- Email: [email protected]
How Informative are the Plastic Surgery Residency Websites to Prospective Applicants?
ORIGINAL REPORTS
How Informative are the Plastic Surgery Residency Websites to Prospective Applicants? Asra Hashmi, MD, Rohan Policherla, MD, Hector Campbell, MD, Faraz A. Khan, MD, Adam Schumaier, MS, and Faisal Al-Mufarrej, MD Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Detroit Medical Center, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comprehensiveness of plastic surgery program websites. DESIGN: American Medical Association interactive database was accessed for the list of integrated plastic surgery programs, in June 2015. Since then, 67 plastic surgery program websites were accessed and searched for the presence or absence of 31 criteria, which were further grouped into 5 categories: First, program contact information; second, training and research; third, program setup; fourth, benefits and facilities; and fifth, information for applicants. Programs were categorized based on US census bureau designated regions, and number of residency positions available. One-way ANOVA test was used for comparison. RESULTS: Only 25% (17) program website had information available on more than two-thirds (21 or more of 31) of the criteria. The 3 least factors commonly available by program websites were: operative log (10%), contract (10%), and information on night float (25%). The 3 most commonly available factors included: coordinator information (92%), number of residents (92%), and comprehensive faculty list (88%). Less than 50% of the programs provided information regarding fellowship opportunities, active and previous research projects, and operative logs. There was no difference in amount of information on program websites when analyzed for program size or program geographic location. CONCLUSION: Programs should consider revising their
websites to include aforementioned 31 criteria. This would make applicants and potential resident physicians better informed of the programs before the interview process such
Correspondence: Inquiries to Asra Hashmi, MD, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Detroit Medical Center, Wayne State University, 4160 John R, Detroit, MI 48201; fax: (313) 745-1873; e-mail: [email protected]
that they would be more likely to apply to only those programs that match their specific aspirations. ( J Surg Ed C ]:]]]-]]]. J 2016 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.) KEY WORDS: Websites, Residency, Applicant COMPETENCIES: Medical Knowledge, Patient Care, Prac-
tice-Based Learning and Improvement, Interpersonal and Communication Skills, Professionalism, Systems-Based Practice
INTRODUCTION Internet is an invaluable resource for residency applicants, regardless of specialty. It provides easily accessible information, that applicants can use to evaluate which programs fit their individual preferences, and helps facilitate their career goals. Although those applying to plastic surgery programs have not been surveyed specifically, there are several studies that confirm the degree to which applicants across different specialties rely on a program's website, to develop their impression of the residency.1-3 Gaeta et al. suggest that information regarding the program's curriculum was the most important information, which could be included in a residency website. Furthermore, in the study by Gaeta et al.,4 nearly 80% of applicants stated that residency’s online presence influenced their decision to apply to a particular program. Surprisingly, despite the ubiquitous nature of the internet, several surveys reveal a perceived inadequacy with residency websites, in delivering pertinent information to the applicant.5-7 A survey conducted by Sinno et al.8 revealed that those applying to plastic surgery residencies found factors, such as amount of time spent on general surgery rotations, fellowship placement, case logs, job placement, and prestige of faculty members to be among the most important elements of a program. Program websites are capable of delivering
Journal of Surgical Education & 2016 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by 1931-7204/$30.00 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.08.002
1
this, and also additional relevant information. Our objective was to evaluate the comprehensiveness of plastic surgery program websites with the intent of highlighting potential areas for improvement of residency program websites.
