- Joined
- May 10, 2013
- Messages
- 9,049
- Reaction score
- 8,528
I understand that. I am requesting to minimize the bantering and insults and keep the discussion lively and professional.
DOs Residency Merger with ACGME
- Thread starter residency_seeker
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2013
- Messages
- 12,098
- Reaction score
- 8,042
Do some research next time before you post on the forum. If you need a link to a search engine I am glad to get it for you.
Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile app
D
deleted407021
Obvious troll is obvious. Let's move on.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2013
- Messages
- 3,257
- Reaction score
- 5,118
I'm really hoping that the majority of former AOA programs are going to have a similar thought process (for class of 2018).
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,825
- Reaction score
- 8,811
Every time I leave and come back to this thread, there's another troll on here rustlin jimmies...
That 20% of DOs is numerically ~10% of DOs that applied for residency that year (<600 out of ~6100), and they flat out didn't match. They can scramble into open AOA spots or SOAP (we don't have stats about how many did that yet, but it tends to be 100-200 or so). Match rates for DOs is somewhere in the 80s, I estimated it before in the mid to high 80s, and that's compared to a US MD match rate in the low to mid 90s (i.e. DO match rate is probably below MD match rate by 5-8%, which seems reasonable given the populations).
Its hard to calculate exact numbers for DO seniors, because both matches don't separate matched applicants by graduates and seniors. That said, assuming the worst numbers, the DO match rate is at least >80%.
Now as far as both US MD and DO PGY-1 placement rates, those are consistently around 99-100%. In other words, everyone that can graduate finds an internship spot at some point somewhere. Placement rate is very different from match rate though.
This post is a joke. Non-US IMGs from top international universities attain competitive residencies. US-IMGs and the vast majority of non-US IMGs do not. To put things in perspective, I have many US IMG and non-US IMG friends and family. The average US-IMG applicant I know has to apply to >100 programs to get a sufficient number of interviews to match (and thats with competitive above US MD average Step scores). The average non-US IMG applicant I know applies to 150-200 programs and struggles to get more than a handful of interviews and that's with >90th percentile Step scores. They tend not to match until the 2nd or 3rd try. The average DO student applies to 30-60 programs and has no problem getting sufficient interviews to match. The average US MD I know applies to 20-30 programs.
But lets forget all the anecdotal data. The US IMG match rate was less than 55%, and the non-US IMG match rate was <51%. The DO match rate was >80%. That in and of itself should be sufficient in you recognizing how inaccurate your claims are, let alone the PD survey that directly contradicts your claim. Please do more research before making ridiculous claims.
The 26% are most likely all people who were explicitly pulled out of the NRMP match due to their matching in the AOA match. It also demonstrates that around 45% of people that matched in the AOA match also applied ACGME, probably as a backup to the AOA match. That actually means that 2/3 of DOs apply to (and rank/intend to rank) at least some ACGME programs.
I'm not really sure about some of your statements, so for the sake of reducing confusion:
1) US-IMG match rates increased by 0.8% not 0.08%.
2) The SOAP stats haven't been released yet, but in any case, there's no way that all the remaining US-IMG applicants SOAPed into a spot. For one thing there are only 1,024 SOAP spots according to the advance data tables and 2,454 unmatched US IMGs. It would not only be impossible, it would be unlikely considering traditionally very few IMGs successfully SOAP, and they're competing against the 1130 US MDs that failed to match, the 586 DOs that failed to match, and the 3,691 non-US IMGs that failed to match. Traditionally 100-200 DOs SOAP, 700 US MDs SOAP, and the remainder tend to be filled by US IMGs or remain unfilled. That leaves about 400-500 DOs most of whom likely scramble into a DO spot.
3) I think you mixed the DO match stats with the Canadian match stats. The Canadian rate varies a lot year to year due to the small number of Canadian applicants. the DO match rate this year was 80.3%, and that's up 1% from last year. The rest will try to SOAP, but again out of the ~600, only 100-200 tend to SOAP each year.
This is outdated info. Over the last year almost every RCC has stated that they will consider AOA-trained PDs as fulfilling the requirements to be an independent PD. That accounts for >95% of the AOA PDs. The remaining minority of AOA PDs for programs where the RCCs haven't made that statement will be looked at on a case by case basis.
Old info, see above.
Again, old info. This has already been resolved.
