Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“The End Game”- Students’ perspectives of the National Residency Matching Program: A focus group study

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The evolving match process has resulted in increasing pressures on medical students, residency programs, and medical schools. These pressures have led to calls for reform of the National Residency Matching Program (NRMP). Large amounts of data regarding strategic ways to apply to residencies are available, but students may not trust the data enough to make such an important decision. In order to understand student experiences during the NRMP, qualitative studies are needed.

Method

Video-recorded focus groups were conducted with students who participated in the 2017 NRMP at a large Midwestern medical school. Recordings were independently analyzed using a conventional content analysis approach, developing categories which were reviewed by all members of the research team.

Results

Five focus groups were completed with 24 volunteers within weeks of match results. Categories were identified and supporting quotes included. These categories included information regarding the selection of programs, accepting and scheduling interviews, and the interview experience. Participants indicated that they accept all interviews and then subsequently canceled them, regardless of the impact on fellow students or residency programs. Participants also provided recommendations for programs, but were reluctant to suggest major changes to the NRMP.

Discussion

The match is a high-stakes experience in which the “over-apply, overaccept” strategy is dominant. Students recognize that they are investing excessive time and resources, but will not leave anything to chance. This study illuminates the areas of concern and perspectives of the NRMP from the student point-of-view. Further qualitative studies are needed to investigate this further.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gruppuso PA, Adashi EY. Residency replacement fever: is it time for a reevaluation? Acad Med. 2017;92:923–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Katsufrakis PJ, Uhler TA, Jones LD. The residency application process: pursuing improved outcomes through better understanding of the issues. Acad Med. 2016;91:1483–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aagaard EM, Abaza M. The residency application process - burden and consequences. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:303–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sullivan GM. Repairing the residency application process. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8:306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gliatto P, Karani R. The residency application process: working well, needs fixing, or broken beyond repair? J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8:307–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berger JS, Cioletti A. Viewpoint from two graduate medical education deans: application overload in the residency match process. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8:317–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Harlton E, Bortoletto, Ayogu N. Residency interviews in the 21st century. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8:322–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Puscas L. They can’t all walk on water. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8:314–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Claiborne JR, Crantford JC, Swett KR, David LR. The plastic surgery match: predicting success and improving the process. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:698–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. National Resident Matching Program, Results and Data: 2017 Main Residency Match. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC 2017. http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Main-Match-Results-and-Data-2017.pdf. Accessed February 2018.

  11. National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the 2017 NRMP Applicant Survey by preferred specialty and applicant type: National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC 2017. http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Applicant-Survey-Report-2017.pdf. Accessed February 2018.

  12. Kerfoot BP, Asher KP, McCulloch DL. Financial and educational costs of the residency interview process for urology applicants. Urology. 2008;71:990–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Guidry J, Greenberg S, Michael L. Costs of the residency match for fourth-year medical students. Texas Med. 2014;110(6):e1 http://www.texmed.org/June14Journal/. Accessed May 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Callaway P, Walling A, Melhado T, Groskurth J. Financial and time burdens for medical students interviewing for residency. Fam Med. 2017;49:137–40.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Walling A, Nilsen J, Grothusen J, King S, Gillenwater C, Callaway P, et al. Is interviewing for family medicine less burdensome than other specialties? Fam Med. 2017;49:152–3.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rogers CR, Gutowski KA, Munoz-Del Rio A, Larson DL, Edwards M, Hansen JE, et al. Integrated plastic surgery residency applicant survey: characteristics of successful applicants and feedback about the interview process. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:1607–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Camp CL, Sousa PL, Hanssen AD, Karam MD, Haidukewych GJ, Oakes DA, et al. The cost of getting into orthopedic residency: analysis of applicant demographics, expenditures, and the value of away rotations. J Surg Educ. 2016;73:886–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Blackshaw AM, Watson SC, Bush JS. The cost and burden of the residency match in emergency medicine. West J Emerg Med. 2017;18:169–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nikonow TN, Lyon TD, Jackman SV, Averch TD. Survey of applicant experience and cost in the urology match: opportunities for reform. J Urol. 2015;194:1063–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Agarwal N, Choi PA, Okonkwo DO, Barrow DL, Friedlander RM. Financial burden associated with the residency match in neurological surgery. J Neurosurg. 2016;126:184–90.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Little DC, Yoder SM, Grikscheit TC, Jackson CC, Fuchs JR, McCrudden KW, et al. Cost considerations and applicant characteristics for the plastic surgery match. J Pediatr Surg. 2005;40:69–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Benson NM, Stickle TR, Raszka WV. Going “fourth” from medical school: fourth-year medical students’ perspectives on the fourth year of medical school. Acad Med. 2015;90:1386–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wolfe SJ, Lockspeiser TM, Gong J. Students’ perspectives on the fourth year of medical school: a mixed-methods analysis. Acad Med. 2016;89:602–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Walling A, Merando A. The fourth year of medical education: a literature review. Acad Med. 2010;85(11):1698–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kirch DG. Improving the transition to residency. AAMCNews-Medical Education. June 27, 2017. https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-residency/article/apply-smart-data-consider/. Accessed February 2018.