DESIGN American Medical Association interactive database was accessed for the list of integrated plastic surgery programs in June 2015. A total of 5 aspects of program websites were investigated. First group selected was program contact information. This group comprised 4 subgroups including faculty listing, coordinator information, e-mail contacts and resident listing. Second group was training and research, which further comprised 9 subgroups including information on fellowship, curriculum, year-to-year progression, information on research requirements, active and previous research, message from program director, message from the chairman of the program, operative logs, and recent graduates. Third group was program setup, which had 8 subgroups including night float, number of residents, didactics, intern schedule, plastics rotation, other courses, call schedule, and clinical sites. Fourth group was benefits and facilities, which included 5 subgroups, including parking, meal, salary, educational funds, and description of facilities. Last group was information for applicants, which comprised 5 subgroups including selection criteria, ERAS link, contract, information on visa, and information on the area. Criteria were selected based on previously published literature from various medical specialties, on contents of residency program websites that were important to applicants.1-6 Web search was conducted and 67 plastic surgery program websites were accessed, and searched for presence or absence of 31 criteria. This process was repeated 3 times to ensure reliability of the information extracted. Next, programs were categorized based on US census bureau designated regions, namely Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. There were 11 programs in the West, 20 in the South, 20 programs in Midwest, and 6 programs in the Northeast. Lastly, programs were categorized based on their size. There were 14 programs with 1 position per year, 33 programs had 2 positions per year, 12 programs had 3 per year, and 3 programs had 4 positions per year. One-way ANOVA and student's t-test were used for comparison with p o 0.05, considered as statistically significant.
was available on more websites (74%) than information regarding training and research (38%), program setup (61%), benefits and facilities (45%), or information for applicants (47%) (p ¼ 0.03) (Table 1). The 3 factors least commonly available on program websites were as follows: operative log (10%), contract (10%), and information on night float (25%). The 3 most commonly available factors included: coordinator information (92%), number of residents (92%), and comprehensive faculty list (88%). Less than 50% programs, provided information regarding fellowship opportunities, year-to-year progression of residents' responsibilities, active and previous research projects, message from program director, message from chairman, operative logs, recent graduates, night float, call schedule, parking, meal and educational funds, and information on visa and area information. There was no difference in amount of information on program websites, when analyzed for program size (p ¼ 0.97) (Table 2) or program geographic location (p ¼ 0.15) (Table 3).
DISCUSSION
Of the 67 programs included in analysis, 1 program website was under construction. Only 25% (17) program websites had information available on more than two-thirds (21 or more of 31) of the criteria. Program contact information
Technology such as internet and mobile devices have revolutionized speed, and reduced cost of communication. It has also affected the quality of communication in a positive way. It is now possible to share information, and connect people from various parts of the world, through publicly available websites. This mode of communication is especially useful during residency application process. Several authors have emphasized on the dependence of residency applicants on the program websites, during the match process.1 Chu et al. studied the needs of anesthesia residency applicants as well as analyzed the program websites, and concluded that anesthesia residency applicants rely heavily on the program websites throughout the application process, from selection of programs to the formulation of rank list.1 However, the study highlights the importance of residency websites in the application process. The aim of our study was to critically analyze the plastic surgery program websites, and investigate the potential deficient areas on the websites. An applicant survey published by Sinno et al. in June 2015 showed that impressions during interviews, experience during away rotations, interaction with residents, time spent on general surgery rotations, case load, prestige of affiliated faculty members, fellowship, and job placement were critical in judging residency programs.8 Many of these factors can easily be provided by residency program websites, including time spent on general surgery rotations, case load, faculty information, and life after residency. Applicants have stressed on the time spent in general surgery, as an important factor when considering a plastic surgery residency. This is important, because the amount of time spent on general surgery is highly variable between
2
Journal of Surgical Education Volume ]/Number ] ] 2016
RESULTS
TABLE 1. Information Available on Plastic Surgery Websites Information Available on Program Websites (%) (N ¼ 67)
Category Program contact information Comprehensive faculty Coordinator E-mail contacts Current residents Training and research Information on fellowship Curriculum Year-to-year progression Information on research requirements Active and previous research Message from program director Message from Chairman Operative logs Recent graduates Program setup Night float Number of residents Didactics Intern schedule Plastic rotation Other courses Call schedule Clinical sites Benefits and facilities information Parking Meal Salary Description of facilities Educational funds Information for applicants Selection criteria Eras link Contract Information on visa Area information
p Value
74% 88 (59) 92 (62) 52 (35) 64 (43) 38% 43 (29) 61 (41) 40 (27) 57 (38) 42 (28) 28 (19) 31 (21) 10 (7) 30 (20) 61% 25 (17) 92 (62) 69 (46) 64 (43) 66 (44) 48 (30) 40 (27) 91 (61) 45% 28 (19) 41 (28) 55 (37) 51 (34) 48 (30) 47% 72 (48) 75 (50) 10 (7) 39 (26) 39 (26)
0.03
programs. A curriculum analysis by Schneider et al. indicated, that general surgery experience during the first 3 years of an integrated plastic surgery program ranges, from 8 to 21 months with a mean of 16.3 months.9 According to our analysis, only 61% of programs provided details regarding the curriculum, and only 64% of programs displayed the intern schedule on their websites. Given the high variability, and the importance of this information to applicants, it may be beneficial to include it on websites.