This is purely speculation, and I wouldn't rely on it. Most PDs will follow the easiest method, and that is comparing apples to apples. If you want to be compared to MDs when you apply to ACGME programs, you need to take the USMLE.
That 20% of DOs is numerically ~10% of DOs that applied for residency that year (<600 out of ~6100), and they flat out didn't match. They can scramble into open AOA spots or SOAP (we don't have stats about how many did that yet, but it tends to be 100-200 or so). Match rates for DOs is somewhere in the 80s, I estimated it before in the mid to high 80s, and that's compared to a US MD match rate in the low to mid 90s (i.e. DO match rate is probably below MD match rate by 5-8%, which seems reasonable given the populations).
Its hard to calculate exact numbers for DO seniors, because both matches don't separate matched applicants by graduates and seniors. That said, assuming the worst numbers, the DO match rate is at least >80%.
Now as far as both US MD and DO PGY-1 placement rates, those are consistently around 99-100%. In other words, everyone that can graduate finds an internship spot at some point somewhere. Placement rate is very different from match rate though.
This post is a joke. Non-US IMGs from top international universities attain competitive residencies. US-IMGs and the vast majority of non-US IMGs do not. To put things in perspective, I have many US IMG and non-US IMG friends and family. The average US-IMG applicant I know has to apply to >100 programs to get a sufficient number of interviews to match (and thats with competitive above US MD average Step scores). The average non-US IMG applicant I know applies to 150-200 programs and struggles to get more than a handful of interviews and that's with >90th percentile Step scores. They tend not to match until the 2nd or 3rd try. The average DO student applies to 30-60 programs and has no problem getting sufficient interviews to match. The average US MD I know applies to 20-30 programs.
But lets forget all the anecdotal data. The US IMG match rate was less than 55%, and the non-US IMG match rate was <51%. The DO match rate was >80%. That in and of itself should be sufficient in you recognizing how inaccurate your claims are, let alone the PD survey that directly contradicts your claim. Please do more research before making ridiculous claims.
The 26% are most likely all people who were explicitly pulled out of the NRMP match due to their matching in the AOA match. It also demonstrates that around 45% of people that matched in the AOA match also applied ACGME, probably as a backup to the AOA match. That actually means that 2/3 of DOs apply to (and rank/intend to rank) at least some ACGME programs.
I'm not really sure about some of your statements, so for the sake of reducing confusion:
1) US-IMG match rates increased by 0.8% not 0.08%.
2) The SOAP stats haven't been released yet, but in any case, there's no way that all the remaining US-IMG applicants SOAPed into a spot. For one thing there are only 1,024 SOAP spots according to the advance data tables and 2,454 unmatched US IMGs. It would not only be impossible, it would be unlikely considering traditionally very few IMGs successfully SOAP, and they're competing against the 1130 US MDs that failed to match, the 586 DOs that failed to match, and the 3,691 non-US IMGs that failed to match. Traditionally 100-200 DOs SOAP, 700 US MDs SOAP, and the remainder tend to be filled by US IMGs or remain unfilled. That leaves about 400-500 DOs most of whom likely scramble into a DO spot.
3) I think you mixed the DO match stats with the Canadian match stats. The Canadian rate varies a lot year to year due to the small number of Canadian applicants. the DO match rate this year was 80.3%, and that's up 1% from last year. The rest will try to SOAP, but again out of the ~600, only 100-200 tend to SOAP each year.
This is outdated info. Over the last year almost every RCC has stated that they will consider AOA-trained PDs as fulfilling the requirements to be an independent PD. That accounts for >95% of the AOA PDs. The remaining minority of AOA PDs for programs where the RCCs haven't made that statement will be looked at on a case by case basis.
Old info, see above.
Again, old info. This has already been resolved.
This is purely speculation, and I wouldn't rely on it. Most PDs will follow the easiest method, and that is comparing apples to apples. If you want to be compared to MDs when you apply to ACGME programs, you need to take the USMLE.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 5,456
- Reaction score
- 4,226
It is not really correct to assume all 26% withdrew from the match for the AOA. There are a very small percentage who go through medical school, apply to residency, and then decide they don't want to continue their training (for instance, this can be seen with allopathic seniors who withdraw). This is why in my first post on the thread I stated the 26% were mostly people who withdrew from the match and not all.
