Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)最新文献

{"title":"Impact of COVID-19 on the Ophthalmology Residency Home-Institution Match Rate.","authors":"Robert T Swan,&nbsp;Misha F Syed,&nbsp;Kimberly W Crowder,&nbsp;Andrew G Lee","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1750022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1750022","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose</b>  The aim of this study was to evaluate the ophthalmology residency match results to determine changes in the rate of home-institution matches during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. <b>Methods</b>  Aggregate deidentified summary match result data from 2017 to 2022 was obtained from the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology and the San Francisco (SF) Match. A chi-squared test was performed to determine if the rate of candidate matching to the home residency program in ophthalmology was higher in the post-COVID-19 compared with pre-COVID-19 match years. A literature review using PubMed was performed of other medical subspecialty match rates to home institution during the same study period. <b>Results</b>  A chi-squared test for difference in proportions confirmed a significantly higher chance of matching to the home program for ophthalmology in the post-COVID-19, SF Match year of 2021 to 2022 compared with 2017 to 2020 ( <i>p</i>  = 0.001). Other medical specialties including otolaryngology, plastic surgery, and dermatology also showed similar increased home institution residency match rates during the same time period. Although neurosurgery and urology also had increased trend rates for home institution match rates, these results did not reach statistical significance. <b>Conclusions</b>  The ophthalmology home-institution residency SF Match rate was significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic year 2021 to 22. This mirrors a trend reported in other specialties including the otolaryngology, dermatology, and plastic surgery in the 2021 match. Additional study will be required to identify factors leading to this observation.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"14 2","pages":"e166-e168"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/84/94/10-1055-s-0042-1750022.PMC9927994.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10114969","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Systematic Analysis of the Impact of an Ambulatory Ophthalmology Urgent Care Clinic.","authors":"Sally S E Park,&nbsp;Rohin Vij,&nbsp;Jeff Wu,&nbsp;Bryan Zarrin,&nbsp;Jee-Young Moon,&nbsp;Jason Oliveira,&nbsp;Jeffrey S Schultz,&nbsp;Anurag Shrivastava","doi":"10.1055/s-0041-1741464","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1741464","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Importance</b>  A same-day ophthalmic urgent care clinic can provide efficient eye care, a rich educational environment, and can improve patient experience. <b>Objective</b>  The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate volume, financial impact, care metrics, and the breadth of pathology of urgent new patient encounters based on their site of initial presentation. <b>Design, Setting, and Participants</b>  A retrospective analysis was performed on consecutive urgent new patient evaluations in our same-day triage clinic at the Henkind Eye Institute at Montefiore Medical Center between February 2019 and January 2020. The cohort of patients who presented directly to this urgent care clinic were referred to as the \"TRIAGE\" group. Patients who initially presented to an emergency department (ED), and were subsequently referred to our triage clinic, are referred to as the \"ED + TRIAGE\" group. <b>Main Outcomes and Measures</b>  Visits were evaluated on a variety of metrics, including diagnosis, duration, charge, cost, and revenue. Furthermore, return to the ED or inpatient admission was documented. <b>Results</b>  Of 3,482 visits analyzed, 2,538 (72.9%) were in the \"TRIAGE\" group. Common presenting diagnoses were ocular surface disease ( <i>n</i>  = 486, 19.1%), trauma ( <i>n</i>  = 342, 13.5%; most commonly surface abrasion <i>n</i>  = 195, 7.7%), and infectious conjunctivitis ( <i>n</i>  = 304, 12.0%). Patients in the \"TRIAGE\" group, on average, were seen 184.6% faster (158.2 vs. 450.2 minutes) than patients in the \"ED + TRIAGE\" group ( <i>p</i>  < 0.001). The \"ED + TRIAGE\" group were furthermore found to generate 442.1% higher charges ($870.20 vs. 4717.70) and were associated with 175.1% higher cost ($908.80 vs. 330.40) per patient. The hospital was found to save money when noncommercially insured patients with ophthalmic complaints presented to the triage clinic instead of the ED. Patients seen in the triage clinic had a low rate of readmission to the ED ( <i>n</i>  = 42, 1.2%). <b>Conclusions and Relevance</b>  A same-day ophthalmology triage clinic provides efficient care, while providing a rich learning environment for residents. Less wait time with direct access to subspecialist care can help improve quality, outcome, and satisfaction metrics.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"14 2","pages":"e229-e237"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/89/ab/10-1055-s-0041-1741464.PMC9927978.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10114967","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Exposure of Ophthalmology Residents to Cornea and Keratorefractive Surgeries in the United States.","authors":"Brittany C Tsou,&nbsp;Zachary M Eller,&nbsp;Michael J Fliotsos,&nbsp;Mary Qiu,&nbsp;Sidra Zafar,&nbsp;Divya Srikumaran,&nbsp;Kraig Bower,&nbsp;Fasika A Woreta","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1755317","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1755317","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose</b>  To describe the cornea and keratorefractive surgeries experience of U.S. ophthalmology residents. <b>Methods</b>  Deidentified case logs of residents graduating in 2018 were collected from ophthalmology residency program directors in the United States. Using Current Procedure Terminology codes, case logs were reviewed in the categories of cornea and keratorefractive surgeries. