Resources Utilized by Otolaryngology Fellowship Directors When Determining Reputations of Residency Programs

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveResidency program reputation is consistently reported as an important factor by fellowship directors when considering applicants. This study sets out to determine resources fellowship directors rely on when determining residency program reputation.Study DesignCross‐sectional study.SettingUsing an anonymous online survey of all 2022 Otolaryngology (OHNS) fellowship program directors.MethodsThe 13‐question survey sought to assess fellowship director's perspectives and resource utilization when determining residency program reputation.ResultsRepresenting all OHNS fellowship program directors and co‐directors (N = 287), 103 responded to our survey, response rate 35.9%. Most participants reported that residency reputation was important for fellowship candidacy. On a Likert scale of 1 to 5, 1 being most important and 5 being not important, personal knowledge of the residency program (2.03 out of 5) and program faculty/mentor reputation (2.09 out of 5) were the most important factors cited. 63% were unfamiliar with the survey methodology of Doximity Residency Navigator (DRN), while 53% contributed to DRN by filling out surveys. Nearly all fellowship directors (N = 100, 97%) reported their rank list was not influenced by DRN. Most fellowship directors reported that US News and World Report (USNWR) and DRN were neither consistent nor inconsistent with their perceptions of residency reputations (38% and 56%, respectively), suggesting ambivalence toward these resources.ConclusionResidency reputation is important for fellowship directors when evaluating fellowship candidates. Directors do not rely on USNWR, National Institute of Health (NIH) ranking, or DRN when gauging residency reputation, but rather personal knowledge of the applicant's residency program or reputation of the otolaryngology faculty.