Variation in Transcript Reports Among Residency Applicants: An Anesthesia Program's Perspective.

HCA healthcare journal of medicine Pub Date : 2024-03-29 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.36518/2689-0216.1598
Alex M Hendon, Imani Thornton
{"title":"Variation in Transcript Reports Among Residency Applicants: An Anesthesia Program's Perspective.","authors":"Alex M Hendon, Imani Thornton","doi":"10.36518/2689-0216.1598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With recent changes made to move USMLE Step 1 and COMLEX Level 1 scores to Pass/Fail, it becomes necessary to find other metrics to evaluate residency candidates. One conserved metric included in all residency applications is medical school transcripts. This study aims to highlight the highly varied transcript reporting in a new era of holistic applicant review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medical school transcripts were extracted from the Electronic Residency Application Service applications to our anesthesiology residency program for the 2021-2022 application cycle. All personally identifiable information was removed. Results were categorized and tallied by 2 independent reviewers. Overall, we assessed transcript information from 156 allopathic and osteopathic medical schools. Transcript data were separated into 9 different categories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The most common grading system for allopathic medical schools was Pass/Fail. The most common grading system for osteopathic medical schools was Pass/Fail and Letter Grades. There were several medical schools that had unique grading systems and many of those did not provide a grading key for interpretation. Less than half of the allopathic and osteopathic schools offered Honors or High Pass in their grading systems, often with little information provided as to how these grades were earned.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The information provided on medical school transcripts is extremely variable. Although many schools reported grades as Pass/Fail, there was no majority or consistent presentation among the transcripts. Much of the information provided on transcripts required interpretation by its reviewer and made the process of holistic applicant review more difficult.</p>","PeriodicalId":73198,"journal":{"name":"HCA healthcare journal of medicine","volume":"5 1","pages":"5-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10939090/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HCA healthcare journal of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36518/2689-0216.1598","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: With recent changes made to move USMLE Step 1 and COMLEX Level 1 scores to Pass/Fail, it becomes necessary to find other metrics to evaluate residency candidates. One conserved metric included in all residency applications is medical school transcripts. This study aims to highlight the highly varied transcript reporting in a new era of holistic applicant review.

Methods: Medical school transcripts were extracted from the Electronic Residency Application Service applications to our anesthesiology residency program for the 2021-2022 application cycle. All personally identifiable information was removed. Results were categorized and tallied by 2 independent reviewers. Overall, we assessed transcript information from 156 allopathic and osteopathic medical schools. Transcript data were separated into 9 different categories.

Results: The most common grading system for allopathic medical schools was Pass/Fail. The most common grading system for osteopathic medical schools was Pass/Fail and Letter Grades. There were several medical schools that had unique grading systems and many of those did not provide a grading key for interpretation. Less than half of the allopathic and osteopathic schools offered Honors or High Pass in their grading systems, often with little information provided as to how these grades were earned.

Conclusion: The information provided on medical school transcripts is extremely variable. Although many schools reported grades as Pass/Fail, there was no majority or consistent presentation among the transcripts. Much of the information provided on transcripts required interpretation by its reviewer and made the process of holistic applicant review more difficult.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
住院实习申请者成绩单报告的差异:麻醉专业的视角。
背景:最近,USMLE 第 1 步和 COMLEX 第 1 级分数改为及格/不及格,因此有必要寻找其他指标来评估住院医师候选人。医学院成绩单是所有住院医师培训申请中的一个保留指标。本研究旨在强调在全面审查申请人的新时代,成绩单报告的高度多样性:从电子住院医师申请服务申请表中提取了医学院成绩单。所有个人身份信息均已删除。由两名独立审查员对结果进行分类和统计。总体而言,我们评估了 156 所专科和骨科医学院的成绩单信息。成绩单数据被分为 9 个不同的类别:结果:对抗疗法医学院最常见的评分系统是及格/不及格。骨科医学院最常见的评分系统是及格/不及格和字母评分。有几所医学院采用独特的评分系统,其中许多医学院没有提供评分标准以供解释。只有不到一半的专科和骨科医学院在其评分系统中提供荣誉或高分通过,而且通常很少提供有关如何获得这些成绩的信息:结论:医学院成绩单上提供的信息差异极大。结论:医学院成绩单上提供的信息千差万别。虽然许多学校都以及格/不及格来报告成绩,但成绩单上并没有多数或一致的表述。成绩单上提供的许多信息都需要审查人员进行解释,这增加了对申请人进行整体审查的难度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Historical View of Nursing Research at HCA Healthcare. A Randomized Controlled Trial of 2% Chlorhexidine Gluconate Skin Preparation Cloths for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Adults Undergoing Spine Surgeries: Residual Reduction in Skin Bacterial Load for 4 Days. Assessing the Effectiveness of a Non-Punitive Fall Prevention Program. Caring Moments. Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection Reduction in Hemodialysis Patients Across 9 Hospitals and 3 States.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1