How should unmatched otolaryngology applicants proceed?. (30th March 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schwan, Josianna; Abaza, Mona; Cabrera‐Muffly, Cristina
• Is Part Of: Laryngoscope. Volume 125:Number 10(2015:Oct.)
• Page Start: 2291
• Page End: 2294
• Publication Date: 2015-03-30
• Subjects: Otolaryngology -- residency -- match; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; 617.51005
• DOI: 10.1002/lary.25268
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0023-852X

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives/Hypothesis: To determine the attitudes of otolaryngology residency program directors and chairpersons toward unmatched residency applicants, including whether a surgical internship or research year is preferred in considering repeat applicants. Study Design: Cross‐sectional survey. Methods: Approval was obtained from the Colorado Multiple Institution Review Board. A 12‐question Web‐based survey was sent to otolaryngology residency program directors and chairpersons three times over a 6‐week period. Responses collected from respondents were anonymous, with no identifying characteristics. Results: Forty‐five percent of those contacted responded to the survey. The most commonly recommended course of action for an unmatched applicant was completion of a general surgery intern year (43%) or a year of research (31%). Program directors were more likely than chairpersons to recommend a year of research ( P value 0.014). Ninety‐seven percent of the respondents felt it was important or essential to obtain new letters of recommendation. Respondents ranked poor interview skills as the most common reason for applicants remaining unmatched (29%). Conclusion: Otolaryngology residency match is even more competitive for previously unmatched applicants. Unmatched applicants should be advised to proceed with either a research year or postgraduate year 1 general surgery year. Before applying again, applicants should obtain new letters of recommendation, and the importance of improving poor interviewing skills should be emphasized by advisors. Level of Evidence: N/A. Laryngoscope, 125:2291–2294, 2015