Also, the whole PD discussion brought up by AlteredScale was resolved in more recent pages. There was a document I found showing that AOA PDs can be PDs without a ABMS certified co-director (except neurosurgery), the RC just needs to approve of it. It was also confirmed by gamerEMdoc statement as well with his program that has an AOA certified PD.
Agree with all the rest of your statements.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 667
- Reaction score
- 575
So, including the AOA and ACGME matches, DO's typically have around 95% class match rates right? To clarify, placement rates are for all graduates, not just seniors?
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 5,456
- Reaction score
- 4,226
Not sure myself now that I think about it. I think it is 99.41% of all DOs that applied last year, including former graduates, obtained a residency. If some one could clarify this (meaning if this includes both seniors and graduates).
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,825
- Reaction score
- 8,811
You're talking about a number that's likely <1%, and most of those are probably not registering for the match in the first place, hence the 99.41% placement rate. I consider that as negligible. I mean some probably have accidents or die after they submit rank lists, and must be withdrawn, but again that's a negligible percentage too. So yes, technically not ALL, but practically all.
As far as the RC issue, I further clarified that. 95% of AOA PDs are of residencies where the RCs have already stated that they will recognize AOA training as fulfilling the training requirement for PDs (there are other requirements that are evaluated separately). The RCs that either have stated that they will only do so on a case by case by case basis or won't accept it belong to NeuroSurg, Thoracic Surg (not sure about this), Uro, and ENT. Its not just that the RC needs to approve of PDs. The RCs have already met and decided on that issue in the way I've stated (that's the added info). The earliest ones to make the decision were the IM, FM, and EM RCs, but since the merger 20 have made that decision.
Placement rate includes people that have matched, scrambled, or attained positions via the SOAP. Those that scramble or attain position via the SOAP have not matched. I believe the 99.41% rate for placement published by the AOA/AACOM is based on seniors, not on graduates. Real match rates for DO schools probably range from 75-92%, but that's really speculation based on the overall number being somewhere around 85% (again speculation), and assuming it is probably less than the MD match rate (92-94%).
Also, the 99.41% is only indicative of attaining a PGY-1 spot, not necessarily a categorical residency.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,419
- Reaction score
- 2,536
Absolutely true. And Donald Trump loves Mexicans.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 466
So is this merger happening in 2019 or 2020 because there seems to be differing info. If we are applying during the 2019 cycle how much would it affect us?
The deadline for the merger is 2020. However, most of AOA programs should make the transition by 2019.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,312
- Reaction score
- 6,150
The merger deadline is 2020, but in reality, it already happening. Let me explain.
As an AOA program, you apply for pre-accredidation. Most have already done that. You then get a site visit, get a clarification report, then apply for formal accredidation by the ACGME RRC. Many programs are in that phase now, awaiting the RRC's decision. RRC is meeting in April, which will affect a ton of programs this fall.
Once accredited by the ACGME, then programs can do a few things. They can always enter both matches, assuming their curriculum meets the standards for both accrediting bodies. Some fields though, will have to choose, like EM. In EM, if you want to be a 3 year ACGME program, like the vast majority of EM programs, you can no longer participate in the AOA match, because the AOA only accredits 4 year programs. Now, you could have two separate curriculums, one 3 year and one 4 year, and still do both matches, but that would be unnecessarily complex and just delaying the inevitable by a year or two. Word on the street in the EM community is that most are just jumping ship to a 3 year program (ie. only participate in the ACGME match). Not all will, obviously, but I think many are, enough that the AOA recently sent an email out to EM programs telling them to realize that once they go to 3 years (ie this year for many), they can't match via the AOA match.
So within the next year or two, when the ACGME accredits all these AOA programs who've applied, I think you'll see alot of programs just forgoing the AOA match for simplicity sake. By 2020, when the AOA is no longer an accrediting body, then its match will be dead. Until then, it will only be quasi-dead assuming that most programs jump ship early, which is what seems like is happening.
As an AOA program, you apply for pre-accredidation. Most have already done that. You then get a site visit, get a clarification report, then apply for formal accredidation by the ACGME RRC. Many programs are in that phase now, awaiting the RRC's decision. RRC is meeting in April, which will affect a ton of programs this fall.
