Wish someone whould have told me.

[surgres88]

Just discovered this website recently and wished someone would have pointed it out to me. This is biased by my interview experience, but it seemed that ALL the programs I interviewed with said ALL their residents passed the boards. Most programs would mention something on the order of "only 1 resident this past year didn't pass, but that was based on that guy."

This is the ABS website 2004-2009 board pass rates.

https://home.absurgery.org/xfer/fyp2009summary.pdf

I don't think this should be the be all end all of anyone's rank list, but you may want to factor it in with other things of importance...how much vacation time do I get? how nice are the call rooms? do I have to take call more than 1/week?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[blue2000]

Yep, I agree. I looked through the list and thought, wow, some of these programs have a first time pass rate less than 50%. I'd like to believe that no matter what program I'm in, I'd acquire the skills to pass the boards, but it doesn't look like that's the case in some of these places. I'd say anything over 90% is probably equivalent, and any program over 80% should be good enough. But if I was deciding between a program that had a 60% pass rate and an 85% pass rate? That is important. It would be a huge bummer to invest 5 long years in surgical education and not be competent at the end. Acutally, I'm depressed just thinking about it.

 

[LucidSplash]

Yeah, I made up a spreadsheet of the places I interviewed at and made sure to ask specifically about the program's rates as reported if they were low. I found it helpful to hear their responses. Some places were very frank about what the problems had been and what action they took to change. Of course, I only have their word to go on, but some of these places had better rates over the past two years than over the five year period. One program had a stead PD and Chair now (three years at that program) but prior to that had something ridiculous like 5 chairs in 6 years.

One place told me that the ABS "counts" every graduating resident as an attempt on the QE, even if that resident chose not to take the boards, so it counted as a "fail" if they didn't take it. That program said they'd had 2 or 3 residents in the 5-year period "choose" not to take the boards because they were going into plastics or hand fellowships and that dropped their rate. Anyone have any info on whether this is actually true (ie, counting "non-takers" as "fails")? Sounded a little weird to me.

 

[SLUser11]

Yeah, I made up a spreadsheet of the places I interviewed at and made sure to ask specifically about the program's rates as reported if they were low. I found it helpful to hear their responses. Some places were very frank about what the problems had been and what action they took to change. Of course, I only have their word to go on, but some of these places had better rates over the past two years than over the five year period. One program had a stead PD and Chair now (three years at that program) but prior to that had something ridiculous like 5 chairs in 6 years.

One place told me that the ABS "counts" every graduating resident as an attempt on the QE, even if that resident chose not to take the boards, so it counted as a "fail" if they didn't take it. That program said they'd had 2 or 3 residents in the 5-year period "choose" not to take the boards because they were going into plastics or hand fellowships and that dropped their rate. Anyone have any info on whether this is actually true (ie, counting "non-takers" as "fails")? Sounded a little weird to me.

The search function is disabled, but we've had this exact conversation in the past.....the logic is flawed, as places like UTSW have 100% pass rates and have plenty of residents going into fellowships.

I specifically did the math for my program, and I think I decided that the pass rate is based only on residents that sat for the boards. It was a time-consuming endeavor, but I was in an argument with Castro (I think), so I found the energy. Doing a quick review again, We've had 6 years with 34 graduates and 13 fellowships. The # listed taking the QE/CE were 27/22....some of the residents in subspecialties sat for their GS boards.

Of course, the easy way to answer this would be to ask the ABS....it's not like it's privileged information.

 

[Pilot Doc]

That program said they'd had 2 or 3 residents in the 5-year period "choose" not to take the boards because they were going into plastics or hand fellowships and that dropped their rate. Anyone have any info on whether this is actually true (ie, counting "non-takers" as "fails")? Sounded a little weird to me.

It's true. You only take the boards if you want to be BC in GS. That is no longer required for CT nor is it for plastics. I think making # passed / # graduates the pass rate makes sense. Some programs (?UTSW) will make taking the boards a condition of graduation regardless of fellowship plans - i.e. they won't act on any paperwork requests for credentialling unless you play ball.

 

[SLUser11]

It's true. You only take the boards if you want to be BC in GS. That is no longer required for CT nor is it for plastics. I think making # passed / # graduates the pass rate makes sense. Some programs (?UTSW) will make taking the boards a condition of graduation regardless of fellowship plans - i.e. they won't act on any paperwork requests for credentialling unless you play ball.

In my opinion, and I wish I could find the old calculations I did, the % pass rate is based solely on residents who took the exam. It makes no sense to state the number of people taking the exam, and then immediately calculate a percentage pass rate based on a different (and un-stated) number of overall residents.

The way it looks on the pdf file seems very straight forward. And, since I know that 34 residents graduated from KU-Wichita during that time period, and that 27 are listed as taking the QE, your logic is flawed, since the max pass rate would be 27/34= 79%. Somehow, we have a 93% pass rate....doesn't fit.

I think we both know that this well-circulating theory of "fellows making the numbers look artificially low" is an excuse made by programs with poor pass rates.

Either way, I've emailed the ABS, so we'll know soon enough.

