FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4311783852> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4311783852 endingPage "646" @default.
• W4311783852 startingPage "642" @default.
• W4311783852 abstract "As more medical students are applying to residency and fellowship programs, the burden of reviewing applications and discriminating among individuals is increasing. In addition, studies highlight the need to intentionally target gender and other biases, which may affect underrepresented in medicine (UIM) applicants.1-3 Integrating standardized letters into the application process may mitigate biases and improve the efficiency of the selection process.4 Standardized letters have been implemented in several medicine and surgery specialties, with a growing body of literature supporting their advantages over narrative letters of recommendation (LORs).5,6 We pose a call to action to graduate medical education (GME) program leaders to collaborate in the process of developing and implementing residency- and fellowship-specific standardized letters across training programs.In 1997, the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine (CORD) reported on the development and implementation of a standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR) by emergency medicine (EM) residency programs.7 Subsequently, other specialties including orthopedics and otolaryngology developed and implemented their own SLORs.8,9 In 2014, the EM SLOR was updated and renamed the CORD Standardized Letter of Evaluation (SLOE) to better reflect its purpose in providing a summative evaluation of a candidate. Now considered the gold standard by CORD for evaluating potential candidates, the EM SLOE has 4 sections: Background Information, Qualifications for EM, Global Assessment, and Written Comments. Background Information includes the length of the evaluator-student relationship, the nature of their contact, and the student's end-of-rotation grade on a 5-point scale: Honors, High Pass, Pass, Low Pass, and Fail. The Qualifications for EM section asks the evaluator to compare students to their peers on 7 criteria: commitment to EM, work ethic, differential development and treatment plan, teamwork, communication skills, guidance needed during residency, and likelihood of success. The Global Assessment section asks evaluators to rank students in comparison to others they recommended in the prior academic year: top 10%, top third, middle third, and lower third. Finally, the Written Comments section allows evaluators to expand on students' noncognitive attributes.10 Students must obtain a SLOE, completed by faculty trained in writing SLOEs, for each EM rotation they complete and submit it with their residency applications. Like narrative LORs, students may opt to waive their right to view the SLOE. In 2020, the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics piloted the obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) SLOE followed by full implementation in 2022; the sections of the OB/GYN SLOE include Competency Assessment Rubric, Most Outstanding Feature, Areas of Focus, and Narrative.11While SLOEs have been adopted by several specialties, most letters submitted for GME applicants use narrative approaches. Program directors identify narrative LORs as critical to the selection process; however, narrative LORs have not been found to reliably provide substantial information on applicants' competencies required by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, discriminate between candidates, or predict future performance.12-20 While there are guidelines on how to write narrative LORs, a paucity of literature exists to address the optimal content for narrative LORs to assist faculty who often have little or no training in writing narrative LORs.21,22The number of applicants to GME programs across the United States has been steadily rising.23-34 Performing a thoughtful, holistic review of each candidate's application and selecting who to invite for interviews is a challenging task. Studies performed in various specialties have identified significant linguistic differences in narrative LORs, including infrequent use of language describing strong leadership traits for women and UIM candidates, suggesting that implicit biases related to both candidates and letter writers exist.25-34 Several studies have demonstrated that SLOEs may be better than narrative LORs at mitigating implicit biases that adversely affect women and UIM candidates.33,35-41 Additionally, the SLOE represents a potential tool to better differentiate applicants; Jackson et al demonstrated that the electronic EM SLOE provided more discrimination, even above the original SLOR, with improved spread of rank categorization.42-44 While SLOE implementation may standardize applications and enable candidate comparison in a more objective and unbiased manner, the potential remains for inflation of applicants' qualifications by authors; medical schools and training programs have an interest in helping their graduates secure preferred positions.38-40 It will be imperative to invest time and resources to provide faculty development related to the writing and interpretation of SLOEs for selection committees.To develop and adopt SLOEs across more specialties, it is important to learn from the prior experience of GME programs where implementation has been successful.41,45-47 The Table suggests an action plan with concrete steps that program leaders can take. The total number of applications that selection committees must review within a short time frame has risen sharply. For example, in 2022, 7 of the 17 pediatric subspecialties received, on average, over 100 applications per program, with pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) being one of the most competitive subspecialties. PEM program directors from across the country meet semiannually. During the most recent meeting, we polled attendees, and the overwhelming majority were interested in the development of a subspecialty-specific SLOE. Other discussion points included ensuring the SLOE encourages holistic review of candidates, is designed to meet the needs of institutions where PEM specialists are not present, and is prefaced by faculty development and training. The authors plan to continue this process and hope the effort will be expanded to engage members of the broader GME community." @default.