In addition to the time spent on general surgery, rest of the operative experience, a resident would obtain in a training program, is of obvious importance, which was indicated in the applicant survey by Sinno et al. Only 10% of the programs provided operative logs on their websites. This is an aspect of residency program websites that can be uniformly improved. The prestige of faculty members and residents can be easily conveyed through a website that provides their
TABLE 2. Availability of Information With Reference to Size of the Program
TABLE 3. Availability of Information With Reference to Geographic Location of Program
Number of Residency positions in the Program (N ¼ 62)
Number of Residency Positions in the Program (N ¼ 67)
1 2 3 4
(14) (33) (12) (3)
Mean p Std. Dev Value 17 17 17 18
⫾ ⫾ ⫾ ⫾
4.9 5.4 7.1 8
0.97
Journal of Surgical Education Volume ]/Number ] ] 2016
West (11) South (20) Midwest (20) Northeast (6)
Mean p Std. Dev Value 12 18 17 15
⫾ ⫾ ⫾ ⫾
4.9 7.0 4.5 7.3
0.15
3
education, appointments, and research achievements. In our study, 88% of program websites provided information regarding current faculty (Table 1). This indicates that, for most programs, applicants are able to form an accurate impression of the program's faculty members. However, only 64% of program's websites included information on their residents. Resident profiles can inform applicants about the typical candidate who would well fit for the program by including information regarding undergraduate and medical education, research, hobbies, and career plans. Nearly all programs provided contact information for the program coordinator. It comes as a surprise that 5 programs did not include this information, as the coordinator is usually the primary conduit, between applicants and the residency program. Only half of the programs provided email as a mode of contact information, which could be important to applicants and can easily be included in a program's website. Only 57% of programs included information about research requirements, and only 42% included information about previous and ongoing research (Table 1). A webpage listing research done by previous and current residents, research requirements, and available resources would be easy to include. Considering that most plastic surgery applicants are involved in research, these questions might be asked by candidates during interviews, so it would benefit both the applicants and the programs by including the information online. Less than half of program websites provided information on fellowships and only 30% of websites elaborated on the destination of recent graduates. Career path of former graduates, whether a fellowship or entering into practice, is important to applicants and is easy to include on a program website.8 This may be even more important for plastic surgery programs than other residency programs, given the broad range of fellowships and job opportunities available. Logistics of a program, which includes, but is not limited to, amount of time spent on night float, number of residents, didactic schedule, call schedule, and clinical sites, was more frequently included than training and research (Table 1). However, only 25% of programs described the night float system of their program and only 40% of websites described the call schedule. These 2 aspects of training may be of particular importance to applicants, because of the obvious effect they have on resident lifestyle. In addition, applicants may not feel comfortable inquiring about these issues because of fear of being perceived negatively by residents and faculty. Of the programs, 66% included information on the plastics rotations, and only 48% included information about other courses. In a field with broad applications such as plastic surgery, this type of information could be important to applicants, especially training regarding subdisciplines such as cosmetic, reconstructive, microsurgery, or tissue transplantation.
