UME to GME Transition Bill of Rights

Applicants should have the tools and insight needed to assess fit, competitiveness and chances of matching to an institution and/or specialty within a measurable margin of success. Programs should possess the technology necessary to best determine fit and chances of matching amongst their applicant pool.

Programs should inform applicants who do not meet their basic application criteria and/or filters prior to the start of the process to minimize unnecessary spending on application fees. Similarly, programs should inform applicants of their interview process timeline, method for communicating interview invitations, and if the applicants are no longer being considered.

Diversity and inclusion of all peoples, genders, races, ethnicities, educational backgrounds, religions, abilities, socioeconomic and immigration statuses is paramount.  There should be systems in place to allow programs and applicants to disclose their goals for recruitment and training, including administrative policies.

Gone are the days where the antiquated practice of inviting more than necessary is ever needed. Invite up to the number of interview spots. If those do not fill, invite more candidates. Current interview software allows for streamlined management of this process. Applicants and physicians are not a commodity, and should not be treated as such.  Applicants should be provided at least 24-72 hours to respond to any interview invitation.  Programs should disclose the number of recruited positions available to applicants on their website and/or similar public data sources.

Applicants will not book two interviews at two different institutions at the same time. This will ensure higher interview completion rates and decrease the need for over-invitation.

Early in the season, interviews are a sacred commodity, but with each passing week, and increasing numbers of invitations, applicant priorities change. To decrease both overapplication and over-invitation, cancelling interviews that are no longer in demand will allow other candidates to fill vacant spots and increase their chances of matching.  For those applicants accepting a position outside the match, they should be encouraged to immediately withdraw their current interviews.

The residency interview and match process is a large macroeconomic, probabilistic and algorithmic mathematical problem. Applicants wanting to become the best possible physicians and programs wanting to recruit passionate candidates to train at their program should not be discredited for attempting to be competitive or serving their individual best efforts. The system can be fair, just and equitable if everyone works together, recognizing that problems and issues arise from actions on both sides of the recruitment process. Post-interview communication should be honest, authentic and accurate. Professional courtesy and consideration should be exercised by all participants throughout the recruitment process.

The SOAP is part of the residency selection process by design. Those applicants and programs that do not initially match or fill should not be looked down upon as “lesser,” in the same way professional athletes who have gone undrafted have been league MVPs. Systems are not perfect, and these imperfections, while manageable, should not define individuals or programs. Similar empathy should be extended to applicants and programs that are unsuccessful in the match.

In a country facing an impending physician shortage, it is unacceptable to have talented and highly-trained doctors unable to find residency positions.   Increasing the number of residency positions to help meet the future needs of the US Healthcare system should be considered. Technology can assist in making this a reality.