• W4311783852 created "2022-12-28" @default.
• W4311783852 creator A5003188807 @default.
• W4311783852 creator A5008523024 @default.
• W4311783852 creator A5013363209 @default.
• W4311783852 creator A5014314580 @default.
• W4311783852 creator A5023421001 @default.
• W4311783852 creator A5024112035 @default.
• W4311783852 creator A5027712876 @default.
• W4311783852 creator A5035322162 @default.
• W4311783852 creator A5049449678 @default.
• W4311783852 creator A5057052386 @default.
• W4311783852 creator A5057802472 @default.
• W4311783852 creator A5065148180 @default.
• W4311783852 creator A5078196716 @default.
• W4311783852 creator A5084705320 @default.
• W4311783852 creator A5087971340 @default.
• W4311783852 date "2022-12-01" @default.
• W4311783852 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W4311783852 title "A Call to Action for Standardizing Letters of Recommendation" @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2000699117 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2009189293 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2026771462 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2109011241 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2164458041 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2170155552 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2508687941 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2579631417 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2587690489 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2742754534 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2749659761 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2800986097 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2888264304 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2909944322 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2920607486 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2944110713 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2957194753 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2965219199 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2971465862 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2971624134 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2972290368 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2980280232 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2982357019 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2997917532 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2998715338 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W2999037047 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W3037015886 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W3080297571 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W3096503644 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W3112774970 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W3135289202 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W3135448540 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W3135832219 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W3136383401 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W3138300836 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W3160952700 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W3193493838 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W3194338782 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W3197250793 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W3203507659 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W3213991886 @default.
• W4311783852 cites W80503525 @default.
• W4311783852 doi "https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-22-00131.1" @default.
• W4311783852 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36591418" @default.
• W4311783852 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4311783852 type Work @default.
• W4311783852 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W4311783852 countsByYear W43117838522023 @default.
• W4311783852 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4311783852 hasAuthorship W4311783852A5003188807 @default.
• W4311783852 hasAuthorship W4311783852A5008523024 @default.
• W4311783852 hasAuthorship W4311783852A5013363209 @default.
• W4311783852 hasAuthorship W4311783852A5014314580 @default.
• W4311783852 hasAuthorship W4311783852A5023421001 @default.
• W4311783852 hasAuthorship W4311783852A5024112035 @default.
• W4311783852 hasAuthorship W4311783852A5027712876 @default.
• W4311783852 hasAuthorship W4311783852A5035322162 @default.
• W4311783852 hasAuthorship W4311783852A5049449678 @default.
• W4311783852 hasAuthorship W4311783852A5057052386 @default.
• W4311783852 hasAuthorship W4311783852A5057802472 @default.
• W4311783852 hasAuthorship W4311783852A5065148180 @default.
• W4311783852 hasAuthorship W4311783852A5078196716 @default.
• W4311783852 hasAuthorship W4311783852A5084705320 @default.
• W4311783852 hasAuthorship W4311783852A5087971340 @default.
• W4311783852 hasBestOaLocation W43117838521 @default.
• W4311783852 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W4311783852 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W4311783852 hasConcept C152747807 @default.
• W4311783852 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4311783852 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W4311783852 hasConcept C2778954079 @default.
• W4311783852 hasConcept C2779767262 @default.
• W4311783852 hasConcept C2780724011 @default.
• W4311783852 hasConcept C2994511739 @default.
• W4311783852 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4311783852 hasConcept C42525527 @default.
• W4311783852 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W4311783852 hasConcept C61521584 @default.

• next