  26. Weissbart SJ, Kim SJ, Feinn RS, Stock JA. Relationship between the number of residency applications and the yearly match rate: time to start thinking about an application limit? J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7:81–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pereira AG, Chelminski PR, Chheda SG, Angus SV, Becker J, Chudgar SM, et al. Application inflation for internal medicine applicants in the match: drivers, consequences, and potential solutions. Am J Med. 2016;129(8):885–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Istas K, Paolo AM, Berardo B, Bonaminio G, Fontes J, Walling A, et al. On the origins of perceptions: student perceptions of active learning and their implications for educational reform. Teach Learn Med. 2016;28(4):362–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Walling A, Istas K, Bonaminio G, Paolo A, Fontes J, Davis N, et al. Medical student perspectives of active learning: a focus group study. Teach Learn Med. 2016;29:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Altheide DL. Qualitative media analysis. Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1996. p. 38.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. McConnell MM, Eva KW. The role of emotion in the learning and transfer of clinical skills and knowledge. Acad Med. 2012;87:1316–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Deng F, Chen J, Wesevich A. More transparency is needed to curb excessive residency applications. Acad Med. 2017;92(7):895–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Olde Hartman TC, van Rijswijk E, van Dulmen S, van Weel-Baumgarten E, Lucassen PLBJ, van Weel C. How patients and family physicians communicate about persistent medically unexplained symptoms: a qualitative study of video-recorded consultations. Patient Ed Counseling. 2013;90:354–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Caldwell K, Atwal A. Non-participant observation: using video tapes to collect data in nursing research. Nurse Res. 2005;13(2):42–54.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita (KUSM-W), 101 N. Kansas, Wichita, KS, 67214, USA

    Kari Nilsen, Anne Walling, Paul Callaway & Cassie Scripter

  2. University of Kansas School of Medicine- Kansas City (KUSM-KC), Kansas City, KS, USA

    Greg Unruh, Mark Meyer & Jill Grothusen

  3. University of Colorado School of Medicine Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA

    Samantha King

Authors
  1. Kari Nilsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne Walling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Callaway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Greg Unruh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cassie Scripter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mark Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jill Grothusen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Samantha King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kari Nilsen.

Appendix

Appendix

Focus Group Questions

Intro: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this focus group! We are looking forward to hearing your perceptions of the NRMP Match process and the advice you have for future students. Keep in mind that we are not interested in anything other than your personal experience and expertise, so please do not feel obligated to discuss anything that you do not feel comfortable discussing. I do have some specific questions to ask, but we will just keep this as an informal conversation—so please feel free to speak your mind!

  1. 1.

    How comfortable did you feel beginning the Match process?

  2. 2.

    How much time do you think is needed for interviewing?

  3. 3.

    How helpful was your advisor and/or the medical school administration during the whole process?

  4. 4.

    How flexible were your rotations during the Match process?

  5. 5.

    What were some strengths of the interviews?

  6. 6.

    What were some weaknesses of the interviews?

  7. 7.

    Do you feel all the time and money spent for the Match process was worth it?

  8. 8.

    How would you change the Match process?

  9. 9.

    What advice would you give next year’s class? What advice would you give underclassmen?

  10. 10.

    Any other comments?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nilsen, K., Walling, A., Callaway, P. et al. “The End Game”- Students’ perspectives of the National Residency Matching Program: A focus group study. Med.Sci.Educ. 28, 729–737 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-018-0627-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-018-0627-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation