555 Vacant Emergency Medicine Resident Positions Remain Following National Match Day

According to social media reports, this year's National Resident Matching Program left 555 unfilled positions in emergency medicine. While the positions will likely be filled in the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program, it is noteworthy because, as recently as three to four years ago, the specialty was among the most competitive. This year’s number of vacancies more than doubled last year’s 219 unfilled positions, but in 2021 just 14 vacancies remained post-match. 

Several emergency medicine groups published a joint statement reacting to the open positions on the American College of Emergency Physicians website. In the statement, they noted that a combination of many factors likely influenced this year’s outcome. “Many have speculated about factors such as workforce projections, increased clinical demands, emergency department (ED) boarding, economic challenges, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the corporatization of medicine, among many others.”  

An interview between Medscape and Robert McNamara, MD, Chair of Emergency Medicine at Temple University and Chief Medical Officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine, provided additional insight into two of the factors: workforce projections and the corporatization of emergency medicine. In December 2021, the Annals of Emergency Medicine published a study projecting an oversupply of emergency physicians by 2030. In McNamara’s view, the suggestion of an oversupply may have deterred prospective entrants into the field who worry about finding a job and repaying loans. 

"Emergency medicine residents always have among the highest debt of any specialty," McNamara said. "They have a strong sense of social justice and often don't come from privileged backgrounds ... so they're likely to accumulate debt."

He also added that emergency medicine positions tend to fall under corporate entities more often than physician-run groups. The corporate focus on profit can lead to burnout and a lack of “physician autonomy.” 

Moving forward, the joint statement announced the creation of a Match Task Force with heavy emergency medicine representation to further understand the reasoning behind the unfilled positions and create mitigation strategies for the future.

U.S. Medical Licensing Examination’s (USMLE) Step One Moves to Pass-Fail Scoring

Last month, for the first time, the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) administered the Step One exam to second-year medical students in a pass-fail format. The USMLE finalized the decision to replace the scoring last December, explaining that the exam was intended for use as a benchmark and not to differentiate between students. They also acknowledged that students were prioritizing Step One preparation “at the expense of other curricula and their own well-being.”

Priya Jaisinghani, MD, an endocrinology fellow at New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, called the move, “a step in the right direction” in an interview with MedPage Today. She suggested that early medical students can now re-prioritize critical medical skills as opposed to burying themselves in test preparation. "There was so much onus on the exam. Now [students can] shift focus to experiences, organizations, community health, and research," she said. DO students may also feel some relief at the update. While they are required to take the COMLEX, many elect to take the Step One in order to increase the competitiveness of their residency applications. 

Others suggest that the move will negatively affect some students seeking to differentiate themselves as applicants to highly-competitive residencies. While unofficial, many specialties are known to have score cut-offs for residency applicants. Among the 2019-2020 first-year residents, Step One scores among thoracic surgery, orthopedic surgery, and otolaryngology averaged 247.3, 246.3, and 246.8, respectively. Residents in emergency medicine (230.9), family medicine (215.5), and internal medicine pediatrics (235.5) received lower scores on average. A 2021 survey of orthopedic surgery program directors confirms this point, with 68 percent calling the Step One score “extremely or very important” for applicant interview selection. 

According to USMLE, removing the scores will encourage programs to review candidates more holistically. Practically, however, it is unclear what that may look like in the near term. Some students, speaking to Medpage Today, suggested that letters of recommendation and school rankings may play a more outsized role in residency considerations. "It makes it harder if you are coming from smaller institutions. It becomes more about who you know and who's making phone calls for you. Students with great medical pedigrees may have more advantages,” Lena Josifi, MD, a fourth-year orthopedic surgery resident at Southern Illinois University, said. 

A survey of orthopedic surgery program directors confirms Josifi’s hunch. Over one-third (37.7 percent) agree that the changes to Step One scoring would “probably” or “definitely” decrease the likelihood that applicants from lower-ranked medical schools would be selected for interviews. The majority, 81 percent, also agreed that Step Two results will grow in importance.  

