Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
INTRODUCTION
In 2013, the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine (AAIM) developed guidelines for the Department of Medicine (DOM) letter with the goal of providing IM program directors (PDs) with a summary of a student’s overall IM performance for residency selection.1 Guideline adherence was variable but increased over time and letters using guidelines were more credible.2
In 2015, the Association of American Medical Colleges called for revision of the Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE). Revised guidelines recommended inclusion of information on the components of each clerkship grade, component weight, comparison graphs, grade distributions, and unedited performance narratives by evaluators.3
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, AAIM recently offered new guidance for the 2020–2021 residency application season, including recommendations to change the DOM letter by adopting a standardized template.4
Little is known about how IM PDs view DOM letters following guidelines or individual components of the DOM letter.5 To better understand PDs familiarity with and assessment of guidelines and corresponding DOM letters, we authored five survey questions included in a voluntary survey of IM PDs who completed the 2019 American College of Physicians (ACP) IM In-training Examinationő (2019-IM-ITEő).
METHODS
PDs from 577 programs who completed the 2019-IM-ITE were invited to complete a voluntary web survey through a link in their Score Report or email notification from ACP from October 2019 to February 2020. Surveys were completed by 315 PDs. After excluding 45 respondents who opted out and 19 respondents from non-US programs, the dataset included 251 respondents. The survey consisted of multiple-choice and 5-point Likert scale questions.
To assess statistical representativeness of the responses, self-reported program size and US Census region were compared to the US/US territory-based population of IM programs using data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.6 Responses were dichotomized for items regarding familiarity to allow for a secondary analysis comparing those who had heard of guidelines even if not entirely familiar with them. Responses were compared for goodness-of-fit to program size and region using the adjusted Wald (Pearson) chi-square statistic. Data analysis was conducted in Stata 16.2. The study was exempted by the University of Chicago IRB (IRB20–1108).
RESULTS
PDs were asked how familiar they are with AAIM DOM letter guidelines. Most (84%; 211/251) indicated some degree of familiarity whereas 16% were not familiar. Of PDs familiar (Table 1), most (82%) reported receiving DOM letters following guidelines “very often/often” (37%) or “sometimes” (49%). Larger programs (> 100 residents) reported receiving letters that “often” followed guidelines at a higher rate than medium-sized or smaller programs (p = 0.032).
PDs familiar with the guidelines were asked whether letters following them were more useful in discriminating among candidates. Thirty-six percent reported these letters were more useful; 25% believed they were not; and 39% were undecided. Nearly all (92%) reported some degree of redundancy between DOM letters and the MSPE.
PDs familiar with the guidelines were asked what additional information might be useful to include on a DOM letter. More than half indicated adding a distinguishing feature that makes the student more likely to be successful in an IM residency (56%) and sub-internship performance (55%) would be useful; 45% selected shelf-exam scores (Table 2). There were no statistical associations between those items when compared by program size or region.
DISCUSSION
Most PDs reported some degree of familiarity with DOM guidelines and to receive DOM letters that follow guidelines. Yet, even among letters that follow guidelines most PDs found DOM letters to some extent redundant to the MSPE. Our study is a cross-sectional survey and is not necessarily generalizable over time and to all programs.
Writing DOM letters is time-consuming and reading letters that do not add value is time-wasting. Most importantly, providing PDs with information that does not enhance their ability to select residency applicants is a missed opportunity. This research provides data about what additional information IM PDs might prefer as they review applications. Providing more text from faculty evaluations not included in MSPE and an applicant’s distinguishing feature may further help programs identify best “fit” between applicant and program.
As we move forward to a unique application season during COVID-19, it is more important than ever that we provide value in our DOM evaluations and consider adopting the new AAIM 2020–2021 DOM letter recommendations.4
References
Lang J, Aboff BM, Bordley DR, Call S, Dezee KJ, Fazio SB, et al. Guidelines for writing department of medicine summary letters. Am J Med. 2013;126(5):458-63.
Fitz M, La Rochelle J, Lang V, DeWaay D, Adams W, Nasraty F. Use of standard guidelines for Department of Medicine summary letters. Teach Learn Med. 2018;30(3):255-65.
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Recommendations for Revising the Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE). 2017. Available at https://www.aamc.org/system mspe-recommendations.pdf. Accessed July 1, 2020.
Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine (AAIM). AAIM Recommendations for the 2020-2021 Internal Medicine Residency Application Cycle in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. 2020. Available at https://www.im.org/resources/ume-gme-program- resources/resources-residency-application2021. Accessed July 1, 2020.
2018 NRMPő Program Director Survey: what do Program Directors like to see?. Available at 2018 NRMPő Program Director Survey: What do Program Directors like to see? Available at https://blog.matcharesident.com/tag/program-director-survey/ Accessed November 20, 2020.
Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). ACGME Accreditation Database System Public. Available at https://apps.acgme.org/ads/Public/Programs/Search. Accessed December 1, 2019.
Acknowledgements
We thank the American College of Physicians for including our survey questions on the 2019 Internal Medicine In-Training Examinationő Program Directors Questionnaire and for sharing the data with us for analysis. We also thank the Alliance for Academic Medicine and the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine Survey and Scholarship Committee for its assistance with editing the survey questions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: Levine, LaRochelle, Pincavage
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors
Drafting of the manuscript: Levine, Kisielewski, Pincavage
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Levine, LaRochelle, Kisielewski, Harris, Pincavage
Statistical analysis: Kisielewski, Harris
Administrative, technical, or material support: Kisielewski, Harris
All authors approved the manuscript and agree to adhere to all terms outlined in Journal of General Internal Medicine.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Levine, D., LaRochelle, J.S., Kisielewski, M. et al. Current Department of Medicine Summary Letters Are Falling Short. J GEN INTERN MED 37, 482–484 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-06693-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-06693-w