Only 45% of programs included information about benefits and facilities. This is another topic that may be uncomfortable for applicants to discuss with faculty and residents, so including it on the website may be the only way for an applicant to get this information. This includes meals, salary, educational funds, and parking. More than 70% of programs included information regarding selection criteria in addition to the ERAS link, but only 10% included contract information, 39% included information on visa, and 39% included information on the area. Contract and visa information in particular, should be included on the website, as this information may be useful to the applicants before meeting the rank order list deadline set as per NRMP policy.10 Lastly, an integral aspect of training is the progression of responsibilities from year to year, and only 40% of websites elaborated on these details. This information can provide applicants with the program's expectations for its residents, the rate at which they may be learning, and how much of responsibility is expected. Our study has some notable limitations. Firstly, we did not conduct a formal survey on the delineating factors of plastic surgery residency applicants, which may be important to them instead previous studies were used as a reference. We also reviewed studies from several different medical specialties to ensure comprehensive evaluation of the factors. Secondly, this study is limited to integrated plastic surgery websites and cannot be generalized to other plastic surgical specialties. Thirdly, our study was meant to determine whether each topic was mentioned on the program website or not, and the study did not evaluate the quality of information provided. Lastly, this was a cross-sectional study and results of the study were based on information available at the time of conducting the search. In our opinion, an ideal website should be clear, user friendly, and concise, and it should provide applicants with information on program contact, research, program setup, benefits, and selection criteria. Our study provides a comprehensive list of criteria that programs should consider including on their website, so that applicants can be better informed about the programs. Residency program website cannot replace other forms of communication with the program, such as an interview or a visit to the program, nonetheless, it may provide the applicants with the “first impression” of the program.
4
Journal of Surgical Education Volume ]/Number ] ] 2016
CONCLUSION Residency program websites can be an asset to the applicants. Unfortunately, it appears that this resource is underused by many programs. The information that plastic surgery residency websites tend to lack factors that include resident profiles, e-mail contact information, time spent on
general surgery, operative logs, research requirements and output, progression of responsibility, night float and call system, benefits, facility information, graduate fellowships/ job placement, contracts, and visa information. Our study provides an insight into the areas that are found deficient on the program websites.
REFERENCES 1. Chu LF, Young CA, Zamora AK, et al. Self-reported
information needs of anesthesia residency applicants and analysis of applicant-related web sites resources at 131 United States training programs. Anesth Analg. 2011;112(2):430-439. 2. Mahler SA, Wagner MJ, Church A, Sokolosky M,
Cline DM. Importance of residency program web sites to emergency medicine applicants. J Emerg Med. 2009;36(1):83-88.
5. Mulcahey MK, Gosselin MM, Fadal PD. Evaluation
of the content and accessibility of web sites for accredited orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(12):e85. 6. Reilly EF, Leibrandt TJ, Zonno AJ, Simpson MC,
Morris JB. General surgery residency program websites: usefulness and usability for resident applicants. Curr Surg. 2004;61(2):236-240. 7. Embi PJ, Desai S, Cooney TG. Use and utility of
Web-based residency program information: a survey of residency applicants. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5(3): e22. 8. Sinno S, Mehta K, Squitieri L, Ranganathan K,
Koeckert MS, Patel A, Saadeh PB, Thanik V. Residency characteristics that matter most to plastic surgery applicants. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;74 (6):713-717. 9. Schneider LF, Barr J, Saadeh PB. A nationwide
residency training programs in the United States. Clin Pediatr. 2008;47(1):21-24.
curriculum analysis of integrated plastic surgery training: is training standardized? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1054-1062.
4. Gaeta TJ, Birkhahn RH, Lamont D, Banga N, Bove JJ.
10. The Match, National Residency Match Program.
3. Kumar A, Sigal Y, Wilson E. Websites and pediatric
Aspects of residency programs’ websites important to student applicants. Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12(1):89-92.
Available at: 〈http://www.nrmp.org/faq-sections/seniors/〉. Accessed January 31, 2016.