New Physicians that Train in Surgery or Identify as a Sexual Minority are More Likely to Struggle with Mental Health During Intern Year

The trials of residency, particularly in the first year after completing medical school, are well documented. First year residents or interns work long and demanding hours in a high stress environment, and do so on little and irregular sleep. And two new studies out of the University of Michigan, which used data from the Michigan Neuroscience Institute’s Intern Health Study, show that two groups are at higher risk for developing negative mental health outcomes during this time: surgical trainees and those who identify as a sexual minority (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or other non-heterosexual).

The first study led by Tasha Hughes, MD, MPH, and an assistant professor in the University of Michigan Department of Surgery, explored changes in surgical residents’ mental health during the intern year, and also looked at how surgical residents’ experiences compare to those of other (non-surgical) residents. 

Hughes and her team found that, initially, surgical interns enter the program with lower rates of existing depression symptoms than a similar age cohort within the general population. However, after the intern year, almost one-third (32 percent) of interns screened positive for depression, based on their scores from at least one mood survey. 

Among the surgical interns, some demographic groups were more likely to develop depression—females, sexual minorities, singles (those with no partner), those working the most hours on average, and those with a history of negative childhood experiences. However, even after adjusting for these demographic factors, surgical interns were more likely than other interns to develop new-onset depression, except for when work hours were taken into account. Additionally, among those who screened positive for depression, 64 percent continued to report signs of depression on a later survey. 

Perhaps, equally worrisome, was that many of the surgical interns did not seek assistance. Just 26 percent of those whose scores were consistent with depression sought mental health care during their intern year. Hughes explains the importance of the findings for promoting a healthier learning environment. “Surgical training, especially in the United States, can be a period of intense stress, which we find is linked to new onset of depression,” said Hughes. “These findings suggest a need for surgical program directors, leaders, and health systems to continue to find ways to mitigate the effects of surgical training, normalize help-seeking, make mental health support easily available, and pay special attention to those with characteristics that might put them at increased risk.”

The second study, led by Tejal Patel, a student in her senior year at the University of Michigan, looked specifically at interns who started training in 2016 through 2018 and who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or other non-heterosexual. 

At the commencement of the intern year, the sexual minority group’s depression scores were higher than those of the heterosexual group. However, rather than remaining consistent over time, the study found that the gap increased throughout the year with larger differences in mental health occurring in the second half of the year. “These results indicate that interns who are part of sexual minority groups may experience unique workplace stressors leading to a widening disparity in mental health,” said Patel. 

Medical Student Calls for Greater Transparency in Residency Match Data

National Match Day took place on Friday, March 18, 2022. According to the National Resident Matching Program, NRMP, it was a successful day, which “realized many significant milestones” including: 

• Consistent or increased match rates across applicant types: 

--US MD Seniors PGY-1 matched at 92.9 percent (+0.1 percentage points from 2021)

--US DO Seniors matched at 91.3 percent (+2.2)

--US citizen international medical graduates matched at 61.4 percent (+1.9)

--Non-US citizen international medical graduates matched at 58.1 percent (+3.3)

--And it was the highest match rate on record for previous year graduates, with US MD graduates matching at a rate of 50.5 percent (+2.3), and DO graduates matching at a rate of 53.6 percent (+9.3).

However, a recent article written by Nicole Mott, a student at the University of Michigan Medical School, and published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with a follow-up interview on MedPage Today contends that most current match reporting only tells part of the story. Mott is calling for the NRMP to reconsider how the match rate is calculated and to provide additional transparency into the match data. 

She starts by pointing out aspects of the current reporting that can be misleading or confusing. 

• The published NRMP “match rate” doesn’t include all specialties and programs; it excludes ophthalmology, urology, and military training programs. 

• The variation in match rates by applicant type should always be called out explicitly (as seen above) in recognition of the significant variation in match rates between applicant types: MD Senior, DO Senior, IMG (citizen or non-citizen), and graduates (MD, DO). The media often just reports one overall (or applicant type) match rate, which can be misleading and create inaccurate expectations among applicants regarding the likelihood of receiving a match. 

Next, she calls for a reconsideration of how the current match rate is calculated. Currently, the match rate is the proportion of “active applicants” who match into a participating residency program. However, an “active applicant” is someone who registers for the NRMP match and submits a rank order list. Mott points out that approximately eight percent of NRMP registrants withdraw or do not submit a rank order list and are thus excluded from the calculation. This includes participants who apply to programs but are not invited to interview and therefore do not submit a rank order list. This definition of active applicant likely inflates the match rate and underestimates the number of physicians who are unable to find a residency placement. 

She also provides suggestions for data that, if made publicly available, would help inform medical students as they make plans for the future.

• The number of applicants who register for NRMP match and don’t submit a rank order list, as well as the characteristics of this group. This would provide insight into potential inequities in the process, as well as applicant competitiveness for specialties. 

• The number and characteristics of unmatched physicians including those who only match into a preliminary first-year position. It would also be helpful to include information on the careers these physicians pursue and where they ended up, which could inform physician workforce planning. 

• Detailed match outcomes relevant to students going through the process, which could inform students pursuing a match, and also drive systemic improvements. This may include the specialty-specific matching positions on rank order lists, which could also inform decisions such as application or interview caps. 

Mott notes that the proportion of MD and DO seniors matched to their top-ranked programs has “subtly declined” over the past 15 years and, during the same period, the number matched to their fourth-ranked choice or lower has increased. Additionally, she calls out the “over-congestion” in the residency application process. Applicants are now applying to more programs than ever, just as programs are receiving more applicants. She recommends a review of the data to determine if caps should be placed on the number of applications and interviews. Similarly, she calls for more transparency from residency programs in their selection criteria. Programs should be explicit in the criteria they seek in an applicant, and applicants should be more specific about their goals and geographic preferences. 

Ultimately, better data, and more visibility into the match process will benefit students and residency programs, and allow each to make the best possible decisions.

Report Recommends Comprehensive Reforms to Improve Medical Students’ Transition to Residency

Last week the Coalition for Physician Accountability released a report recommending comprehensive reforms to improve the transition between medical school and residency. The Coalition’s Undergraduate-Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) included 34 recommendations spanning nine themes. The report’s authors strongly encourage related stakeholders to work together to implement the recommendations in full, as together they will “create better organizational alignment, likely decrease student costs, reduce work, enhance wellness, address inequities, better prepare new physicians, and enhance patient care.”

The Charge

The UGRC’s initial charge was to address the following documented problems occurring in the transition between medical school and residency, as well as to uncover other existing issues. The report noted that the impact of these problems has grown over time resulting in significant stress to the system. 

• Disproportionate attention towards finding and filling residency positions rather than on assuring learner competence and readiness for residency training

• Unacceptable levels of stress on learners and program directors throughout the entire process

• Inattention to optimizing congruence between the goals of the applicants and the mission of the programs to ensure the highest quality health care for patients and communities

• Mistrust between medical school officials and residency program personnel

• Over reliance on licensure examination scores in the absence of valid, trustworthy measures of students’ competence and clinical abilities

• Lack of transparency to students on how residency selection actually occurs

• Increasing financial costs to students as well as opportunity costs to programs associated with skyrocketing application numbers

• The presence of individual and systemic bias throughout the transition; and 

• Inequities related to specific types of applicants such as international medical graduates

A Common Framework to Assess Students’ Clinical Skills 

At its core, the report calls for changes that promote standardized ways to evaluate and assess medical students in a meaningful and equitable way. More specifically, the report suggests that less weight should be placed on the USMLE numerical scores and the emphasis should shift to a standardized and comparable assessment of students’ performance in a clinical setting. The report recommends that medical schools and residency programs work together to define a framework and set of competencies with which to measure students as they make the transition from medical school to residency. 

The report’s recommendations also seek to increase efficiency in matching students with residency programs. The number of applications submitted per student continues to rise, as medical students fear that they will not find a placement so expand their reach. A recent AAMC article noted that the average number of residency applications per student in 2016 was 87.7 and in 2020 was 95. Among international medical student graduates, who often face a tougher time finding a spot, the average is 136. The process is a huge generator of stress for medical students, their advisors, as well as residency program directors. “This year, we received 5,800 applications for 24 positions. It’s just not possible to thoroughly review most of them,” explains Richard Alweis, MD, a UGRC committee member and associate chief medical officer for medical education at Rochester Regional Health in New York. Not surprisingly, the 2020 National Resident Matching Program Director Survey reported that just under half (49 percent) of applications receive an in-depth review. 