Once accredited by the ACGME, then programs can do a few things. They can always enter both matches, assuming their curriculum meets the standards for both accrediting bodies. Some fields though, will have to choose, like EM. In EM, if you want to be a 3 year ACGME program, like the vast majority of EM programs, you can no longer participate in the AOA match, because the AOA only accredits 4 year programs. Now, you could have two separate curriculums, one 3 year and one 4 year, and still do both matches, but that would be unnecessarily complex and just delaying the inevitable by a year or two. Word on the street in the EM community is that most are just jumping ship to a 3 year program (ie. only participate in the ACGME match). Not all will, obviously, but I think many are, enough that the AOA recently sent an email out to EM programs telling them to realize that once they go to 3 years (ie this year for many), they can't match via the AOA match.
So within the next year or two, when the ACGME accredits all these AOA programs who've applied, I think you'll see alot of programs just forgoing the AOA match for simplicity sake. By 2020, when the AOA is no longer an accrediting body, then its match will be dead. Until then, it will only be quasi-dead assuming that most programs jump ship early, which is what seems like is happening.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 466
Interesting. When do the "flood gates" open though, where all MD students can officially apply to residencies that were formally AOA. Is it the moment dual accreditation occurs? I think this is what is most worrying in the long run
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 5,456
- Reaction score
- 4,226
It is when it gets ACGME initial accreditation first. When this happens, the program is eligible for the NRMP. They can finally start taking US MD and IMG/FMG student applications. There are some already who have gotten accreditation now, so they will be participating in the next ACGME match.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 674
- Reaction score
- 466
What is the consensus on how this will affect DOs applying to the newly ACGME accreted programs? Harder to obtain it I would guess.......
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 5,456
- Reaction score
- 4,226
It really depends on the program. There are some programs who will be looking for the best of the best, or getting student from prestigious MD schools, or looking for mainly DOs. For those students who are looking to match into a pro-DO residency then may factors have to be looked at 1) if there are DOs, 2) if the program director is a DO, 3) if it has osteopathic recognition. For instance, an attending on here gave us a list of Mercy's surgery program that has switch to being ACGME accredited.
https://www.mercydesmoines.org/Portals/0/media/documents/residencydocuments/2015-2016 GS Program.pdf
As you can see, initially it has DOs, but all of a sudden the entire PGY-1 class is all MDs (even the plastic surgery fellow). You can tell straight away that the program is not a DO-friendly anymore (doesn't meet the three factors of DO friendliness mentioned above). However, this doesn't mean all programs will be like this there are many other that will strongly prefer DO candidates like in the past. Overall it will make it harder from some DO students, but this is mostly true for those struggling in DO schools.
D
deleted564680
Actually, the complete opposite is going to be true. Last year, a survey was sent to all ACGME programs of which only about 30% were returned. The results stated that 71% of ACGME programs would "consider" the COMLEX. So, before the merger, only 71% of the 30% (21.3%) of programs will even "consider" the COMLEX, which doesn't guarantee them weighting it equally to the USMLE or anything else. This assumes that the 70% who did not return the survey would not consider COMLEX which may or may not be likely.
The consensus is that every DO should now take the USMLE to be on equal footing.
Browse FRIEDA online and you can see that even programs that do consider the COMLEX will have minimum standards such at > 215 USMLE (like 30th percentile)and >550 COMLEX (like 60th percentile).
D
deleted564680
I know anecdotally of 8 more programs that have done this exact thing....AOA program > MD program director > ACGME certification > No more DOs.
People have to realize that there are a LOT of residency programs out there that are AOA but have MD program directors and the only reason they are AOA is because of the more loose standards for them to have a program at all. Those hospitals wanted residents and it was easier to go the AOA route.
not gucci at all. I am definitely stuck at a weird time where this could royally **** me
EDIT: actually what specialties are these anecdotal programs if I may ask
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2016
- Messages
- 659
- Reaction score
- 792
You'd be surprised how quickly people are willing to sell out for what they perceive as 'better" i.e there was a story here a while ago about an IM pd that graduated from one of the carib schools who fawned over an applicant from one of the well know state schools and ignored the applicant from his Alma Mater during the interview day. All it will take is DO PDs recognizing, hey these MD kids are really bright and this kid has a 240 step 1 etc, Why wouldn't we take him in our Neurosurg, general surg, anes, etc program? But I don't think the merger will ever happen, there has been talk about it sincle like 20o8, still hasnt happened. Will it happen before 2018?
