Department of Surgery, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
J Surg Educ. 2013 Jan-Feb;70(1):138-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2012.06.015. Epub 2012 Aug 2.
In selecting a medical student for a urology residency, a set of preconceived criteria as to what will predict a successful resident are generally applied. To determine what factors predict an "excellent" clinical resident and a successful in-service test taker, we analyzed 10 years of urology resident files. PARTICIPANTS AND STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of 29 urology residents at Washington University graduating from July 2000 to July 2009. Medical student applications and interview evaluations were compared with future performance as a general surgical intern and then as a urology resident, in terms of clinical performance and in-service examination scores.
Of 29 residents, based on clinical evaluations over 4 years of urology residency, 12 were "excellent," 17 "average and needing improvement." "Excellent" residents had higher applicant rank submitted to the "match" (7.2 vs. 12.1, p = 0.04) and better letters of recommendation (3.0 vs. 2.5, 0.018). "Excellent" residents also had better evaluations as an intern (3.9 vs 2.7, p < 0.001). "Good" urology in-service examination test takers compared with "below average" test takers noted higher rank on the match list (7.8 vs 12.1, p = 0.04), better quality med school (2.6 vs 2.0; p = 0.002), higher USMLE scores (92.5 vs 86.6% tile, p = 0.02), American Board of Surgery in-training examination (ABSITE) score (58.6 vs 37.2% tile, p = 0.04), and were more likely to pass the board examination (100% vs 76.9%, p = 0.03). Residents with higher clinical evaluations were also more likely to go into fellowships (83.3% vs 16.2%, OR = 23.3) and academic careers (41.6 vs 11.1%, OR = 5.71).
Performance as a surgery intern predicts future performance as a GU Resident. "Good" test takers as medical students and as interns continue to test well as GU residents. Early identification, intervention, and mentoring while still an intern are essential. Selection criteria we currently use to select GU residents are surprisingly predictive.
在选择泌尿科住院医师时，通常会预先设定一套标准，以预测哪些人会成为成功的住院医师。为了确定哪些因素可以预测出“优秀”的临床住院医师和成功的住院医师年度考核考生，我们对过去 10 年的泌尿科住院医师档案进行了分析。
回顾性分析了 2000 年 7 月至 2009 年 7 月期间在华盛顿大学毕业的 29 名泌尿科住院医师的档案。比较了医学生的申请和面试评估结果，以及作为普通外科住院医师和泌尿科住院医师的未来表现，包括临床表现和年度考核成绩。
在 4 年的泌尿科住院医师培训期间，根据临床评估结果，29 名住院医师中有 12 名表现“优秀”，17 名表现“一般，需要改进”。“优秀”的住院医师提交的申请人排名较高（7.2 对 12.1，p = 0.04），推荐信质量更好（3.0 对 2.5，p = 0.018）。“优秀”的住院医师在实习期间的评价也更高（3.9 对 2.7，p < 0.001）。年度考核成绩“良好”的住院医师与成绩“一般”的住院医师相比，在匹配名单上的排名更高（7.8 对 12.1，p = 0.04），本科教育质量更高（2.6 对 2.0，p = 0.002），美国医师执照考试（USMLE）成绩更高（92.5%tile 对 86.6%tile，p = 0.02），美国外科医师学会住院医师年度考核（ABSITE）成绩更高（58.6%tile 对 37.2%tile，p = 0.04），并且更有可能通过委员会考试（100%对 76.9%，p = 0.03）。临床评估较高的住院医师也更有可能进入专科培训（83.3%对 16.2%，OR = 23.3）和学术职业（41.6%对 11.1%，OR = 5.71）。
作为外科住院医师的表现可以预测未来作为泌尿科住院医师的表现。作为医学生和住院医师的“优秀”考生继续在泌尿科住院医师年度考核中表现良好。在实习期间，及早发现、干预和指导至关重要。我们目前用于选择泌尿科住院医师的选择标准出人意料地具有预测性。
