Programs that could be candidates for contracting/closing

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
elementaryschooleconomics said:
Also, people should use this thread (and others like it) to beat your respective departments over the head, if you can. There are a handful of posts from the 20-year history of SDN which discuss my department in a factually-incorrect manner. However, I was able to track down where these beliefs were coming from and talked to the faculty, which resulted in changed behavior (for the better). RadOnc rumors don't generally appear out of thin air, as I discovered.

SDN can be a tool of positivity if approached correctly.

(also, now I want to start a podcast called RadOnc Rumors ©️)
Click to expand...
Why not set up a substack like that?
Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
RadOncDoc21 said:
We went from being Amazon to a pawn shop in 5 years.
Click to expand...
1610113128745.png
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 7 users
evilbooyaa said:
Example #4 - Tufts - 8 attendings across 2 sites: (Rhode Island Cancer Specialists | Lifespan), what appears to be 9 residents (this information not available online, going per numbers listed elsewhere) Tufts also reportedly rotates through 3 sites, all about an hour apart from one another (see below post for explanation why this is included on the list)

Example #5 - Kentucky - 5 faculty (Our physicians in Radiation Oncology | UK HealthCare), 6 residents
Click to expand...
UK has 6 faculty, this is not updated on the website you linked to. I informed the people who are in charge of the website
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
evilbooyaa said:
Example #4 - Tufts - 8 attendings across 2 sites: (Rhode Island Cancer Specialists | Lifespan), what appears to be 9 residents (this information not available online, going per numbers listed elsewhere) Tufts also reportedly rotates through 3 sites, all about an hour apart from one another (see below post for explanation why this is included on the list)

Example #5 - Kentucky - 5 faculty (Our physicians in Radiation Oncology | UK HealthCare), 6 residents
Click to expand...
UK has 6 faculty, this website is not up to date. I’m working on contacting those in marketing
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Porcupine87 said:
UK has 6 faculty, this website is not up to date. I’m working on contacting those in marketing
Click to expand...
Sure but it is still a bottom tier program with almost no chance of future employment for incoming residents. Inform marketing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Porcupine87 said:
UK has 6 faculty, this is not updated on the website you linked to. I informed the people who are in charge of the website
Click to expand...
Example 4 is a poor excuse for a program. had a friend interview there for a fake academic job with zero academic time and tenure review job covering 2 sites and building a proton center. And the offer was laughable like in <20%ile.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Porcupine87 said:
UK has 6 faculty, this is not updated on the website you linked to. I informed the people who are in charge of the website
Click to expand...
That original comment that you responded to was posted in early March of 2020. Way to be on top of it UK!
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 2 users
fiji128 said:
That original comment that you responded to was posted in early March of 2020. Way to be on top of it UK!
Click to expand...
A lot of these hellpit places have “not yet updated” websites. See a pattern here? This is often reflective of a place where people are incompetent, uncaring, too old, you are not a priority. You will get the same treatment as a resident or faculty. Pay attention to small details and effort put into detail. It often reflects A LOT; i cannot repeat this enough. I don’t think applicants really have an appreciation of what is important until it is too late. You’re in the hellpit. Congrats. Good luck to you. Have fun in the breadline.

maybe you should have paid attention to that dingy website which was not updated. Now you are in a place with minimal teaching and research opportunities, and career advancement and nobody cares about your success. And yeah your chair thinks there is “no evidence” the job market is bad. All is good. In the words of David Pumpkins, “any questions!!!?”
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
At least they have been honest this year during the interview process telling applicants they need someone with coding skills to maintain the website.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Does anyone know about Georgetown (I think faculty are employed by MedStar)?
Is MedStar setup any good?
 
Programs with official issues, per the ACGME/RRC:


Harvard: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.

South Carolina: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2020.

Stony Brook: Initial Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2019.

SUNY Downstate: Probationary Accreditation effective 04/28/2020.

Texas A and M: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.

UC Irvine: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.

Oklahoma: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.

Tennessee: Initial Accreditation with Warning effective 04/28/2020.

UT San Antonio: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2020.

West Virginia: Initial Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2020.