Journal of Surgical Education Volume ]/Number ] ] 2016
5
How Informative are the Plastic Surgery Residency Websites to Prospective Applicants? Asra Hashmi, MD, Rohan Policherla, MD, Hector Campbell, MD, Faraz A. Khan, MD, Adam Schumaier, MS, and Faisal Al-Mufarrej, MD Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Detroit Medical Center, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comprehensiveness of plastic surgery program websites. DESIGN: American Medical Association interactive database was accessed for the list of integrated plastic surgery programs, in June 2015. Since then, 67 plastic surgery program websites were accessed and searched for the presence or absence of 31 criteria, which were further grouped into 5 categories: First, program contact information; second, training and research; third, program setup; fourth, benefits and facilities; and fifth, information for applicants. Programs were categorized based on US census bureau designated regions, and number of residency positions available. One-way ANOVA test was used for comparison. RESULTS: Only 25% (17) program website had information available on more than two-thirds (21 or more of 31) of the criteria. The 3 least factors commonly available by program websites were: operative log (10%), contract (10%), and information on night float (25%). The 3 most commonly available factors included: coordinator information (92%), number of residents (92%), and comprehensive faculty list (88%). Less than 50% of the programs provided information regarding fellowship opportunities, active and previous research projects, and operative logs. There was no difference in amount of information on program websites when analyzed for program size or program geographic location. CONCLUSION: Programs should consider revising their
websites to include aforementioned 31 criteria. This would make applicants and potential resident physicians better informed of the programs before the interview process such
Correspondence: Inquiries to Asra Hashmi, MD, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Detroit Medical Center, Wayne State University, 4160 John R, Detroit, MI 48201; fax: (313) 745-1873; e-mail: [email protected]
that they would be more likely to apply to only those programs that match their specific aspirations. ( J Surg Ed C ]:]]]-]]]. J 2016 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.) KEY WORDS: Websites, Residency, Applicant COMPETENCIES: Medical Knowledge, Patient Care, Prac-
tice-Based Learning and Improvement, Interpersonal and Communication Skills, Professionalism, Systems-Based Practice
INTRODUCTION Internet is an invaluable resource for residency applicants, regardless of specialty. It provides easily accessible information, that applicants can use to evaluate which programs fit their individual preferences, and helps facilitate their career goals. Although those applying to plastic surgery programs have not been surveyed specifically, there are several studies that confirm the degree to which applicants across different specialties rely on a program's website, to develop their impression of the residency.1-3 Gaeta et al. suggest that information regarding the program's curriculum was the most important information, which could be included in a residency website. Furthermore, in the study by Gaeta et al.,4 nearly 80% of applicants stated that residency’s online presence influenced their decision to apply to a particular program. Surprisingly, despite the ubiquitous nature of the internet, several surveys reveal a perceived inadequacy with residency websites, in delivering pertinent information to the applicant.5-7 A survey conducted by Sinno et al.8 revealed that those applying to plastic surgery residencies found factors, such as amount of time spent on general surgery rotations, fellowship placement, case logs, job placement, and prestige of faculty members to be among the most important elements of a program. Program websites are capable of delivering
Journal of Surgical Education & 2016 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by 1931-7204/$30.00 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.08.002
1
this, and also additional relevant information. Our objective was to evaluate the comprehensiveness of plastic surgery program websites with the intent of highlighting potential areas for improvement of residency program websites.