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,245
- Reaction score
- 1,104
They have already agreed to it and while the AOA could (and I think should) still pull out, it seems highly unlikely at this point.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 5,456
- Reaction score
- 4,226
You can check the ACGME ADS and find that previously some AOA accredited programs have already received initial ACGME accreditation. If they still continue, without backing out (highly doubt them backing out), these residencies will start taking applications for the 2016-2017 cycle.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,730
- Reaction score
- 1,665
Worse comes to worst, there are more than enough IM and FM spots to go around.
Being a hospitalist in some rural area definitely gonna bring in the $$$$.
Being a hospitalist in some rural area definitely gonna bring in the $$$$.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 5,456
- Reaction score
- 4,226
Going to a quality residency program means become a quality doc. DOs gotta fight hard and not settle for sub-par residencies. You don't want DOs to be mainly replacing FMGs/IMGs in these places.
If you want to be a rural doc afterward, totally fine.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 38,501
- Reaction score
- 75,469
It's already happening lol. ALL programs are required to have at last applied for initial accreditation status by 2017 or they are not allowed to take on new residents. Most of the programs I've looked up that have been granted accreditation have dropped out of the AOA match, and I've heard of one program that took nothing but US MDs, so my assumption was incorrect.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2016
- Messages
- 659
- Reaction score
- 792
Yeah, MD students are going to salivate over those new derm spots, they don't pay well but doesnt matter.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,825
- Reaction score
- 8,811
If they cross over. I'm sure some will, but I've heard of those private practice AOA derm shops, some of whom pay barely anything to residents or even require residents to pay for training. There's no way those will stay open.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 1,035
- Reaction score
- 1,907
Those MD students are salivate over EM, ortho, other sub surgical, and gen surgery spots. Meanwhile, the unmatched US graduates are salivate over the unfilled AOA spots (if they have pre-accredited by ACGME in the next cycle).
Exactly in the bold word. The DO students who barely pass classes, barely pass the COMLEX, only take the COMLEX, and are "ill-prepared" in clerkship will have a difficult time matching. To any incoming student who is reading this thread, you don't want to be that student. You should work your ass off.
Last edited:
6
68PGunner
They will match to a FM or IM program assuming they pass everything on the first try. Let's get real here: if you re that lowly student, you shouldn't consider anything except the least competitive fields.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,312
- Reaction score
- 6,150
Its a done deal. There is no going back now. It would create an absolute nightmare for the AOA to pull out. I could have seen that happening a year ago, but not now. Pretty much every reputable AOA program has the wheels in motion to jump ship. If the AOA suddenly backs out, they will have already lost those programs. Its too late. Not only that, if the AOA backs out, the ACGME will immediately block all AOA graduates from ACGME fellowships, which was the big reason the AOA agreed to this in the first place.
Like the merger or not, its not going away. When it happened, I'll be honest, I wasn't happy. I liked being an AOA program, it was easier to be a big fish in a small pond. So I wasn't thrilled by the whole thing. But now that the wheels are in motion, I realize it'll be a good thing for the residents (3 year program), good for the hospital (quicker turnaround of residents = bigger hiring pool), and overall good for the faculty advancement (more emphasis on scholarly work and protected time). So I guess it was a good thing afterall, but change is hard, and uncertainty is really anxiety provoking. Once its all merged over and we see how things shake out, I think alot of peoples concerns will go away.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2013
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 103
Next month is just filled with ACGME Review Committee meetings. This should be good news! Hopefully we start seeing the “Initial Accreditation” statuses rolling in from the 128 total pre-accredited programs and many of those 25 current “Continued Pre-Accreditation” statuses transition to Initial Accreditation. It would show that programs are successfully taking the feedback they receive from their initial reviews and implementing the appropriate modifications to meet the ever important “Substantial Compliance” standard.