 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Can anyone from those programs give us an indication as to what the issues were? Hard to mentor medical students and residents without all the necessary information...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
medgator said:
Joint center/harvard... Wow
Click to expand...
Hahhvahd's probably on that list for shamelessly taking their own med students all the time LOL #elitism

Hard to believe that dumpster fires like Baylor, NY Methodist, Allegheny, LIJ, and such are not on that list
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
FrostyHammer said:
Hahhvahd's probably on that list for shamelessly taking their own med students all the time LOL #elitism

Hard to believe that dumpster fires like Baylor, NY Methodist, Allegheny, LIJ, and such are not on that list
Click to expand...

the Cornell example showed residents have to answer ACGME survey honestly if they want change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
FrostyHammer said:
Hahhvahd's probably on that list for shamelessly taking their own med students all the time LOL #elitism

Hard to believe that dumpster fires like Baylor, NY Methodist, Allegheny, LIJ, and such are not on that list
Click to expand...

unfortunately, there is so much pressure on residents not to report on ACGME due to power imbalance

this is particularly strong as smaller programs where there is no “strength in numbers”

lot of programs “coach” there residents to respond a certain way

some pull the internal survey card where you can answer honestly and program promises to make changes

ifs interesting that if you look at when programs are shut down, the residents typically end up at much “better programs” than where they were

but it’s still such a drastic shift in ones life (esp with working spouse, kids, family concerns etc)

takes a lot of courage to those that speak up. Lot of respect to Cornell residents speaking up recently though wish they never went it
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
FrostyHammer said:
Hard to believe that dumpster fires like Baylor, NY Methodist, Allegheny, LIJ, and such are not on that list
Click to expand...
the bar with ACGME is stupid low. Its just how it is. They need to do enough to maintain the appearance of credibility but not much more.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 3 users
radonc17 said:
unfortunately, there is so much pressure on residents not to report on ACGME due to power imbalance

this is particularly strong as smaller programs where there is no “strength in numbers”

lot of programs “coach” there residents to respond a certain way

some pull the internal survey card where you can answer honestly and program promises to make changes

ifs interesting that if you look at when programs are shut down, the residents typically end up at much “better programs” than where they were

but it’s still such a drastic shift in ones life (esp with working spouse, kids, family concerns etc)

takes a lot of courage to those that speak up. Lot of respect to Cornell residents speaking up recently though wish they never went it
Click to expand...
"If you answer negatively, you're really just hurting yourself" - my Program Director re: the 2021 survey
 
  • Like
  • Angry
  • Dislike
Reactions: 8 users
elementaryschooleconomics said:
"If you answer negatively, you're really just hurting yourself" - my Program Director re: the 2021 survey
Click to expand...

this.

This is incredibly common in hellpit places. Residents are scared, vulnerable, not united in numbers. Easy to make everyone anxious and just lie and get out of hellpit at graduation.

institutional GMEs are also basically scams to protect the institution and the bottomline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
elementaryschooleconomics said:
"If you answer negatively, you're really just hurting yourself" - my Program Director re: the 2021 survey
Click to expand...

our PDs must have attended the same "how to avoid ACGME problems in terrible residency programs" seminar, because we've gotten fed the same line every year
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
FrostyHammer said:
Hahhvahd's probably on that list for shamelessly taking their own med students all the time LOL #elitism

Hard to believe that dumpster fires like Baylor, NY Methodist, Allegheny, LIJ, and such are not on that list
Click to expand...
acgme probably wanted to make a statement to avoid being accused of picking on just the gutter programs.
 
elementaryschooleconomics said:
"If you answer negatively, you're really just hurting yourself" - my Program Director re: the 2021 survey
Click to expand...

That's really, really unfortunate and this crap needs to be exposed.

Anyone who is reading this, if your PD or any faculty has the above opinion or makes you feel that the institutional survey is not a place to be negative, feel free to PM me your institution anonymously and I'm happy to put together a list. I am looking for direct responses from current attendings, not "I heard that X institution was doing this" from the rumor mill/peanut gallery.

OK with doing it for recent graduates as well, say within the past 3 years (especially if PD has been maintained). Beyond that it may not be as accurate.

The big guns are reading SDN now and there have been a lot of call-outs here, and it's time to start taking action (IMO) on the next steps in the process, about resident suppression.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
evilbooyaa said:
That's really, really unfortunate and this crap needs to be exposed.