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education national graduating resident surgical case logs on cornea procedures published from 2010 to 2020 were also analyzed. <b>Results</b>  Case logs were received for 152/488 (31.1%) residents from 36/115 (31.3%) ophthalmology residency programs. The most common procedures logged by residents as primary surgeons were pterygium removal (4.3 ± 4.2) and keratorefractive surgeries (3.6 ± 6.2). Residents logged an average of 2.4 keratoplasties as primary surgeon, performing an average of 1.4 penetrating keratoplasties (PKs) and 0.8 endothelial keratoplasties (EKs). As assistants, the most common procedures logged were keratorefractive surgeries (6.1 ± 4.9), EKs (3.8 ± 3.3), and PKs (3.5 ± 2.3). Medium or large residency class size was associated with higher cornea procedural volumes (odds ratio: 8.9; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-75.6; <i>p</i>  < 0.05). <b>Conclusion</b>  The most common cornea surgeries performed by residents include keratoplasty, keratorefractive, and pterygium procedures. Larger program size was associated with greater relative cornea surgery volume. More specific guidelines for logging of procedures could provide a more accurate assessment of resident exposure to critical techniques such as suturing as well as reflect trends in current practice such as the overall increase in EKs.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"14 2","pages":"e169-e177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/26/74/10-1055-s-0042-1755317.PMC9928004.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9737510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Impact of Social Media on Applicant Perspectives of Ophthalmology Residency Programs.","authors":"Sanket S Shah,&nbsp;Sravya Veligandla,&nbsp;Christopher Compton,&nbsp;Hasenin Al-Khersan,&nbsp;Jayanth Sridhar","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1756365","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1756365","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose</b>  This article evaluates the relevance of social media to ophthalmology residency applicants in the setting of virtual interviews, the types of information sought by applicants, and the impact of rebranding of an institutional and departmental social media account. <b>Design</b>  Cross-sectional survey. <b>Participants</b>  Ophthalmology residency applicants from the 2020 to 2021 cycle. <b>Methods</b>  A voluntary survey was emailed to 481 applicants to the University of Louisville Department of Ophthalmology residency during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle to gauge the impact of social media on their perspectives of residency programs, especially with regards to a new departmental social media account. <b>Main Outcome Measures</b>  Applicants' use of social media platforms and specific components of departmental social media accounts found most useful. <b>Results</b>  The 13-question survey was completed by 84/481 applicants (17.5% response rate). Social media was used by 93% of respondents. Of those respondents reporting social media use, the most common platforms utilized included Instagram (85%), Facebook (83%), Twitter (41%), and LinkedIn (29%). Sixty-nine percent of respondents specifically used Instagram to learn more about residency programs. With regards to the rebranded Instagram account at the University of Louisville, 58% of respondents reported being influenced, with all asserting that the account positively encouraged them to apply to the program. The most informative elements of the account related to current resident profiles, resident life, and living in Louisville. <b>Conclusion</b>  A majority of responding ophthalmology residency applicants utilized social media to search for program information. A newly developed social media profile at a single institution positively influenced applicant impressions of the program, with the most importance assigned to information provided about current residents and typical resident life. These findings suggest key areas where programs should continue to dedicate online resources with targeted information to better recruit applicants.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"14 2","pages":"e224-e228"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/87/78/10-1055-s-0042-1756365.PMC9927977.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9738861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Predictive Factors of Research Productivity among Ophthalmology Residents: A Benchmark Analysis.","authors":"Abraham Hang,&nbsp;Tejus Pradeep,&nbsp;Hassan Jessani,&nbsp;Gagan Kalra,&nbsp;Evan L Waxman,&nbsp;Matthew Zhang,&nbsp;Roxana Fu","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1750021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1750021","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>  Positive and negative associations between prior publications and future research productivity is described in other fields, but no such analysis exists for ophthalmology. We conducted a study to determine characteristics of residents exhibiting research productivity during residency. <b>Methods</b>  Using San Francisco Match and Program Web sites, a roster of ophthalmology residents in 2019 to 2020 was compiled, and publication data