Additionally, there is an Institutional Review meeting which should address the currently 41 pre-accredited sponsor institutions awaiting accreditation (a necessary step for programs gaining their accreditation). Here are a list of the upcoming relevant RRC meetings. Should be an exciting month:
Ophtho 4/1
Surgery 4/1
Neurosurg 4/9
Dermatology 4/9
Internal Med 4/10
Anesthesiology 4/15
OB/GYN 4/15
Family Med 4/20
Emergency Med 4/23
Orthopedics 4/23
Institutional Review 4/29
Urology 4/29
Otolaryngology 4/30
Radiology 4/30
Pediatrics 5/20
http://www.acgme.org/Meetings-and-Events/Review-Committee-Meetings
Additionally, there is an Institutional Review meeting which should address the currently 41 pre-accredited sponsor institutions awaiting accreditation (a necessary step for programs gaining their accreditation). Here are a list of the upcoming relevant RRC meetings. Should be an exciting month:
Ophtho 4/1
Surgery 4/1
Neurosurg 4/9
Dermatology 4/9
Internal Med 4/10
Anesthesiology 4/15
OB/GYN 4/15
Family Med 4/20
Emergency Med 4/23
Orthopedics 4/23
Institutional Review 4/29
Urology 4/29
Otolaryngology 4/30
Radiology 4/30
Pediatrics 5/20
http://www.acgme.org/Meetings-and-Events/Review-Committee-Meetings
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,312
- Reaction score
- 6,150
Keeping my fingers crossed the RRC gets back to us quickly after the April meeting. It has huge implications for our incoming classes curriculum. I really don't want things to drag out into June or something like that.
- Joined
- May 10, 2013
- Messages
- 9,049
- Reaction score
- 8,528
The RRC will delegate how your curriculum is for your program? What kinds of changes can they make?
Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile app
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,312
- Reaction score
- 6,150
AOA EM programs are all 4 years. Most ACGME programs are 3. AOA will not accredit a 3 year EM program. So until the ACGME grants accredidation, we can't switch from 4 to 3 years. As soon as they do, the first class we have starts at 3 years, according to the ACGME. There is a HUGE difference in how the curriculum has to be structured when you compare a 4 year program to a 3 year program.
So its not about them dictating curriculum or changing it, its simply the accreditation itself having a huge impact on how the residency is structured as a 3 year program.
- Joined
- May 10, 2013
- Messages
- 9,049
- Reaction score
- 8,528
Interesting. I know you said the change is quite difficult to deal with, so with the change to three years, how do you think it will help or perhaps hurt the residents?
Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile app
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,312
- Reaction score
- 6,150
Hurt: Less elective time
Help: Graduate in 3 years, one more year of earning potential
In terms of education, there isn't a big difference. There was a ton of elective and selective time that wasn't absolutely necessary. In terms of key rotations and EM time, there was minimal trimming to go from 4 to 3. So educationally, I don't think anyone will suffer. But there is definitely less downtime / easy rotations and individualizatoin through electives. But it seems that students are more apt to go the 3 year route, rather than have the education spread out over 4. I don't blame them. Its like a 2oo-3ook loss by doing that extra year. Thats a huge factor.
We reached out to our incoming match class to ask them about switching from 4 to 3, since if we get approval, they will start as a 3 year program. We could have defered it a year if anyone had any big objections, and let the RRC decide for next year instead of this year. But they were universal in wanting to go to 3 years, as was our faculty, so we opted to basically change over ASAP assuming the RRC gives us the go ahead.
Help: Graduate in 3 years, one more year of earning potential
In terms of education, there isn't a big difference. There was a ton of elective and selective time that wasn't absolutely necessary. In terms of key rotations and EM time, there was minimal trimming to go from 4 to 3. So educationally, I don't think anyone will suffer. But there is definitely less downtime / easy rotations and individualizatoin through electives. But it seems that students are more apt to go the 3 year route, rather than have the education spread out over 4. I don't blame them. Its like a 2oo-3ook loss by doing that extra year. Thats a huge factor.
We reached out to our incoming match class to ask them about switching from 4 to 3, since if we get approval, they will start as a 3 year program. We could have defered it a year if anyone had any big objections, and let the RRC decide for next year instead of this year. But they were universal in wanting to go to 3 years, as was our faculty, so we opted to basically change over ASAP assuming the RRC gives us the go ahead.
- Joined
- May 10, 2013
- Messages
- 9,049
- Reaction score
- 8,528
Thanks for the explanation! It's great hearing from those who are in the know about what is really going with the merger.
If the competitive AOA residencies start favoring the middle of the road/competitive MD students over the competitive DO students (seems like they already have), this merger went from bad to a ****ing disaster if you are a strong DO applicant.