DESIGN American Medical Association interactive database was accessed for the list of integrated plastic surgery programs in June 2015. A total of 5 aspects of program websites were investigated. First group selected was program contact information. This group comprised 4 subgroups including faculty listing, coordinator information, e-mail contacts and resident listing. Second group was training and research, which further comprised 9 subgroups including information on fellowship, curriculum, year-to-year progression, information on research requirements, active and previous research, message from program director, message from the chairman of the program, operative logs, and recent graduates. Third group was program setup, which had 8 subgroups including night float, number of residents, didactics, intern schedule, plastics rotation, other courses, call schedule, and clinical sites. Fourth group was benefits and facilities, which included 5 subgroups, including parking, meal, salary, educational funds, and description of facilities. Last group was information for applicants, which comprised 5 subgroups including selection criteria, ERAS link, contract, information on visa, and information on the area. Criteria were selected based on previously published literature from various medical specialties, on contents of residency program websites that were important to applicants.1-6 Web search was conducted and 67 plastic surgery program websites were accessed, and searched for presence or absence of 31 criteria. This process was repeated 3 times to ensure reliability of the information extracted. Next, programs were categorized based on US census bureau designated regions, namely Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. There were 11 programs in the West, 20 in the South, 20 programs in Midwest, and 6 programs in the Northeast. Lastly, programs were categorized based on their size. There were 14 programs with 1 position per year, 33 programs had 2 positions per year, 12 programs had 3 per year, and 3 programs had 4 positions per year. One-way ANOVA and student's t-test were used for comparison with p o 0.05, considered as statistically significant.
was available on more websites (74%) than information regarding training and research (38%), program setup (61%), benefits and facilities (45%), or information for applicants (47%) (p ¼ 0.03) (Table 1). The 3 factors least commonly available on program websites were as follows: operative log (10%), contract (10%), and information on night float (25%). The 3 most commonly available factors included: coordinator information (92%), number of residents (92%), and comprehensive faculty list (88%). Less than 50% programs, provided information regarding fellowship opportunities, year-to-year progression of residents' responsibilities, active and previous research projects, message from program director, message from chairman, operative logs, recent graduates, night float, call schedule, parking, meal and educational funds, and information on visa and area information. There was no difference in amount of information on program websites, when analyzed for program size (p ¼ 0.97) (Table 2) or program geographic location (p ¼ 0.15) (Table 3).
DISCUSSION
Of the 67 programs included in analysis, 1 program website was under construction. Only 25% (17) program websites had information available on more than two-thirds (21 or more of 31) of the criteria. Program contact information
Technology such as internet and mobile devices have revolutionized speed, and reduced cost of communication. It has also affected the quality of communication in a positive way. It is now possible to share information, and connect people from various parts of the world, through publicly available websites. This mode of communication is especially useful during residency application process. Several authors have emphasized on the dependence of residency applicants on the program websites, during the match process.1 Chu et al. studied the needs of anesthesia residency applicants as well as analyzed the program websites, and concluded that anesthesia residency applicants rely heavily on the program websites throughout the application process, from selection of programs to the formulation of rank list.1 However, the study highlights the importance of residency websites in the application process. The aim of our study was to critically analyze the plastic surgery program websites, and investigate the potential deficient areas on the websites. An applicant survey published by Sinno et al. in June 2015 showed that impressions during interviews, experience during away rotations, interaction with residents, time spent on general surgery rotations, case load, prestige of affiliated faculty members, fellowship, and job placement were critical in judging residency programs.8 Many of these factors can easily be provided by residency program websites, including time spent on general surgery rotations, case load, faculty information, and life after residency. Applicants have stressed on the time spent in general surgery, as an important factor when considering a plastic surgery residency. This is important, because the amount of time spent on general surgery is highly variable between
2
Journal of Surgical Education Volume ]/Number ] ] 2016
RESULTS
TABLE 1. Information Available on Plastic Surgery Websites Information Available on Program Websites (%) (N ¼ 67)
Category Program contact information Comprehensive faculty Coordinator E-mail contacts Current residents Training and research Information on fellowship Curriculum Year-to-year progression Information on research requirements Active and previous research Message from program director Message from Chairman Operative logs Recent graduates Program setup Night float Number of residents Didactics Intern schedule Plastic rotation Other courses Call schedule Clinical sites Benefits and facilities information Parking Meal Salary Description of facilities Educational funds Information for applicants Selection criteria Eras link Contract Information on visa Area information
p Value
74% 88 (59) 92 (62) 52 (35) 64 (43) 38% 43 (29) 61 (41) 40 (27) 57 (38) 42 (28) 28 (19) 31 (21) 10 (7) 30 (20) 61% 25 (17) 92 (62) 69 (46) 64 (43) 66 (44) 48 (30) 40 (27) 91 (61) 45% 28 (19) 41 (28) 55 (37) 51 (34) 48 (30) 47% 72 (48) 75 (50) 10 (7) 39 (26) 39 (26)
0.03
programs. A curriculum analysis by Schneider et al. indicated, that general surgery experience during the first 3 years of an integrated plastic surgery program ranges, from 8 to 21 months with a mean of 16.3 months.9 According to our analysis, only 61% of programs provided details regarding the curriculum, and only 64% of programs displayed the intern schedule on their websites. Given the high variability, and the importance of this information to applicants, it may be beneficial to include it on websites.
