Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Alumni: The Ultimate Outcome Measure of your Training Program


Published on

Association of Pathology Chairs meeting

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Alumni: The Ultimate Outcome Measure of your Training Program

  1. 1. ANALYSIS A one-tailed t-Test was performed assuming unequal variance was performed with the Excel data analysis pack (Microsoft, Redmond, WA). The null-hypothesis that a higher score indicates a greater likelihood of going into academics is not statistically significant and cannot be proven on this limited sample. With a greater number of residents and known outcomes, it is possible that this hypothesis could reach statistical significance (p value of less than 0.05). Alumni: The Ultimate Outcome Measure of your Training Program Amy L. Motta, B.S. Department of Pathology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah BACKGROUND The goal of all Pathology Residency Training Programs is to train competent, board-certified Pathologists. One aspect of this is to produce trainees who enter academics. Academic pathologists are essential to further patient care through training future pathologists and through research. Programs whose mission is to train academic pathologists would benefit from a system to measure the likelihood of residency applicants to go into academic medicine. INTRODUCTION Because applications are lengthy and interviews are subjective I wanted to devise a system that Program Coordinators can easily and quickly use that accurately predicts an applicant’s likelihood to go into academic pathology. The Program Director could then use this score for recruiting and ranking. METHODS First, an accurate list of alumni was gathered from program alumni files and the GME Office at the University of Utah. The next step was to find where the alumni were working to see which alumni had entered academic and which ones were in private practice. I chose to review the files of residents who graduated over a ten year period from 2000 to 2010 which totaled 46 alumni. I threw out one alumnus because of military obligation, one with a missing file and one who is still in training so I reviewed 43 files. Next I considered which documents in an application that would offer the most accurate data regarding an applicant’s future career goals. I chose 4 indicators: CONCLUSION For residency programs who are interested in producing academic pathologists, a Program Coordinator can quickly score an application for likelihood of going into academic pathology. This information should be of interest to Program Directors and Chairs so adjustments can be made in recruiting to match with applicants who will most likely develop into academic pathologists. Unintended consequences of this project is that I now have accurate information on alumni which can be used to conduct alumni surveys for program improvement, and communicating where alumni did fellowships and got jobs to better promote the program for recruiting. I recognize that many areas of the country have trouble hiring pathologists. For programs who are more concerned about where their alumni practice (rural vs. urban and in-state vs. out-of-state) similar parameters can be formulated. A goal for the residency program can be established, relevant parameters on alumni can be tracked, audits on where alumni can be done and recruiting can be adjusted. Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) Summary • Mention of research accomplishments = 5 points • Mention of plans to go into academic medicine = 5 points. ERAS Common Application or CV • 1 to 3 journal publications = 5 points • 3+ journal publications = 10 points Personal Statement • Mention of doing research in their residency or in their career = 5 points • Mention of wanting a career in academics = 5 points M.D./Ph.D • In US = 10 points • MD outside of the US and a Ph.D. = 5 points I read the application documents (MSPE, ERAS Common Application (for publications and Ph.D. degrees, and Personal Statements) for each alumnus and scored them. I then added each score to arrive at an applicant’s total. Points Number of Applicants Number/% Academics Number/% Private Practice 10-40 10 6/60% 4/40% 5 15 5/33% 10/66% 0 18 2/11% 16/89% 60% of applicants who scored 10-40 points are currently in academics and 40% are in private practice. The percent in academics falls to 33% with only 5 points, and further still at 11% with zero points. A total score of 10 or more points clearly shows a higher likelihood of an applicant entering academic pathology. The two residents in the program with combined M.D./Ph.D. degrees from the United States had the top two scores and are both practicing academic pathology. (Perhaps this is a stronger indicator) Although I only looked at an applicant’s expressed or demonstrated research and academic interest, it is certainly possible for them to develop an interest in academics during their residency training. RESULTS T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Academic Practice Private Practice Mean score 10.769 3.833 Standard Deviation 11.698 5.971 Median score 5 0 Mode 5 0 Minimum score 0 0 Maximum score 40 25 Observations 13 30 P(T<=t)one-tail 0.290 Locations of Residency Program Alumni practicing Academic Pathology