Division of Plastic, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
J Reconstr Microsurg. 2021 May;37(4):380-384. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1717152. Epub 2020 Sep 29.
Microsurgery fellowship applicants make decisions for future training based on information obtained from colleagues, mentors, and microsurgery fellowship program Websites (MFWs). In this study, we sought to evaluate the accessibility and quality of available information by microsurgery programs by analyzing the most commonly used web resources and social media outlets for applicants.
The San Francisco (SF) Match and American Society of Reconstructive Microsurgery Websites were queried in April 2020 for microsurgery fellowship programs (MFPs) participating in the SF Match. Twenty-two independent variables of information were assessed on MFWs based on previously published data. Social media presence was also assessed by querying Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter for official hospital, plastic surgery residency, and microsurgery fellowship accounts.
All 24 MFWs participating in the SF Match had a webpage. Program description, faculty listing, operative volume, and eligibility requirements were listed for all programs (100%). The majority of MFWs listed affiliated hospitals (75%), provided a link to the fellowship application (66.7%), listed interview dates (66.7%), and highlighted research interests (50%). A minority of MFWs provided information on conference schedule (37.5%), current fellow listing (25%), previous fellow listing (16.67%), and positions held by previous fellows (8.33%). No MFWs (0%) presented information on selection process, or rotation schedule.All hospitals with an MFP had a Facebook page and nearly all had Instagram (83.3%) and Twitter accounts (95.8%). Plastic surgery residency programs at the same institution of an MFP had social media presence on Facebook (38.9%), Twitter (38.9%), and Instagram (66.7%). Only three MFPs had Facebook accounts (12.5%) and none had Instagram or Twitter accounts.
As the field of microsurgery continues to grow, the need for effective recruitment and training of microsurgeons continues to be essential. Overall, we conclude that both the accessibility and quality of information available to applicants are limited, which is a missed opportunity for recruitment.
显微外科住院医师培训申请人根据同事、导师和显微外科住院医师培训计划网站(MFW)提供的信息做出未来培训的决策。在这项研究中,我们通过分析申请人最常使用的网络资源和社交媒体渠道,旨在评估可用信息的可访问性和质量。
2020 年 4 月,我们查询了旧金山(SF)匹配和美国重建显微外科学会网站,以获取参加 SF 匹配的显微外科住院医师培训计划(MFPs)。根据之前发表的数据,在 MFW 上评估了 22 个信息独立变量。还通过查询 Facebook、Instagram 和 Twitter 来评估官方医院、整形外科住院医师和显微外科住院医师培训账户的存在情况。
所有参加 SF 匹配的 24 个 MFW 都有网页。所有计划都列出了计划描述、教师名单、手术量和资格要求(100%)。大多数 MFW 列出了附属医院(75%)、提供了 fellowship 申请的链接(66.7%)、列出了面试日期(66.7%)并突出了研究兴趣(50%)。少数 MFW 提供了会议日程(37.5%)、现任研究员名单(25%)、前任研究员名单(16.67%)和前任研究员职位(8.33%)的信息。没有 MFW 提供(0%)有关选拔过程或轮转计划的信息。所有拥有 MFP 的医院都有 Facebook 页面,几乎所有医院都有 Instagram(83.3%)和 Twitter 账户(95.8%)。MFP 所在机构的整形外科住院医师项目在 Facebook(38.9%)、Twitter(38.9%)和 Instagram(66.7%)上都有社交媒体存在。只有三个 MFP 有 Facebook 账户(12.5%),没有一个有 Instagram 或 Twitter 账户。
随着显微外科学领域的不断发展,继续需要有效地招聘和培训显微外科医生。总体而言,我们的结论是,申请人可获得的信息的可访问性和质量都有限,这是一个错失的招聘机会。