth is--I still cannot determine if the net effect of the merger will be none, negative, or positive for future DOs (acknowledging it varies by speciality). Sure, derm, ortho and the like will remain out of reach, but EM, gen surg, and other mid tier specialities I hope are still attainable. Perhaps being from the South has skewed my perception, but I really thought being a DO was far and away a better path than going to, for example, SGU if a person--like myself--has interest in EM or Gen Surg...

I guess I better start networking right away!

Solution. Be better than your classmates. If you can't work your way into the top 20% of your class and do well on boards then you don't deserve an EM or gen surg spot anyway

 

[TheaterOfTheme]

Someone from each side of the argument tell Siri to set a reminder to follow up in three months. Let's for once actually see who's full of **** and who isn't.

No kidding. It would be great to have a follow up. Looks like EM will be one of the first specialties to show us what this merger is really made of.

As a potential graduate of 2021 I echo similar concerns as others. It would be really nice to know how the state the merger will affect us asap. I personally don't have interest in anything uber competitive (except maybe derm), and I understand completely that DOs naturally have a disadvantage in these fields. It makes sense that academically focused fields prefer those from research university programs. However, I truly hope everything else stays attainable.

Hell, even the charting the outcomes data isn't that useful sense there are too many variables to demonstrate whether the ACGME matches of now will be the same way for DOs in the future. I can honestly see arguments for t getting better or worse.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

No kidding. It would be great to have a follow up. Looks like EM will be one of the first specialties to show us what this merger is really made of.

As a potential graduate of 2021 I echo similar concerns as others. It would be really nice to know how the state the merger will affect us asap. I personally don't want anything uber competitive (except maybe derm), but I truly hope everything else stays attainable.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I actually think Derm will stay the same. Only a handful of people matched ACGME Derm to begin with so merger or no merger you had better be a superstar.

 

[TheaterOfTheme]

I actually think Derm will stay the same. Only a handful of people matched ACGME Derm to begin with so merger or no merger you had better be a superstar.

I agree. Edited the post for clarity.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[235009]

Everyone still agrees that DO > US-IMG by a far margin though, right?

Gotta say, as someone who will be graduating in 2021, reading this thread really makes me concerned for the options out there for specialities. Most of the discussion points and counterpoints appear reasonable and rational, so I am still uncertain where the truth is--I still cannot determine if the net effect of the merger will be none, negative, or positive for future DOs (acknowledging it varies by speciality). Sure, derm, ortho and the like will remain out of reach, but EM, gen surg, and other mid tier specialities I hope are still attainable. Perhaps being from the South has skewed my perception, but I really thought being a DO was far and away a better path than going to, for example, SGU if a person--like myself--has interest in EM or Gen Surg...

I guess I better start networking right away!

Yes we do all agree that DO > Caribbean schools. My argument is that you'll probably end up at a similar residency program coming from either but, at this point, your chances of success are much higher coming from a DO school.

Solution. Be better than your classmates. If you can't work your way into the top 20% of your class and do well on boards then you don't deserve an EM or gen surg spot anyway

Something that's really easy to type nonchalantly on an online forum but in practice is extremely difficult to do. I don't think I've ever been top 20% ever in anything in my life. Also EM and gen surg aren't particularly awesome prizes for working that darn hard.

 

[deleted245139]

I mean... Unless it's the field you want. 210 or 270, I would chose EM all day long. I would hate my life in Derm or Ortho or any of the other highly prized specialties. Gotta do what you love 🙂

 

[TheaterOfTheme]

Yes we do all agree that DO > Caribbean schools. My argument is that you'll probably end up at a similar residency program coming from either but, at this point, your chances of success are much higher coming from a DO school.

The question is, will this change in the near future? And it seems like all we can rely on is conjecture at this point.

 

[acapnial]

Solution. Be better than your classmates. If you can't work your way into the top 20% of your class and do well on boards then you don't deserve an EM or gen surg spot anyway

You absolutely don't need to be in the top 20% of your class to do either

 

[NurWollen]

You absolutely don't need to be in the top 20% of your class to do either

Med school. Where 80% of the class is hopelessly below the mean.

 

[jw3600]

You absolutely don't need to be in the top 20% of your class to do either

Need to score top 20% on boards (or at least close). Yes, class rank is practically irrelevant for this discussion.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Need to score top 20% on boards (or at least close). Yes, class rank is practically irrelevant for this discussion.

For EM? I doubt it. A person in the mid to 25th percentile of their class probably is going to be competitive for ACGME EM. And seeing as DO EM is basically average, a mid ranged student can make it. GS probably you're going to need to be in the top 25th percentile for sure.

For the sake of conversation we're equating class rank with boards scores ( probably subtracting the 25% of your smart class that doesn't take usmle due to being military and or wanting an aoa competitive field).

 

[acapnial]

For EM? I doubt it. A person in the mid to 25th percentile of their class probably is going to be competitive for ACGME EM. And seeing as DO EM is basically average, a mid ranged student can make it. GS probably you're going to need to be in the top 25th percentile for sure.

