Association of Pathology Chairs meeting Poster 2012

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