D
deleted731525
Something I have been hesitant to bring up here, but I am more worried about the merger having an impact on overall match rates for DO. I think the DO ACGME match rate has historically been in the high 70s or low 80s. The protected DO only residencies are a big reason why the overall placement rate for DOs has been >99%. Now you're going to have IMGs and FMGs, some of who will have very good step 1 scores applying for these spots. Can anyone more in the know comment on these fears?
D
deleted564680
Update:
Neurosurgery already had to have its submissions in. There were 7 programs in the AOA match this year with 13 spots. 6 programs have filed for pre-accreditation.
These fields will need to submit their pre-accreditation by June 30th of this year:
- 155 general surgery positions (49 programs) in the AOA match. 23 programs thus far have submitted = 47% of programs
- 121 orthopedic surgery positions (40 programs) in the AOA match. 17 programs thus far have submitted = 43% of programs
- 19 ENT positions (13 programs) in the AOA match. 7 programs thus far have submitted = 54% of programs
- 16 ophtho positions (10 programs) in the AOA match. 1 program thus far has submitted = 10% of programs
- 22 urology positions (11 programs) in the AOA match. 8 programs have thus far submitted = 73% of programs
- 24 radiology positions (11 programs) in the AOA match. 8 programs have thus far submitted = 73% of programs
4 year programs need to submit by Dec 31, 2016 and 3 year programs by Dec 31, 2017.
Neurosurgery already had to have its submissions in. There were 7 programs in the AOA match this year with 13 spots. 6 programs have filed for pre-accreditation.
These fields will need to submit their pre-accreditation by June 30th of this year:
- 155 general surgery positions (49 programs) in the AOA match. 23 programs thus far have submitted = 47% of programs
- 121 orthopedic surgery positions (40 programs) in the AOA match. 17 programs thus far have submitted = 43% of programs
- 19 ENT positions (13 programs) in the AOA match. 7 programs thus far have submitted = 54% of programs
- 16 ophtho positions (10 programs) in the AOA match. 1 program thus far has submitted = 10% of programs
- 22 urology positions (11 programs) in the AOA match. 8 programs have thus far submitted = 73% of programs
- 24 radiology positions (11 programs) in the AOA match. 8 programs have thus far submitted = 73% of programs
4 year programs need to submit by Dec 31, 2016 and 3 year programs by Dec 31, 2017.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,419
- Reaction score
- 2,536
Does this include the programs in those specialties that already applied/have pre-accreditation?
Also, you keep mentioning the AOA match. Are these programs planning in participating in the AOA match this coming cycle?
D
deleted564680
As far as I can tell, this was the last year that 5 year programs could be in the AOA match. So, all of the above 5 year programs will have to merge over to ACGME or be done.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,825
- Reaction score
- 8,811
Referring to it as AOA and ACGME "match" is a problem here guys. The ruling stated that they cannot accept students that will graduate after 2020. The limit has nothing to do with having to participate in the ACGME match, it has to do with accepting residents period. Again, all those programs need to do is apply for accreditation by the stated deadlines, which are the end of June of the year that residents who cannot finish by 2020 will be accepted as far as I recall (i.e. 5+ yr programs is end of 6/2016, 4 yr programs is end of 6/2017, 3 yr programs is end of 6/2018, etc.).
Applying for accreditation automatically gives the program pre-accreditation status, and it is very different from having to "merge over" to the NRMP match. No program can participate in the NRMP match (as of now) unless it is ACGME accredited and can accept MDs. That means until it has received Initial accreditation, NOT pre-accreditation (the step that essentially just means that an application was submitted and entered). Pre-accreditation continues until the program meets ACGME accreditation requirements, as demonstrated by a site visit and an RRC meeting. Which means a program can get pre-accredited now, but won't participate in the NRMP match until 2020, if that's when they get initial accreditation.
The pre-accreditation status can continue until 2020, when the designation will no longer mean anything. Programs are only required to pay to apply once, so they can resubmit their modified application any time throughout the transition period.
No one can give you a definitive prediction of what will happen. We have no way to know how DOs who do not match normally will fair in the SOAP after the merger, but I lay out some numbers below.
