103.19 Evaluation of Cardiothoracic Surgery Residency and Fellowship Program Websites

Posted on January 31, 2019

V. M. Miller1, L. A. Padilla1,2, A. Schuh3, D. Mauchley1, D. Cleveland1, Z. Aburjania1, R. Dabal1  1University Of Alabama at Birmingham,Department Of Surgery,Birmingham, Alabama, USA 2University Of Alabama at Birmingham,Department Of Epidemiology,Birmingham, Alabama, USA 3University Of Alabama at Birmingham,Birmingham, Alabama, USA

Introduction:  

The internet is a valuable resource for residency and fellowship candidates when deciding where to apply. Interviewing can affect medical debt, clinical scheduling, and institution finances, yet program websites have shown critical deficiencies in accessibility and content. Until now no analysis of cardiothoracic surgery program websites has been performed.

Methods:  

The Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS), the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access (FREIDA), the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), the Thoracic Surgery Directors Association (TSDA) and Google® were used to identify integrated, 4+3, and traditional cardiothoracic surgery residency and fellowship programs. The accessibility of websites from each of these sources was assessed and the presence or absence of content deemed relevant to applicants was evaluated by two reviewers.

Results: 

Eighty nine active programs were identified and 86 had functional websites. Website content and accessibility were overall suboptimal in all 86 of these programs. Google® was the most reliable means of accessing a program’s website. Fifty percent of integrated program websites and 60% of traditional fellowship websites contained less than half of the content assessed. Information on 4+3 programs was extremely limited.

Conclusion:
Cardiothoracic surgery residency and fellowship websites remain difficult to access and are failing to provide important information. Improving website accessibility and content may have implications for attracting the most competitive applicants,limiting associated costs, and increasing match satisfaction for both the applicant and the institution.