was collected via PubMed and Google Scholar on a random sample of 100 third-year residents. <b>Results</b>  The median number of publications generated by ophthalmology residents before residency is 2 (range 0-13). Thirty-seven, 23, and 40 residents had zero, one, and two or more papers published during residency, respectively, with a median of 1 (range 0-14). On univariate analysis, compared with residents who published zero or one paper, those who published ≥ 2 were more likely to have more preresidency publications (odds ratio [OR] 1.30; <i>p</i>  = 0.005), attend a top-25 ranked residency program by multiple metrics including Doximity reputation (OR 4.92; <i>p</i>  < 0.001), and have attended a top-25 ranked medical school program by U.S. News and World Report (OR 3.24; <i>p</i>  = 0.03). However, on adjusted analyses, the only factor that remained significant for predicting publications in residency was whether the residency program attended was top 25 ranked (OR 3.54; <i>p</i>  = 0.009). <b>Discussion/Conclusion</b>  With the advent of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 pass/fail system, greater emphasis will be placed on other metrics, including research. This is the first benchmark analysis examining factors predictive of publication productivity in ophthalmology residents. Our study suggests that the residency program attended, not the medical school attended or prior publication history, plays an influential role in the number of publications produced during residency, highlighting the importance of factors to support research on the institutional level, such as mentorship and funding, rather than historical factors in research productivity by the resident.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"14 2","pages":"e147-e152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/02/32/10-1055-s-0042-1750021.PMC9927983.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10097993","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"In the Mind of the Ophthalmology Residency Applicant: Deciding Where to Apply, Interview, and Rank.","authors":"Joy Q Jin,&nbsp;Tessnim R Ahmad,&nbsp;Neeti Parikh,&nbsp;Divya Srikumaran,&nbsp;Fasika Woreta,&nbsp;Saras Ramanathan","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1756123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1756123","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective</b>  This article characterizes the resources used by ophthalmology residency applicants when deciding where to apply, interview, and rank. <b>Design</b>  Cross-sectional, online survey. <b>Participants</b>  All applicants to the University of California-San Francisco ophthalmology residency program during the 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021 application cycles. <b>Methods</b>  A secure, anonymous, 19-item post-match questionnaire was distributed to participants inquiring about demographic information, match outcomes, and resources used to learn and make decisions about residency programs. Results were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods. <b>Main Outcome Measures</b>  Qualitative ranking of resources used to decide where to apply, interview, and rank. <b>Results</b>  One hundred thirty-six of 870 solicited applicants responded to the questionnaire, for a response rate of 15.6%. Digital platforms were ranked as more important resources than people (i.e., faculty, career advisors, residents, and program directors) when applicants were deciding where to apply and interview. Digital platforms became far less important when applicants were formulating their rank lists, at which time the program's academic reputation, perceived happiness of residents and faculty, interview experience, and geographic location were more important. When learning about residency programs, 100% of respondents engaged with program Web sites, and the majority engaged with program emails ( <i>n</i> =88 [85.4%]), Doximity ( <i>n</i> =82 [79.6%]), Reddit ( <i>n</i> =64 [62.1%]), Instagram ( <i>n</i> =59 [57.3%]), the FREIDA residency program database ( <i>n</i> =55 [53.4%]), and YouTube ( <i>n</i> =53 [51.5%]). All 13 digital platforms included in the survey were utilized by at least 25% of respondents, largely passively (i.e., reading rather than producing content). Respondents indicated that the most important topics to include on program Web sites were the number of residents accepted per year, current resident profiles, and resident alumni job/fellowship placement. <b>Conclusion</b>  Applicants engage heavily with digital media in deciding where to apply and interview but rely heavily on their personal experiences with the program in deciding where to rank. Ophthalmology programs may facilitate recruitment of applicants by optimizing their digital media platforms.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"14 2","pages":"e201-e208"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/55/3f/10-1055-s-0042-1756123.PMC9927998.