Greetings. There is a lot happening these days as we move closer to our annual meeting. I look forward to our gathering as we will have much to discuss. I would like to bring attention to two issues in this newsletter: The Match and the proposed Common Program Requirements.
For the first time in many years, we had a notable drop in total applicants from the prior year – 405 applicants in 2017 vs 501 in 2016 – a drop of 19%. This puts us roughly where we were in 2012.
This resulted in an increase in unfilled programs and unfilled slots. 13 of 78 (17%) programs did not fill, with 25 unfilled slots. 25/381 (6.5%) of our total slots went unfilled. By comparison, in 2016, only 2 programs went unfilled with 2 unfilled spots.
Here is a table putting some relevant numbers side-by-side with our sister programs. For comparison, I have calculated percentages based on the raw numbers from NRMP data.
|2017 Rank Results|
|Total # programs||78||467||204||520|
|Total Positions Offered||381||7233||2738||3356|
|Total Positions Filled||356||7101||2693||3215|
|# Unfilled Positions||25||132||45||141|
|# Unfilled programs||13||38||13||67|
|% filled (total)||93.4%||98.2%||98.4%||95.8%|
|%unfilled positions/total positions||25/381 (6.5%)||132/7233 (1.8%)||45/2738 (1.6%)||141/3356 (4.2%)|
|%unfilled programs/total||13/78 (17%)||38/467 (8%)||13/204 (6.4%)||67/520(13%)|
For those who are interested in the details, here is a link to the NRMP site: http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Advance-Data-Tables-2017.pdf
These numbers are concerning – both relative to our sister programs and in absolute numbers. While we can speculate whether this was a blip or a trend, I think it worthwhile to refocus our recruitment efforts. How well do we as a community promote med-peds? How well do I promote med-peds at my institution, in my region? Among the many things that we do, I believe we need to add one more: promoting the good news of who we are. I invite further conversation on the listserve as well as at our annual meeting. What do you all think?
ACGME COMMON PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Thank you all for those who emailed me their comments and thoughts about the proposed Med-Peds program requirements. The executive committee will craft a consensus statement, based on your input. As we continue our reflections, I encourage us all to submit our individual thoughts – especially around some of the more detailed issues (eg. clinic numbers, neurology).
Attached is a clarifying document from the Peds and Medicine RRC’s. I quote an important passage, “The proposed requirements represent a “merging” of the current Internal Medicine-Pediatrics Addendum, the categorical Internal Medicine Program Requirements and the categorical Pediatrics Program Requirements. The Committees felt strongly that the addendum needed to include the relevant categorical program requirements and that having one document would simplify matters for program directors, residents, faculty members, and designated institutional officials. Thus, one comprehensive set of requirements for internal medicine-pediatrics programs was developed, and this includes all relevant requirements from each set of categorical requirements. As such, although this is a ‘major revision,’ the vast majority of the requirement content is not new.”
As you know, an important moment in our meeting is our conversation with the RRCs and the Boards. If you have questions that you’d like to pose to the boards, feel free to submit them to Sue McLaughlin via this link by March 26th: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6F3NJQG.
ANNUAL MEETING – ONE LAST PLUG FOR APRIL 4-5
50 years of Med-Peds – Looking Back, Looking In, Looking Forward
Deadline is March 26th. If you haven’t already, here is a link to sign up:
See you all in 14 days.
Until then…. Onwards!