OBJECTIVE
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.
METHODS
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.
RESULTS
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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 accessOne-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:
Subscribe to UrologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
Association of American Medical Colleges: Medical Student Away Rotations for Remainder of 2020-21 and 2021-22 Academic Year. Accessed at:https://www.aamc.org/what-we-do/mission-areas/medical-education/away-rotations-interviews-2020-21-residency-cycle. 2021.
- The urology applicant: an analysis of contemporary urology residency candidates.Urology. 2018; 115: 51-58
- Improving the match: use of preference signaling to optimize the urology match interview process.Urology. 2021; 154: 57-61
Urology and Specialty Matches. Urology Residency Match Statistics. Accessed at: https://www.auanet.org/education/auauniversity/for-residents/urology-and-specialty-matches. 2022.
- Survey of applicant experience and cost in the urology match: opportunities for reform.J Urol. 2015; 194: 1063-1067
- Program directors' criteria for selection into urology residency.Urology. 2015; 85: 731-736
- Geographic distribution of away rotations impacts the urology match process in the United States.Urology. 2021; 154: 68-76
- The prevalence and cost of medical student visiting rotations.BMC Med Educ. 2016; 16: 291
- Urology residency applications in the COVID-19 Era.Urology. 2020; 143: 55-61
Society of Academic Urologists. Accessed at: https://sauweb.org/home.aspx. 2022.
- Improving the residency program virtual open house experience: a survey of urology applicants.Urology. 2020; 146: 1-3
- Twitter and instagram use in the urology residency application process.Urology. 2022; 159: 22-27
- The virtual urology residency match process: moving beyond the pandemic.Urology. 2021; 158: 33-38
- The Financial Burden of Applying to Urology Residency in 2020.Urology. 2021; 154: 62-67
- 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
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 15, 2022
Accepted:
August 2,
2022
Received:
March 28,
2022
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