In addition to the time spent on general surgery, rest of the operative experience, a resident would obtain in a training program, is of obvious importance, which was indicated in the applicant survey by Sinno et al. Only 10% of the programs provided operative logs on their websites. This is an aspect of residency program websites that can be uniformly improved. The prestige of faculty members and residents can be easily conveyed through a website that provides their
TABLE 2. Availability of Information With Reference to Size of the Program
TABLE 3. Availability of Information With Reference to Geographic Location of Program
Number of Residency positions in the Program (N ¼ 62)
Number of Residency Positions in the Program (N ¼ 67)
1 2 3 4
(14) (33) (12) (3)
Mean p Std. Dev Value 17 17 17 18
⫾ ⫾ ⫾ ⫾
4.9 5.4 7.1 8
0.97
Journal of Surgical Education Volume ]/Number ] ] 2016
West (11) South (20) Midwest (20) Northeast (6)
Mean p Std. Dev Value 12 18 17 15
⫾ ⫾ ⫾ ⫾
4.9 7.0 4.5 7.3
0.15
3
education, appointments, and research achievements. In our study, 88% of program websites provided information regarding current faculty (Table 1). This indicates that, for most programs, applicants are able to form an accurate impression of the program's faculty members. However, only 64% of program's websites included information on their residents. Resident profiles can inform applicants about the typical candidate who would well fit for the program by including information regarding undergraduate and medical education, research, hobbies, and career plans. Nearly all programs provided contact information for the program coordinator. It comes as a surprise that 5 programs did not include this information, as the coordinator is usually the primary conduit, between applicants and the residency program. Only half of the programs provided email as a mode of contact information, which could be important to applicants and can easily be included in a program's website. Only 57% of programs included information about research requirements, and only 42% included information about previous and ongoing research (Table 1). A webpage listing research done by previous and current residents, research requirements, and available resources would be easy to include. Considering that most plastic surgery applicants are involved in research, these questions might be asked by candidates during interviews, so it would benefit both the applicants and the programs by including the information online. Less than half of program websites provided information on fellowships and only 30% of websites elaborated on the destination of recent graduates. Career path of former graduates, whether a fellowship or entering into practice, is important to applicants and is easy to include on a program website.8 This may be even more important for plastic surgery programs than other residency programs, given the broad range of fellowships and job opportunities available. Logistics of a program, which includes, but is not limited to, amount of time spent on night float, number of residents, didactic schedule, call schedule, and clinical sites, was more frequently included than training and research (Table 1). However, only 25% of programs described the night float system of their program and only 40% of websites described the call schedule. These 2 aspects of training may be of particular importance to applicants, because of the obvious effect they have on resident lifestyle. In addition, applicants may not feel comfortable inquiring about these issues because of fear of being perceived negatively by residents and faculty. Of the programs, 66% included information on the plastics rotations, and only 48% included information about other courses. In a field with broad applications such as plastic surgery, this type of information could be important to applicants, especially training regarding subdisciplines such as cosmetic, reconstructive, microsurgery, or tissue transplantation.