 

[LucidSplash]

Either way, I've emailed the ABS, so we'll know soon enough.

Sweet, thanks for doing the legwork before I could get to it. I'm definitely interested to hear the result.

 

[Svidrillion]

Some interesting trends in the document. There are obviously schools that have comparable rates for both the QE and CE, but some programs have 80% or higher on the QE and then 60% or less in the CE, whereas other schools have the exact opposite.

For those who are more familiar with the content, format, and logistics, what might that indicate about a program's administration, surgical experience, or didactics? Any hints to aspects of the program that we might not see on interview day?

 

[surgres88]

Either way, I've emailed the ABS, so we'll know soon enough.

Thank you. I just focused on the % in the last column, because it represented the 1st time written (QE) and 1st time oral (CE) pass rate. I would guess most of us would prefer to only go through this gauntlet once.

 

[45408]

Yeah, I was at two interviews that didn't mention their board pass rates in their opening presentations, and then when I asked, it was <75%.

Thanks for the link.

 

[beefballs]

the link isn't working, please either pm or tell me what i am doing wrong




aaaaarrrrrggghhhh!!!!!!one!!one

 

[LucidSplash]

The link works fine for me. Update your version of Adobe Reader or Foxit Reader or whatever you use to view .pdf files.

 

[ajan]

This is the ABS website 2004-2009 board pass rates.

https://home.absurgery.org/xfer/fyp2009summary.pdf

?

why arent TULANE UNIVERSITY surgery residency program in NEWORLEANS LA. stats posted in that document?

 

[Winged Scapula]

why arent TULANE UNIVERSITY surgery residency program in NEWORLEANS LA. stats posted in that document?

A little something called Katrina.

 

[Svidrillion]

Some interesting trends in the document. There are obviously schools that have comparable rates for both the QE and CE, but some programs have 80% or higher on the QE and then 60% or less in the CE, whereas other schools have the exact opposite.

For those who are more familiar with the content, format, and logistics, what might that indicate about a program's administration, surgical experience, or didactics? Any hints to aspects of the program that we might not see on interview day?

I'm still perplexed by this issue. Anyone have any insight?

 

[surgres88]

I'm still perplexed by this issue. Anyone have any insight?

I talked to someone who has passed the QE and failed the CE recently about this and this is our working theory on the differing %s. Don't make too many judgement calls on programs, would recommend looking in the last column for 1st time pass rates for both if you're stratifying based on this info. Also, remember you have to pass the QE before you can sit for the CE. So you can take the QE >1 time, before you take the CE once effecting percentage.

Group 1: Higher QE pass percent and lower CE pass percent: Theory is that people study hard for QE (how much you know) and then are probably anxious or overwhelmed by the intimidating CE (how safe you are) and fail it. The residency program may not offer mock-orals during training. The range I have heard on this is "mock-orals" each year (R1-R5, i.e. Maine Med), some places just do it your senior years, and some may not do a practice mock orals for you.

Group 2: Lower QE percent and higher CE percent: This may reflect that if you fail the QE (knowledge based) you study like crazy so when you our allowed to sit for the CE you are ready...these people may take Osler review or some other class before to prepare them for the boards.

 

[ygree001]

*QE = Qualifying (Written) Examination, CE = Certifying (Oral) Examination; totals based on actual numbers of
candidates who TOOK the QE and/or CE, NOT the number who graduated from each program.
** QE / CE combined index : Candidate successful on 1st attempt for QE and CE; note - some candidates who
have passed QE have not yet taken 1st CE - combined index includes QE only for these candidates.

This was on the bottom of the last page. I might be confused, but isn't this the answer to what people were asking?

 

[SLUser11]

This was on the bottom of the last page. I might be confused, but isn't this the answer to what people were asking?

True enough.

I just got schooled by a pre-med.

 

[ygree001]

True enough.

I just got schooled by a pre-med.

No schoolage intended, I really wasn't sure because I didn't know what CE and QE meant.
Does it help that I am accepted for next year

 

[psipsina]

A little something called Katrina.

Winged, did Tulane's program have issues after Katrina?? I'm curious because LSU-NOLA is listed in the document.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Winged, did Tulane's program have issues after Katrina?? I'm curious because LSU-NOLA is listed in the document.

Yep. I have a very close friend who was a surgery resident at Tulane at the time of Katrina. She finished her residency in New York and her colleagues were farmed out all over the US to do the same. I don't recall the details but she had two residency certificates - one from Tulane and one from the NYC program - but went back to Tulane for graduation.

 

[psipsina]

Yep. I have a very close friend who was a surgery resident at Tulane at the time of Katrina. She finished her residency in New York and her colleagues were farmed out all over the US to do the same. I don't recall the details but she had two residency certificates - one from Tulane and one from the NYC program - but went back to Tulane for graduation.

Interesting. I know LSU has spread their residents out across the state to deal with the loss of beds/ORs etc. I hadn't thought about Tulane's situation. That definitely is important in light of the constant risk of future hurricanes.

 

[geekOCD]

Yup, I had a chief resident who'd come across the country from Tulane b/c of Katrina. He was miserable.