Plastic Surgery Program Leadership Perspectives on Doximity Residency Navigator Rankings: Do We Need a Better Guide for Prospective Applicants?

INTRODUCTION

Doximity has become integrated into the residency application process without any clear merit, comparing programs based on reputation and research. Our study aims to gather program directors' and Chiefs/Chairs' perspectives on the Doximity ranking system and to assess what a better system might entail.

METHODS

A 16-question survey was sent to 177 program directors and Chief/Chairs of plastic surgery residency programs. The questions covered three categories: (1) demographic information; (2) Doximity ranking perceptions; (3) input on characteristics of a better tool. The responses were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Ninety-three questionnaires were received (53%). Twenty-nine (31%) respondents represented programs in the Northeast, 23 (25%) South, 20 (21%) Midwest, and 21 (23%) West. Seventy-three (79%) respondents were male and 16 (17%) female. 90% of respondents (n = 84) believe Doximity rankings are not accurate, all indicating their institution should be ranked higher. No significant association between program geography and ranking satisfaction was observed (p = 0.75). Only 33% (n = 31) of respondents were aware of Doximity methodology. Most respondents (95%; n = 88) do not recommend the use of Doximity to medical students. Most participants (87%; n = 81) are willing to share resident case logs to inform a future tool. "Strength of technical training/preparedness" was ranked most highly as important training program qualities.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this program leadership survey show dissatisfaction with and a lack of understanding of the Doximity system. When considering future steps, program leadership support a strength-based categorization system and sharing case logs to guide student decision-making.