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10114970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Third-Year Medical School Ophthalmology Curriculum for a Longitudinal Integrated Clerkship Model.","authors":"A Itzam Marin,&nbsp;Helio Neves da Silva,&nbsp;Hongan Chen,&nbsp;Nihaal Mehta,&nbsp;Linh K Nguyen,&nbsp;Jeffrey R SooHoo,&nbsp;Jennifer E Adams,&nbsp;Jasleen K Singh","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1756201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1756201","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>  Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships (LICs) are innovative educational models that allow medical student continuity with patients, preceptors, colleagues, and health care systems. Given their benefits, the number of LICs continues to increase. We share a pilot model for an ophthalmology LIC curriculum at the University of Colorado School of Medicine targeted for students to see patients through transitions of care. <b>Methods</b>  A needs assessment was performed including literature search, interviews with expert faculty, and a precurricular student questionnaire. Based on our findings, we developed a pilot two-part curriculum consisting of an introductory lecture and a half-day clinical experience designed to integrate patient eye care into the LIC model. At the end of the year, students completed a questionnaire assessing attitude, confidence, and knowledge. Precourse data were collected from students in the academic year (AY) 2018/2019 to aid with the needs assessment. Postcourse data were collected after completion of the curriculum from students in AY 2019/2020. Data from questionnaire were intended to improve our curricular experience. <b>Results</b>  Our curriculum was piloted between the 2019 and 2020 AY. The completion rate of our curriculum was 100%. The questionnaire response rate was 90% in pre- and postcurricular groups ( <i>n</i> =15/17 and <i>n</i> =9/10, respectively). Hundred percent of students from both groups responded that it is \"very important\"/\"important\" for all physicians to be able to identify when ophthalmology referral is indicated. After the intervention, there were significant differences in the rate of students responding that they were \"confident\" diagnosing acute angle-closure glaucoma (36 vs. 78%, <i>p</i> =0.04), treating a chemical burn (20 vs 67%, <i>p</i> =0.02), and diagnosing viral conjunctivitis (27 vs. 67%); 90% of students reported increased confidence in longitudinal care of patients in the eye clinic. <b>Conclusions</b>  Medical students believe in the importance of ophthalmic education regardless of their specialty of choice. We present a pilot model to introduce ophthalmology within an LIC model. Future studies with a larger sample are needed to determine the impact of this model in terms of knowledge acquisition and relationship between curriculum and ophthalmology interest among students. Our curriculum can be adapted to other underrepresented specialties in the medical school curriculum and is easily exportable to other LICs.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"14 2","pages":"e209-e215"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/47/b9/10-1055-s-0042-1756201.PMC9927252.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10097994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Trends in Cornea Fellowship Applications and Applicant Characteristics: A San Francisco Match Analysis.","authors":"Brittany C Tsou,&nbsp;Ugochi T Aguwa,&nbsp;Lubaina T Arsiwala,&nbsp;Eleanor Burton,&nbsp;Kapil Mishra,&nbsp;Sidra Zafar,&nbsp;Fasika Woreta","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1756199","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1756199","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose</b>  We investigate trends in cornea fellowship positions filled over time and applicant characteristics associated with matching into cornea fellowship. <b>Methods</b>  Characteristics of cornea fellowship applicants were assessed using deidentified 2010 to 2017 San Francisco (SF) Match data. Publicly available SF Match cornea fellowship data including the number of participating programs, number of positions offered, number of positions filled, percentage of positions filled, and number of vacancies from 2014 to 2019 were also analyzed as data from 2010 to 2013 were unavailable. <b>Results</b>  From 2014 to 2019, the number of cornea fellowship programs increased by 11.3% (mean 2.3% per year, <i>p</i>  = 0.006) and the number of positions offered increased by 7.7% (mean 1.4% per year, <i>p</i>  = 0.065). Of 1,390 applicants from 2010 to 2017, 589 (42.4%) matched into cornea. After controlling for potential covariates, graduation from a U.S residency program (odds ratio [OR]: 6.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.05-9.35, <i>p</i>  < 0.001) and a greater number of interviews completed (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.29-1.42, <i>p</i>  < 0.001) were associated with increased odds of cornea fellowship match. A greater number of applied programs (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95-0.98, <i>p</i>  < 0.001) was associated with decreased odds of matching into cornea fellowship. The proportion of applicants matching into cornea fellowship increased until 30 applications. <b>Conclusions</b>  The number of cornea fellowship programs and positions increased from 2014 to 2019. Graduation from a U.S residency program and a greater number of interviews completed were associated with an increased likelihood of cornea fellowship match. Unlike applying to any ophthalmology subspecialty fellowship, applying to greater than 30 cornea fellowship programs was associated with decreased odds of matching.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"14 2","pages":"e216-e223"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a7/ac/10-1055-s-0042-1756199.PMC9927986.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10097998","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Outcomes of a Five-Year Formal Ophthalmology Residency Mentorship Program.","authors":"Sen Yang, Sarah T Glass, John L Clements, Leah G Reznick, Ambar Faridi","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1756133","DOIUrl":"10.1055/s-0042-1756133","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This article describes a formal ophthalmology residency mentorship program, identifies its strengths and weaknesses over 5 years of implementation, and proposes strategies to improve qualitative outcomes of the mentorship program.