As far as your statement I quoted goes, that's actually incorrect. Prior to 2011, DOs had consistently had ACGME match rates in the high 60s and low 70s (68-71% consistently). Only in the last 5 yrs have we seen a sharp increase in ACGME DO match rates by about 10%. Its also been a time when the number of DOs applying through the ACGME match grew by 50% (and interestingly enough corresponds to an increase in taking the USMLE Step 1 and DO pass rates on that exam).
DO match rates are estimated somewhere in the mid to high 80s, and that's compared to an MD match rate of 92-94%. I doubt (but again cannot predict) that this will change significantly with the merger, so yes DOs will likely continue to achieve lower than MD match stats, but that is likely due to the population on average being less competitive. One other thing to keep in mind is that the current ACGME DO match rate, and in turn the DO SOAP rates are all estimates based on all DO applicants, not just seniors. Its likely that some degree of that match/SOAP rate is pulled down by individuals, who year after year are unable to find positions, just as the MD graduate match rate is significantly lower than the US MD senior match rate. To put it into perspective, lumping both US MD seniors and graduates together reduces their match rate by ~4%.
In addition, there will be plenty of DOs that will need to SOAP into a position (10-15%), and historically only 15-20% of that group has been successful at SOAPing into ACGME programs, leaving 12% of DOs without a program, 11% of whom ended scrambling into TRIs or open positions on the DO side. Now this assumes that the rate at which DOs SOAP into opened positions will be unchanged from the rate currently exhibited at ACGME programs. One thing that will be likely to happen, is that DO schools with GME affiliates will likely prefer their school's graduates, just as MD schools do with their graduates. So we may actually see a higher rate of DOs entering SOAP positions after the merger when all those DO school affiliates become ACGME accredited, but again this is conjecture. Given that COCA requires a PGY-1 placement rate of at least 95%, I doubt that schools will let (or be able to let) 10% of their students not attain a position.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 5,456
- Reaction score
- 4,226
Agree with most of your post, but would like to make one clarification. DO match rates historically have not been consistently at high 60s-low 70s this was only in the 2000s. In the 1990s, it went as low as the high 50s and then goes into the high 60s. It was very sporadic as to what percentages of DOs match each year during the 1970s-2000s.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,825
- Reaction score
- 8,811
Virtually all were in the 60s since the 1970s though (you're right, 5-6 yrs in the last 40 yrs were in the high 50s and low 60s), but most were mid-high 60s, with no real trend, and a couple in the 70s until the mid-1990s. So I suppose a more accurate statement would be that the DO match rates were historically in the mid-60s, as virtually all were around there for some time. Also, when you start getting into the older stats, you also are hitting very small numbers (like <100), which makes the stats kind of useless.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,312
- Reaction score
- 6,150
I can tell you, a match full of IMGs would be considered terrible, I dont care what their step 1 score is. Most would be completely unknowns who never rotated with our program. Board scores are trumped by clinical performance when we formulate our match list. From top to bottom, there is little correlation between step 1 score and rank list position. But EM grades and SLOEs, they absolutely correlate. Id take DOs who barely pass the boards but do well on rotation clinically anyday over an unknown IMG who I have no clue what theyll be like clinically.
Just one opinion from one program, take that for what its worth.
D
deleted731525
I was talking more about the IM and FM programs. I thought even AOA EM was/is fairly competitive.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,312
- Reaction score
- 6,150
Im not sure why it would be different in a less competitive field like IM or FP. I would imagine programs that usually have to fill with FMGs are going to appreciate more applicants in the ACGME pool to choose from.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,666
- Reaction score
- 35
Yes, what happened with the Mercy program is somewhat unfortunate. It was the first Osteopathic general surgery program in the country and has a rich history. It was taken in a very different direction by new leadership..although you could argue that they were ahead of the game by getting accredited early and avoiding this whole merger.
I think the take home in the merger is that applicants who have strong applications will benefit, because now they will not have to choose between two matches. Once the desirable programs are participating in the NRMP match, students can rank their choices based on what their preferences are, and not have to choose between two sets of matches. Many applicants with great resumes end up dropping out of the NRMP match due to choosing a 'safer' pick in the AOA match, where they know they will match into their specialty of choice. I think that middle of the road DO applicants will do ok in most specialties, although I do agree that specialties like Ortho, Ophtho, ENT, Derm, etc may become very difficult to match into - keep in mind these are extremely difficult for MD applicants as well.
Last edited:
- Status