Anyone who is reading this, if your PD or any faculty has the above opinion or makes you feel that the institutional survey is not a place to be negative, feel free to PM me your institution anonymously and I'm happy to put together a list. I am looking for direct responses from current attendings, not "I heard that X institution was doing this" from the rumor mill/peanut gallery.

OK with doing it for recent graduates as well, say within the past 3 years (especially if PD has been maintained). Beyond that it may not be as accurate.

The big guns are reading SDN now and there have been a lot of call-outs here, and it's time to start taking action (IMO) on the next steps in the process, about resident suppression.
Click to expand...
I fully agree. Can't give this enough likes. This kind of behavior is abusive. Its the academic equivalent of telling an abused wife she shouldn't turn her abusive husband into the cops because of all the supposed ways it will make her life harder. It shouldn't be tolerated. Just, yuck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Thanks for posting that list. I wonder if there is a way to get details on reasons for "Warning"?


fiji128 said:
Programs with official issues, per the ACGME/RRC:


Harvard: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.

South Carolina: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2020.

Stony Brook: Initial Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2019.

SUNY Downstate: Probationary Accreditation effective 04/28/2020.

Texas A and M: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.

UC Irvine: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.

Oklahoma: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/13/2021.

Tennessee: Initial Accreditation with Warning effective 04/28/2020.

UT San Antonio: Continued Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2020.

West Virginia: Initial Accreditation with Warning effective 01/16/2020.



Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
seper said:
Thanks for posting that list. I wonder if there is a way to get details on reasons for "Warning"?
Click to expand...

Yeah good luck prying that out of anyone or finding it on the Internet.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
evilbooyaa said:
That's really, really unfortunate and this crap needs to be exposed.

Anyone who is reading this, if your PD or any faculty has the above opinion or makes you feel that the institutional survey is not a place to be negative, feel free to PM me your institution anonymously and I'm happy to put together a list. I am looking for direct responses from current attendings, not "I heard that X institution was doing this" from the rumor mill/peanut gallery.

OK with doing it for recent graduates as well, say within the past 3 years (especially if PD has been maintained). Beyond that it may not be as accurate.

The big guns are reading SDN now and there have been a lot of call-outs here, and it's time to start taking action (IMO) on the next steps in the process, about resident suppression.
Click to expand...

for anybody wondering jeez i wonder why this one hellpit place i constantly hear about always matches and is never on probation, the answer is people lie to applicants and embellish the survey. Also some of these programs are in “desirable” locations.
 
Last edited:
Anyone have info from the ADROP meeting? Heard rumors that mandatory increase in case and main site faculty minimums are being called for as well as a need for a certain number of Onc related specialties at main site.

Smaller/community programs look out
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
medgator said:
Anyone have info from the ADROP meeting? Heard rumors that mandatory increase in case and main site faculty minimums are being called for as well as a need for a certain number of Onc related specialties at main site.

Smaller/community programs look out
Click to expand...
If you don't have ALL OF: neurosurg, uro, H&N surg, breast surg, thoracic surg, hepatobiliary, MSK surgery, GYN onc, and colorectal surgery on-site, your system should not have a radiation oncology program. period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Mandelin Rain said:
If you don't have ALL OF: neurosurg, uro, H&N surg, breast surg, thoracic surg, hepatobiliary, MSK surgery, GYN onc, and colorectal surgery on-site, your system should not have a radiation oncology program. period.
Click to expand...
It honestly never even crossed my mind that there are programs out there that DON'T have this. Aren't those like...absolute core disciplines at academic medical centers?

Especially Neurosurgery. We work so closely with that crew that even most of the attendings know who I am at this point, and I can't even say that about my own nurses!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
elementaryschooleconomics said:
It honestly never even crossed my mind that there are programs out there that DON'T have this. Aren't those like...absolute core disciplines at academic medical centers?

