The Impact of Visiting Rotations on the Urology Residency Match: Insights and Perspectives From the 2021-2022 Applicants

Published:September 15, 2022DOI:


      To survey 2022 Urology Residency Match applicants on their away rotation experiences to better understand the impact of pandemic changes, including the one in-person away rotation limit, on interviews and match outcomes.


      An anonymous post-match online survey was distributed to applicants of study-participating institutions. Data was prospectively collected regarding respondent demographics, away rotation experiences, interviews, utilization of preference signaling, and overall match outcomes.


      In total, 230 applicants completed the survey. Respondents prioritized geography (28.1%), program reputation (26.1%), and early notification (25.6%) as the top factors in determining whether to accept a rotation offer. The majority (93%) participated in a single away rotation, with nearly all respondents being offered a virtual interview from the program where they completed a visiting clerkship. Of those who declined away rotation offers, 56% were not offered an interview at the program they declined an offer from. The majority matched at either their home institution (20.8%), a program where they submitted a preference signal (22.2%), or a program where they completed an in-person away rotation (13%). Despite 46.3% of respondents reporting that their match outcome was negatively affected by the ability to rotate at only one away rotation, the majority were satisfied (70%) with their rotation selection based on match results.


      For applicants, participation in visiting rotations plays a significant role in the match process. Further research regarding mechanisms to optimize the away rotation application process is needed as the capacity to do visiting electives expands in the post-pandemic environment.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


      1. Association of American Medical Colleges: Medical Student Away Rotations for Remainder of 2020-21 and 2021-22 Academic Year. Accessed at: 2021.

        • Lebastchi AH
        • Khouri RK
        • McLaren ID
        • et al.
        The urology applicant: an analysis of contemporary urology residency candidates.
        Urology. 2018; 115: 51-58
        • Fantasia J
        • Elsamra S
        • Thavaseelan S.
        Improving the match: use of preference signaling to optimize the urology match interview process.
        Urology. 2021; 154: 57-61
      2. Urology and Specialty Matches. Urology Residency Match Statistics. Accessed at: 2022.

        • Nikonow TN
        • Lyon TD
        • Jackman SV
        • Averch TD.
        Survey of applicant experience and cost in the urology match: opportunities for reform.
        J Urol. 2015; 194: 1063-1067
        • Weissbart SJ
        • Stock JA
        • Wein AJ.
        Program directors' criteria for selection into urology residency.
        Urology. 2015; 85: 731-736
        • Patel S
        • Hamad J
        • Wallen E
        • Borawski K
        • Viprakasit D
        • Tan HJ.
        Geographic distribution of away rotations impacts the urology match process in the United States.
        Urology. 2021; 154: 68-76
        • Winterton M
        • Ahn J
        • Bernstein J
        The prevalence and cost of medical student visiting rotations.
        BMC Med Educ. 2016; 16: 291
        • Kenigsberg AP
        • Khouri RK
        • Kuprasertkul A
        • Wong D
        • Ganesan V
        • Lemack GE
        Urology residency applications in the COVID-19 Era.
        Urology. 2020; 143: 55-61
      3. Society of Academic Urologists. Accessed at: 2022.

        • Jiang J
        • Key P
        • Deibert CM.
        Improving the residency program virtual open house experience: a survey of urology applicants.
        Urology. 2020; 146: 1-3
        • Carpinito GP
        • Caldwell KM
        • Kenigsberg AP
        • et al.
        Twitter and instagram use in the urology residency application process.
        Urology. 2022; 159: 22-27
        • Carpinito GP
        • Khouri RK
        • Kenigsberg AP
        • et al.
        The virtual urology residency match process: moving beyond the pandemic.
        Urology. 2021; 158: 33-38
        • Tabakin AL
        • Srivastava A
        • Polotti CF
        • Gupta NK.
        The Financial Burden of Applying to Urology Residency in 2020.
        Urology. 2021; 154: 62-67
        • Spencer E
        • Ambinder D
        • Christiano C
        • et al.
        Finding the next resident physicians in the COVID-19 global pandemic: an applicant survey on the 2020 virtual urology residency match.
        Urology. 2021; 157: 44-50