Only 45% of programs included information about benefits and facilities. This is another topic that may be uncomfortable for applicants to discuss with faculty and residents, so including it on the website may be the only way for an applicant to get this information. This includes meals, salary, educational funds, and parking. More than 70% of programs included information regarding selection criteria in addition to the ERAS link, but only 10% included contract information, 39% included information on visa, and 39% included information on the area. Contract and visa information in particular, should be included on the website, as this information may be useful to the applicants before meeting the rank order list deadline set as per NRMP policy.10 Lastly, an integral aspect of training is the progression of responsibilities from year to year, and only 40% of websites elaborated on these details. This information can provide applicants with the program's expectations for its residents, the rate at which they may be learning, and how much of responsibility is expected. Our study has some notable limitations. Firstly, we did not conduct a formal survey on the delineating factors of plastic surgery residency applicants, which may be important to them instead previous studies were used as a reference. We also reviewed studies from several different medical specialties to ensure comprehensive evaluation of the factors. Secondly, this study is limited to integrated plastic surgery websites and cannot be generalized to other plastic surgical specialties. Thirdly, our study was meant to determine whether each topic was mentioned on the program website or not, and the study did not evaluate the quality of information provided. Lastly, this was a cross-sectional study and results of the study were based on information available at the time of conducting the search. In our opinion, an ideal website should be clear, user friendly, and concise, and it should provide applicants with information on program contact, research, program setup, benefits, and selection criteria. Our study provides a comprehensive list of criteria that programs should consider including on their website, so that applicants can be better informed about the programs. Residency program website cannot replace other forms of communication with the program, such as an interview or a visit to the program, nonetheless, it may provide the applicants with the “first impression” of the program.
4
Journal of Surgical Education Volume ]/Number ] ] 2016
CONCLUSION Residency program websites can be an asset to the applicants. Unfortunately, it appears that this resource is underused by many programs. The information that plastic surgery residency websites tend to lack factors that include resident profiles, e-mail contact information, time spent on
general surgery, operative logs, research requirements and output, progression of responsibility, night float and call system, benefits, facility information, graduate fellowships/ job placement, contracts, and visa information. Our study provides an insight into the areas that are found deficient on the program websites.
REFERENCES 1. Chu LF, Young CA, Zamora AK, et al. Self-reported
information needs of anesthesia residency applicants and analysis of applicant-related web sites resources at 131 United States training programs. Anesth Analg. 2011;112(2):430-439. 2. Mahler SA, Wagner MJ, Church A, Sokolosky M,
Cline DM. Importance of residency program web sites to emergency medicine applicants. J Emerg Med. 2009;36(1):83-88.
5. Mulcahey MK, Gosselin MM, Fadal PD. Evaluation
of the content and accessibility of web sites for accredited orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(12):e85. 6. Reilly EF, Leibrandt TJ, Zonno AJ, Simpson MC,
Morris JB. General surgery residency program websites: usefulness and usability for resident applicants. Curr Surg. 2004;61(2):236-240. 7. Embi PJ, Desai S, Cooney TG. Use and utility of
Web-based residency program information: a survey of residency applicants. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5(3): e22. 8. Sinno S, Mehta K, Squitieri L, Ranganathan K,
Koeckert MS, Patel A, Saadeh PB, Thanik V. Residency characteristics that matter most to plastic surgery applicants. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;74 (6):713-717. 9. Schneider LF, Barr J, Saadeh PB. A nationwide
residency training programs in the United States. Clin Pediatr. 2008;47(1):21-24.
curriculum analysis of integrated plastic surgery training: is training standardized? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1054-1062.
4. Gaeta TJ, Birkhahn RH, Lamont D, Banga N, Bove JJ.
10. The Match, National Residency Match Program.
3. Kumar A, Sigal Y, Wilson E. Websites and pediatric
Aspects of residency programs’ websites important to student applicants. Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12(1):89-92.
Available at: 〈http://www.nrmp.org/faq-sections/seniors/〉. Accessed January 31, 2016.
Journal of Surgical Education Volume ]/Number ] ] 2016
5