PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

KD Anderson

Publications and source records attributed to KD Anderson.

2 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

General surgery program directors' perceptions of the match.

To identify expectations of general surgery program directors (PDs) for recruitment behavior, and to document the experiences, perceptions, and ethical dilemmas they experienced with the 1998 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP).Two hundred sixty-five general surgery PDs were asked to complete a 30-item written questionnaire. Questions inquired about PD perceptions of students' interviewing practices, how communication with applicants is conducted and interpreted, and overall perceptions of the match.A total of 77.7% of PDs responded. A total of 44% of PDs found nothing wrong with students interviewing in multiple specialties and conceded legitimate reasons for doing so; yet, 75% of PDs felt this practice negatively affected students' rank order. A total of 46.6% of programs told students to keep in touch to be ranked; only 8.7% of PDs believed students' stated interest, and 76.6% of PDs said these affirmations had no effect on students' rank. A total of 36.5% of PDs felt students made informal commitments to them, and 90.4% felt students at least sometimes lied to them. A total of 51.7% of PDs felt the match was a reasonable process that needed no changes.As long as the stakes are high and there are no repercussions for unethical behaviors and practices during residency recruitment, gamesmanship will continue to be the accepted culture.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2000

Emergency medicine residency director perceptions of the resident selection process

OBJECTIVE: To assess perceptions of emergency medicine (EM) program directors (PDs) of the resident selection process. METHODS: PDs of 120 EM residencies were mailed a 22 question survey immediately following the 1999 match. (Applicants interviewing in more than one specialty and post-interview communications were areas of interest). Non-respondents received a second mailing. RESULTS: Ninety-eight (81. 7%) completed surveys were returned. Five PDs felt that interviewing in more than one specialty was ethically wrong, while most felt multi-specialty interviews were a system byproduct (42%) or that there was nothing wrong (41%). Eighty-one percent of PDs felt the applicant's rank order would be negatively affected if the applicant disclosed interviewing in >1 specialty. Forty-seven percent of PDs (always or frequently) told applicants to keep in touch if interested in the program. However, 88% of PDs were skeptical or did not believe an applicant's communicated intent to rank the program 'high,' nor did this communication influence an applicant's rank order (75%). Forty-two percent of PDs reported informal commitments by applicants. PDs frequently felt lied to by applicants (always (4%), frequently (42%), sometimes (42%)). Applicants often ask how the program intends to rank them. Highly ranked applicants receive positive responses from 61% of PDs vs. 33% of PDs who give negative responses to low ranked applicants. Ten percent of PDs offer residency positions outside of the match. CONCLUSIONS: Applicants who interview in >1 specialty are viewed negatively by PDs. Post-interview communications by applicants are viewed with skepticism. Gamesmanship is practiced commonly during the resident selection process.

Journal Article↗