For the sake of conversation we're equating class rank with boards scores ( probably subtracting the 25% of your smart class that doesn't take usmle due to being military and or wanting an aoa competitive field).

You're absolutely correct about EM, but you don't really need to be in the top quartile for surg either. Though if someone said only ACGME surgery would do, then it would be a bigger deal of course. It's a tough field to get to give much consideration to DO's.

Need to score top 20% on boards (or at least close). Yes, class rank is practically irrelevant for this discussion.

Several people have been successful in EM with some kind of weak board scores in the last two classes at my school. The ones I knew that scored in the top ~20% of their class on boards generally had no trouble interviewing at some really great programs. I think they had good SLOE's and whatnot too though.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

For EM? I doubt it. A person in the mid to 25th percentile of their class probably is going to be competitive for ACGME EM. And seeing as DO EM is basically average, a mid ranged student can make it. GS probably you're going to need to be in the top 25th percentile for sure.

For the sake of conversation we're equating class rank with boards scores ( probably subtracting the 25% of your smart class that doesn't take usmle due to being military and or wanting an aoa competitive field).

I think the number of surgical programs that survive the merger will be very important and key for an average DO's chances at GS. For AOA programs the COMLEX average was a 499, so not that competitive (for the last year we have data). I really doubt MDs would apply to these programs because of how many ACGME programs there are that they can easily match into, but if a good chunk of these programs close then GS competitiveness shots up and will probably require a 240+ board score combined with some good letters and auditions.

 

[jw3600]

For EM? I doubt it. A person in the mid to 25th percentile of their class probably is going to be competitive for ACGME EM. And seeing as DO EM is basically average, a mid ranged student can make it. GS probably you're going to need to be in the top 25th percentile for sure.

For the sake of conversation we're equating class rank with boards scores ( probably subtracting the 25% of your smart class that doesn't take usmle due to being military and or wanting an aoa competitive field).

I meant ACGME as I thought the last few posts were mainly about that.

 

[Doctor_Strange]

The consensus seems to be that the AOA is a money first 0rganization, which is a hard concept for me to believe since the AOA are important stakeholders in the future development and recognition of their profession--so won't there by mechanisms in place to ensure that DOs still match in a variety of fields? I just can't understand why the AOA would approve a merger if it would ultimately screw over DOs...(although I remember reading somewhere that the ACGME was putting the squeeze on the AOA regarding fellowships or the like). And just to be clear, post merger there will no longer be AOA-only residencies, correct? Is it either join or die lol?

 

[Dr. Death]

The consensus seems to be that the AOA is a money first 0rganization, which is a hard concept for me to believe since the AOA are important stakeholders in the future development and recognition of their profession--so won't there by mechanisms in place to ensure that DOs still match in a variety of fields? I just can't understand why the AOA would approve a merger if it would ultimately screw over DOs...(although I remember reading somewhere that the ACGME was putting the squeeze on the AOA regarding fellowships or the like). And just to be clear, post merger there will no longer be AOA-only residencies, correct? Is it either join or die lol?

It is either join or die. You better believe AOA leadership were paid handsomely for the merger.

 

[Dr. Death]

I don't think I've ever been top 20% ever in anything in my life.

Not even your MCAT score? Or USMLE? Top 20% of GPA in undergrad? I have a hard time believing you got where you are today being too far outside the top quintile.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I meant ACGME as I thought the last few posts were mainly about that.

Right, I added the DO aspect to it to kinda show how their continued existence and likely patronage of DO will likely balance things a bit. I don't think in the end EM in the ACGME world is that hard to pull out in a DO class. I think as a whole it's a spread out interest that most DOs get into.

 

[AlteredScale]

Not even your MCAT score? Or USMLE? Top 20% of GPA in undergrad? I have a hard time believing you got where you are today being too far outside the top quintile.

I am sure he did well, but without a doubt having solid connections through his departments in both medical school/residency as well as probably having a successful run in scholarly work is what got him to where he is now.

It definitely reiterates what I have said in regards to the places available to a "middle of the road" MD student with a 230 usmle but stellar letters from high level faculty and simply having the backing of a solid clinical training in third year that helps reassure PDs their clonical accumen is on par with their expectations.

Its much more varied coming from a DO school.


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile app

 

[235009]

Not even your MCAT score? Or USMLE? Top 20% of GPA in undergrad? I have a hard time believing you got where you are today being too far outside the top quintile.

I am sure he did well, but without a doubt having solid connections through his departments in both medical school/residency as well as probably having a successful run in scholarly work is what got him to where he is now.

It definitely reiterates what I have said in regards to the places available to a "middle of the road" MD student with a 230 usmle but stellar letters from high level faculty and simply having the backing of a solid clinical training in third year that helps reassure PDs their clonical accumen is on par with their expectations.

Its much more varied coming from a DO school.


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile app

Hmmm maybe my MCAT and step 1 scores were right around 80th percentile though who knows with usmle scores. Maybe I exaggerated a bit. Definitely wasn't top 20% in my med school class though. But enough about me.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app