The UGRC’s recommendations seek to provide stakeholders involved in the application, selection, and placement processes with better information and support in an effort to reduce the number of submitted applications. Students, they contend, need access to better information to appropriately gauge their likelihood of acceptance while residency programs need better ways to cull their applicants by updating and improving technology to provide effective and equitable filters for applications. Additionally, the UGRC encourages the entire eco-system to innovate and implement pilot programs to reduce the friction associated with matching medical students to residency placements. 

Next Steps

While there is great optimism around the release of UGRC’s report, because of the comprehensive nature of the recommendations and the number of critical players involved, there is still considerable work to be done. Each of the 13 member organizations making up the Coalition is independently run; each organization will determine what recommendations they will enact and the timeline. And despite its support, the AAMC’s statement reacting to the final report emphasized a need to move with caution and carefully consider what, if any, unintended consequences may occur as a result of enacting recommendation(s). However, while the timing for change is unclear and the speed may be slow, there is unprecedented agreement within the member organizations around the need for change and improvement for students, residents, medical advisors, and resident program directors. “For the past 10 years or more, we've been stuck in the same place… The recommendations are a monumental step in breaking through that,” said Grant Lin, MD, PhD, a pediatric resident at Stanford Health Care in California and a member of the UGRC committee.

AAMC Physician Workforce Report Shows an Increasing Number of Women, Physicians Nearing Retirement, and Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine

The proportion of women within the active physician workforce continues to increase, as does the proportion of those nearing retirement age and those with a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) degree.  Late last month the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) released its 2020 Physician Specialty Report, which provides demographic and specialty trends within the active physician and resident/fellow workforces. It is important to note that the data used to populate the 2020 report was reflective of the 2019 physician workforce.

Active Physicians

In 2019, over one-third of active physicians were women (36.3 percent); this percentage has been steadily rising since 2007 when women made up just over a quarter of the workforce (28.3 percent). This growth reflects the steady increase in female medical students, with women making up the majority (50.5 percent) in medical school for the first time in 2019. The report notes, however, that women still tend to remain concentrated in specialties pertaining to women and children, including pediatrics (64.3 percent), obstetrics and gynecology (58.9 percent), and pediatric hematology/oncology (55.1 percent), and have marginal representation elsewhere. Women make up less than a quarter of the physician workforce in a great number of specialties, including various surgery sub-specialties where the number ranges from 22 percent in general surgery to just 5.8 percent in orthopedic surgery. About ten percent of physicians in pulmonary disease (12.3 percent) and urology (9.5 percent) are female. There are no specialties where male physicians make up less than 35 percent of the workforce.

Just under half of the physicians were 55 and over (44.9 percent) in 2019, which is a marginal increase from 44.1 percent in 2017 but a more significant increase from 37.6 percent in 2007. Over 50 percent of the following specialties are made up of physicians aged 55 and over: preventative medicine (69.6 percent), thoracic surgery (60.1 percent), orthopedic surgery (57.1 percent), and urology (50.5 percent). Several of the specialties which are populated with older doctors also have the highest percentages of males, and conversely several of those with the lowest percentage of older doctors are among the highest in female doctors.

Another slow-moving trend is the increase in practicing physicians with a DO degree. In 2019, 8.2 percent of physicians held the DO degree, while U.S. MDs made up 66.1 percent of the workforce and international medical degrees made up 24.7 percent. This is subtle, but real growth from 2007, when 69.5 percent of physicians held a U.S. MD, 24 percent held an international medical degree, and just 6.5 percent held a DO. In one of the fastest growing specialties, sports medicine, 18.9 percent of practicing physicians were DOs in 2019.

