The Independent Plastic Surgery Match: A Survey of Applicants Analyzing Recent Changes and Preferences for the Future

Background: The number of applicants to independent plastic surgery programs has recently decreased.  The only other survey of independent applicants is from the match years 2006 to 2008¹(prior to this decline).  The purpose of this study was to examine the characteristics of recent applicants and their preferences in order to improve the interview process for future years.

Methods: A 25-question survey was distributed to 97 applicants of the 2012 independent match who were identified as having taken the application process to completion and who additionally applied beyond their institution’s own program.  The questionnaire focused on demographics, academic qualifications, interview/match results, program selection preferences, interview preferences, and career plans.

Results: Sixty-two of 97 applicants (63.9%) responded (71.0% male, 82.3% US medical graduates, 93.5% general surgery residents, 75.8% from university programs).  Over 75% (n = 47) had ≥2 publications, and 29% (n = 18) had publications in plastic surgery journals.  Most applicants (35.5%, n = 22) attended 11–13 interviews, and 30.6% (n = 19) matched at their top choice.  Applicants ranked overall training quality and geographic location as the most valued program selection criteria while on-call difficulty and research opportunities were considered least important (Table).  However, applicants interested in university-based practice had a significantly higher interest in research opportunities (p = 0.001).  Five sessions (43.5%, n = 27) of one-on-one interviews (54.8%, n = 34) along with regional coordination (64.5%, n = 40) was the preferred structure of interviews.  Most applicants (61.3%, n = 38) had a subspecialty of greatest interest with microsurgery being most common (47.4%, n = 18), but 50% (n = 31) were undecided about pursuing a fellowship.

Criteria for Selecting a Plastic Surgery Program	Mean Rank
1. Overall training quality	1.68
2. Geographic location	4.03
3. Reputation within academia	4.52
4. Interaction with residents and faculty	4.55
5. Training quality in subspecialty of interest	5.65
6. Didactics	6.37
7. Reputation to the general public	6.44
8. Quality of facilities	6.65
9. Research opportunities	7.34
10. Difficulty of on-call responsibilities	7.65

Conclusion: The profile of recent independent applicants is similar to previous years despite the decreased number of applicants.  Applicants have defined criteria for program selection and provide critical evaluation of the interview process.  These two factors can be used by programs to enhance selection of applicants.