Published online September 3, 2007
PEDIATRICS Vol. 120 No. 4 October 2007, pp. e826-e831 (doi:10.1542/peds.2006-3189)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Opel, D.
Right arrow Articles by Diekema, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Opel, D.
Right arrow Articles by Diekema, D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Office Practice

ARTICLE

Professionalism and the Match: A Pediatric Residency Program's Postinterview No-Call Policy and Its Impact on Applicants

Douglas Opel, MDa,b, Richard Shugerman, MDb, Heather McPhillips, MD, MPHb, Wendy Sue Swanson, MD, MBeb, Sarah Archibald, MDb and Douglas Diekema, MD, MPHa,b

a Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
b Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

OBJECTIVE. The National Residency Matching Program allows match participants to recruit each other and try to influence future ranking decisions in their favor, but it also states that participants "must not make statements implying commitment." The National Residency Matching Program cautions against statements such as, "We plan to rank you very highly on our list," because they can be misinterpreted as an informal commitment. To avoid issues around miscommunication, the University of Washington Pediatric Residency Program instituted a postinterview no-call policy with applicants. The purpose of this study was to determine this policy's impact on applicants.

METHODS. A Web-based, anonymous survey was sent after the National Residency Matching Program deadline for submitting rank lists but before match day to applicants who interviewed at our program from 2003 to 2006. Applicants were asked whether our program's position on their rank list would have been influenced more favorably, less favorably, or not at all had they received a telephone call from our program.

RESULTS. The survey response rate was 53% (n = 468). A total of 10.3% (n = 48) of the applicants to our program would have been favorably influenced by a telephone call after their interview. Significantly more applicants reported that a recruiting call from our program would have caused them to rank our program more favorably in 2006 (17.2%) than in 2003–2005 combined (8.4%).

CONCLUSIONS. We identified a vulnerable applicant population whose rank lists are potentially influenced by questionable postinterview communication from residency programs. To protect the integrity and fairness of the match, we call for more explicit guidelines regarding postinterview communication with applicants.

Key Words: ethics • medical education • medical student education • pediatric workforce

Abbreviations: NRMP—National Residency Matching Program

Accepted Feb 6, 2007.