Especially Neurosurgery. We work so closely with that crew that even most of the attendings know who I am at this point, and I can't even say that about my own nurses!
Click to expand...
Need 3 onc adjacent specialties or something like that, now
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mandelin Rain said:
If you don't have ALL OF: neurosurg, uro, H&N surg, breast surg, thoracic surg, hepatobiliary, MSK surgery, GYN onc, and colorectal surgery on-site, your system should not have a radiation oncology program. period.
Click to expand...
The more i think about it... If they increase the faculty to resident ratio to something like 1.3-1.5, it may actually hurt the biggest programs the most... Need 30 attendings for 20 residents etc
 
what can ADROP possibly decide? a bunch of unimportant docs just posturing among themselves
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 6 users
Don't catch the falling knife, Figure 1 from: Unfilled Positions in the 2021 Radiation Oncology Match

This number will (and should) continue to rise unless leadership acts to change the course i.e. cutting the number of spots, especially those programs that offer sub-par education. Medical students aren't dumb, they see the writing on the wall.

1620574026811.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Mandelin Rain said:
If you don't have ALL OF: neurosurg, uro, H&N surg, breast surg, thoracic surg, hepatobiliary, MSK surgery, GYN onc, and colorectal surgery on-site, your system should not have a radiation oncology program. period.
Click to expand...

I think the proposal was to have TRAINING programs in those other specialties at the main site. I agree that there should be at least a service line for all those services at the main site. Whether it is staffed by residents/fellows vs attendings/PAs isn't as important IMHO.

The question is, does there need to be a neurosurg residency (and/or neuro-onc fellowship), urology residency (and/or uro-onc fellowship), ENT residency (and/or head and neck onc fellowship), breast fellowship, thoracic fellowship, HPB/surg onc fellowship, ortho onc fellowship, AND gyn onc fellowship offered at the main site? The 'proposal' was to have at least 3 'oncology adjacent' training programs (think it included med onc fellowship as an available option as well).
 
evilbooyaa said:
I think the proposal was to have TRAINING programs in those other specialties at the main site. I agree that there should be at least a service line for all those services at the main site. Whether it is staffed by residents/fellows vs attendings/PAs isn't as important IMHO.

The question is, does there need to be a neurosurg residency (and/or neuro-onc fellowship), urology residency (and/or uro-onc fellowship), ENT residency (and/or head and neck onc fellowship), breast fellowship, thoracic fellowship, HPB/surg onc fellowship, ortho onc fellowship, AND gyn onc fellowship offered at the main site? The 'proposal' was to have at least 3 'oncology adjacent' training programs (think it included med onc fellowship as an available option as well).
Click to expand...
Gotcha. That makes sense.
 
From the RRC purposed rule changes:

1) "As part of our proposed revisions, we recommend that three or more of the following ACGME-accredited residency and/or fellowship training programs be active at the Sponsoring Institution and be directly involved in radiation oncology residency training at the primary clinical site: complex general surgical oncology; gynecologic oncology; hematology and medical oncology; hospice and palliative medicine; interventional radiology; micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology; musculoskeletal oncology; neurological surgery; otolaryngology - head and neck surgery; pediatric hematology/oncology, thoracic surgery; and urology."

Having just 3 of these is a really low bar. Should be 7 or more. At least this standard prevents private practice type places from opening residencies as has been seen in other specialties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
fiji128 said:
From the RRC purposed rule changes:

1) "As part of our proposed revisions, we recommend that three or more of the following ACGME-accredited residency and/or fellowship training programs be active at the Sponsoring Institution and be directly involved in radiation oncology residency training at the primary clinical site: complex general surgical oncology; gynecologic oncology; hematology and medical oncology; hospice and palliative medicine; interventional radiology; micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology; musculoskeletal oncology; neurological surgery; otolaryngology - head and neck surgery; pediatric hematology/oncology, thoracic surgery; and urology."

Having just 3 of these is a really low bar. Should be 7 or more. At least this standard prevents private practice type places from opening residencies as has been seen in other specialties.
Click to expand...
Surely every current residency meets this requirement.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

T
Recruiting Candidates
Replies
22
Views
2K
NotMattSpraker
N
fiji128
Programs that have increased/decreased resident numbers and closed 2019 to 2024
Replies
37
Views
1K
temujim
T
I
Proton International center at UAB closing, bankrupt
Replies
34
Views
3K
elementaryschooleconomics
elementaryschooleconomics
fiji128
Programs that have increased/decreased resident numbers and closed 2019 to 2023.
Replies
13
Views
2K
Fpg1245
F
B
anal cancer poor chemo candidate
Replies
40
Views
1K
evilbooyaa
evilbooyaa
Top