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional anonymous online survey.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>All current and former mentees and mentors at the Casey Eye Institute (CEI) residency program from 2016 to 2021.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All eligible participants were contacted via email to complete a survey to describe and analyze their experiences with the CEI's formal residency mentorship program.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 65 surveyed participants, 82% preferred in-person meetings and met up from 2 to 3 times (44%) to 4 to 6 times (38.5%) annually at 15 minutes to 1 hour (48%) or 1 to 2 hours (42%) duration. Sixty-two percent of meetings were initiated by mentors, 8% by mentees, and 32% shared responsibilities equally. Participants also identified the three most important qualities for successful mentor-mentee relationship as personality (33.6%), communication styles (29.2%), and extracurricular interests/hobbies (16.8%). Mentees valued career advising, networking, and wellness support over academic and research mentorship. Subjective outcomes showed 25% of the mentee and 43% of the mentors agreed the mentorship program was a valuable experience. Comparably, 14% of the mentees and 38% of the mentors prioritized the relationship. There was a strong correlation between participants who prioritized the relationship and acknowledged it as a valuable experience (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Eighteen percent of the mentees and 43% of the mentors found the relationship effective and met their expectations. Twenty-one percent of the mentees and 38% of the mentors believed they had the tools and skills necessary to be effective in their respective roles.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our survey identified that weaknesses of the mentorship program include ineffective communications, inadequate preparation in their respective roles, and lack of priority focus on the relationship. We propose strategies to strengthen our program through creating workshops to clarify roles and responsibilities, emphasizing accountability with a contract statement, and implementing a new matching algorithm to customize participants' experience. Additional studies from other residencies with formal mentorship programs are warranted to identify, strategize, and foster high-quality mentorship.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"14 2","pages":"e178-e186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0c/e0/10-1055-s-0042-1756133.PMC9927995.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9688676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Factors Associated with Early Career Research Productivity after Ophthalmology Residency.","authors":"Matthew S Wieder,&nbsp;Catherine H He,&nbsp;Daniel A Pahl,&nbsp;Afshin Parsikia,&nbsp;Joyce N Mbekeani","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1756124","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1756124","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>  Few studies have evaluated associations between ophthalmology trainee characteristics and performance with postgraduate research productivity. <b>Purpose</b>  This article evaluates factors associated with post-residency research productivity among U.S. ophthalmology graduates. <b>Methods</b>  Publicly available information of residents graduating between 2009 and 2014 from 30 randomly selected U.S. ophthalmology programs was collected from June to September 2020. Differences in publications between the 5 years post-residency and pre-residency/residency period were used as metrics of productivity. Residents with incomplete records were excluded. <b>Results</b>  A total of 758 of 768 residents, 306 females (40.4%) and 452 males (59.6%), met inclusion criteria. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) number of pre-residency publications was 1.7 (4.0), residency was 1.3 (2.2), and post-residency was 4.0 (7.3). Mean (SD) H-index was 4.2 (4.9). Top-ranked residency ( <i>p</i>  = 0.001), Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) medical honor status ( <i>p</i>  = 0.002), U.S. medical school graduates ( <i>p</i>  < 0.001), and academic career ( <i>p</i>  < 0.001) were all associated with higher pre-/post-residency mean publication difference. Pursuing fellowship training also was associated with higher total publications ( <i>p</i>  < 0.001). Of all pre-residency degrees, PhD had the greatest odds of high postgraduate publications (defined as > 4). There was a positive correlation between both pre-residency/residency and post-residency publications (rho = 0.441; <i>p</i>  < 0.001) and between mean difference of pre-residency/post-residency publications for residents at a program and that program's Doximity rank (rho = 0.497; <i>p</i>  < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression revealed, academic career choice (odds ratio [OR] = 3.38; <i>p</i>  < 0.001), Heed fellowship (OR = 3.12; <i>p</i>  = 0.031), > 2 residency publications (OR = 2.89; <i>p</i>  < 0.001), AOA status (OR = 2.0; <i>p</i>  = 0.004), and top-ranked residency programs (OR = 1.89; <i>p</i>  = 0.007), had greatest odds of > 4 postgraduation publications. <b>Conclusion</b>  Higher post-residency productivity was associated with multiple factors, with choice of an academic career, Heed fellowship, and residency productivity playing key roles.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"14 2","pages":"e238-e245"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a5/c5/10-1055-s-0042-1756124.PMC9927991.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9741447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}