Residents and Fellows

Among the Residents and Fellows in 2019, 45.8 percent were women, like the 2017 figure (45.6 percent), and up slightly from 44.6 percent in 2007. As seen in the physician workforce, female residents/fellows tend to pursue the care of women and children in high percentages, with obstetrics and gynecology (83.8 percent), neonatal-perinatal medicine (74.9 percent), and pediatrics coming in at the top (72.4 percent). However, large percentages of women are also pursuing specialties in endocrinology (70.8 percent), allergy/immunology (68.2 percent), and geriatrics (67.8 percent).

Just as the percentage of DO graduates increased within the active physician workforce, it was also more prominent within the resident/fellow population. In 2019, 15.7 percent of the resident/fellow workforce had a DO degree, an increase from 12.5 percent in 2017 and 6.4 percent in 2007. The percentage of U.S. MDs showed a relative decline over the same period, with 61.1 percent of the 2019 population compared to 65.9 percent in 2007; similarly, international medical school graduates declined from 27.4 percent of the resident/fellow population in 2007 to 23.1 percent in 2019.

Medical School Enrollment Growth Limited by Space Constraints in Clinical Training and Residency Programs

Last month, MedPage Today reported that applications to medical school have risen significantly compared to the same period last year, according to both the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM). AAMC reported a year-over-year increase of 14 percent in early August, and AACOM reported an uptick of 17.7 percent as of mid-August.

Sources speaking to MedPage Today pointed to the pandemic as a reason for the spike, suggesting that the current high-profile nature of medical personnel may be inspiring applications to medical school. Other applicants may be taking advantage of idle time to submit their applications early, while some may be seeking alternative paths to mitigate economic uncertainty. Geoffrey Young, AAMC’s Senior Director of Student Affairs and Programs, told MedPage that the early indicators may not necessarily indicate a more competitive year, noting that the pandemic has created “an unconventional time.”

While both AAMC and AACOM schools are expanding their capacity where possible, both note that their growth is limited due to a lack of corresponding residency spots. The AAMC has launched a few new schools, which has increased overall enrollment, and remains optimistic that many schools will be able to make incremental increases in class size. Larger updates to class sizes, however, would have to be approved by the accrediting agency. Osteopathic school enrollments are growing faster, with a 6.6 percent increase approved for the upcoming year by the accrediting agency, up from a 5.6 percent increase the year before.

This capacity constraint suggests that many qualified candidates may not find a place in medical school, despite a national need to grow the physician workforce. Results released last week from the AAMC Annual Survey also focus on the significance of the clinical experience constraint. In the survey, which was administered in November 2019 to 154 medical schools, school leaders voiced apprehension about the number of residency positions and clinical training sites available to students.

Just under half of the schools reported “major or moderate” concern about their students finding post-graduate residency positions of their choice. While medical school enrollment has seen significant growth over the last two decades, an increase of 33 percent since 2002, residency availability has grown much more slowly. Federal support for Graduate Medical Education (GME) provided through Medicaid, has been capped for the last two decades, effectively leaving funding for GME at teaching hospitals at 1996 levels. The National Resident Matching Program reports that this year 40,084 MD and DO graduates applied for only 37,256 residency positions though the Main Residency Match.

In addition to concerns about residency, a large majority of medical school leaders reported concern over the availability of clinical training sites for students. As demand increases for clinical experiences from other medical trainees, including nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and DO programs, AAMC medical schools are feeling more stretched to meet their students’ needs. Most of the survey respondents reported concern about clinical training sites and qualified primary care preceptors, 84 and 86 percent respectively, and just under three-fourths, 71 percent, mentioned concern about students having access to qualified specialty preceptors.

Positive Learning Environments and Regular Feedback Result in Lower Levels of Depression Among Medical Residents

The impending physician shortage, coupled with the problem of physician burnout, has led to important discourse over the treatment and training of future physicians. Medical training programs are looking to improve wellbeing among medical students and residents through various avenues including reduced tuition, investments in wellbeing programs, and mental health resources. But are they doing enough? A recent op-ed published by the AAMC, by Srijan Sen, MD, PHD, suggests medical residency programs need systemic changes on top of the current efforts focused on building individuals’ resilience and wellbeing.  

Dr. Sen, along with collaborator Connie Guille, MD, analyzed data collected via the Intern Health Study to highlight the negative impacts of residency on interns’ health and propose data-based solutions for a healthier environment. The Intern Health Study, a longitudinal study that includes responses from more than 20,000 medical trainees, shows that the rate of depression increases “Five-fold within the first few months of residency” and remains higher throughout training with “about one out of four residents screening positive for depression at any given time during residency.” Dr. Sen goes on to note that beyond the questionnaire responses describing stress, there are physical indicators as well. “Telomeres, a cellular marker of aging, shorten five times as much during internship as during a typical year of life…” And, what’s more, a compromised physician is more likely to make medical errors and to provide lower-quality care to patients.

Dr. Sen references a 2019 study that reviewed over 50 internal medicine programs using residents’ feedback and information collected in national databases. The findings show variation in the depression rates between programs; more importantly, the variation showed consistency with some programs regularly registering high and others low. When Dr. Sen compared the programs, the findings showed that while the volume of hours, type of work (administrative versus patient care), and work-family conflict all impact the rates of depression, another critical component differentiating the high and low depression programs was the type of learning environment.  “A key factor among low-depression programs was residents reporting that their inpatient rotations were a positive learning experience. Another was receiving timely and appropriate feedback from faculty. Both of these factors indicate that a focus on education, and specifically directed education from faculty, makes a major difference.”

The findings are particularly pertinent given an article published last week in the NY Times by Perri Klass, MD. The article, which is in response to a recently published JAMA Pediatrics article (Walking on Eggshells With Trainees in the Clinical Learning Environment), speaks to the difficulties that many faculty members feel providing feedback to trainees. While the medical community is working hard to end the harassment and bullying of residents that typified many interns’ experiences historically, some feel the pendulum has swung too far and that they are unable to provide criticism, tough feedback, or make interns feel discomfort without retribution or poor evaluations.

Dr. Klass quotes Dr. Janet R. Serwint, professor emerita of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins, who says, “When I look back at my career and my life and how important some of that feedback was, and it was hard for the giver to give to me, I’m sure, but they did it in a respectful way… I worry that the balance is swinging in such a way that it’s all about, oh, you are wonderful.” During her time as the vice chairwoman of education and the residency program director, she said that some faculty would mention problem residents, but often they had not broached the issues directly with them. “It’s the discomfort, or the worry of retaliation and evaluation.” Furthermore, Dr. Melanie Gold, lead author of the JAMA article, goes on to say that she has also struggled with interns unwilling to experience discomfort during medical training. Her examples include a student who complained to a course director about transgender health’s inclusion in the curriculum and others who, due to religious objection, were unwilling to even observe a patient consultation. Dr. Gold went on to say that many faculty members feel ill equipped to engage in the resulting difficult conversations.

While these articles are written from differing perspectives, they describe a shared desire by residents and faculty for meaningful feedback and instruction. Given that discomfort is an inherent condition of medical training, the data would suggest that some programs are able to navigate this discomfort better than others. Dr. Sen says that “Faculty members also need to learn trainees’ specific strengths and weaknesses and then provide thoughtful, specific feedback that truly supports their learning. Programs ought to encourage faculty to invest the time necessary to support learners and reward them for doing so.”

Following this discourse is important for future medical students and interns who are applying to medical school or residency programs. Applicants can distinguish themselves by showing that they understand the role that feedback—positive and negative—plays in preparing for a medical career. Demonstrate this understanding by using interviews and essays to describe situations where negative feedback spurred improvement, learning, and connection with others despite discomfort. Just as faculty must be willing to consider how best to promote learning, trainees must demonstrate an openness to the criticism and discomfort necessary and inevitable in the preparation for a medical career.

Further, when evaluating programs, applicants should take into consideration the learning environment. Observe the interactions between faculty and interns, and question current and former program participants about how and at what frequency feedback is offered. It may also be worthwhile to engage administrators or admissions representatives on how the program structure trains and supports faculty in providing feedback, facilitating difficult conversations, and creating a positive learning environment. While more visible wellbeing investments can be compelling, it is critical to look closely at the structural elements of a program that data shows matter to the lives of residents: hours worked, tasks performed, work-life balance, and the learning environment.