Carms Results 2016

[dynexxx]

I don't know where this 10% figure is coming from - it's well know around U of T med that 18 people went unmatched after round 1.

[jlkhhylyiluh6]

Anyone know how Psych was this year?

[NLengr]

Programs don't run at 'capacity' and could easily get more residents through the college exams. The concept of training 'capacity' is problematic at best; there are no external metrics to determine such a thing.

While I think that some programs certainly could push more residents through to passing the exams, there certainly exists legitimate capacity issues in smaller, especially smaller surgical, programs.

 

The problem is that as a surgeon you need to have adequate OR time to develop your surgical skills. Given the current climate of subpar resident OR exposure due to very restrictive hospital policies, residents already feel they aren't getting adequate OR exposure to allow them competence when they are done residency (there is Canadian research on this). Adding more residents would further exacerbate the problems.

 

For a surgeon especially, passing the exam, which doesn't test surgical skills at this point, does not establish competence for practice. So saying you could push more through to pass the exam doesn't necessarily mean you create more surgeons.

 

Obviously in large, non surgical specialties where physical skills aren't an issue, it's much easier to add people and still make competent physicians.

 

One thing that will allow us to assess capacity as surgeons objectively will be CBD, whenever we finally get that beast launched. Then the Royal College will be tightly tracking OR exposure and specific competence. You'll have good objective data about adequate exposure. I can tell you right now that there are concerns about adequate exposure to CBD related activities even at our current manpower levels.

[A-Stark]

Capacity is a very real issue. At some point adding more learners makes a negligible difference to "service" and only dilutes the experience for everyone. This isn't limited to surgery programs, but procedural experience isn't only an issue for them either. You get good at clinical work by repetition and refinement of skills.

[jnuts]

Surgical exposure is a problem, but that's not because there aren't enough ORs. Let's be honest, it's because we're stuck doing other things that are much lower yield. Yes restricted OR times are a huge issue, but that has nothing to do with the number of residents. I think most surgical programs could run at a much higher capacity and still produce the same quality of surgeon (for whatever that is worth). The change to CBD is exciting for residents but I imagine staff aren't fond of hearing that you can't cover their clinic or call because you haven't met your quota for a certain procedure.

For me personally, it's much easier to get more OR time when there are more residents around. But I'll acknowledge that this situation might be unique to my program. Additionally, surgery is tiny subset of this conversation that--I'll give you--may have unique issues.

[Candiens12]

Anyone know how Psych was this year?

Just from being on the tour it seems like psych was very popular this year

[NLengr]

Surgical exposure is a problem, but that's not because there aren't enough ORs. Let's be honest, it's because we're stuck doing other things that are much lower yield. Yes restricted OR times are a huge issue, but that has nothing to do with the number of residents. I think most surgical programs could run at a much higher capacity and still produce the same quality of surgeon (for whatever that is worth). The change to CBD is exciting for residents but I imagine staff aren't fond of hearing that you can't cover their clinic or call because you haven't met your quota for a certain procedure.

 

For me personally, it's much easier to get more OR time when there are more residents around. But I'll acknowledge that this situation might be unique to my program. Additionally, surgery is tiny subset of this conversation that--I'll give you--may have unique issues.

Our programs must be different. We would not have enough ORs to add another person. we aren't missing ORs to do lower yield things. Our program and staff prioritize OR exposure over everything else.

[jnuts]

Our programs must be different. We would not have enough ORs to add another person. we aren't missing ORs to do lower yield things. Our program and staff prioritize OR exposure over everything else.

 

That's the official line of our program too; but we do have enough ORs to add a few more (my program has been much larger in the past).  That may be unique; but it seems to be pretty consistent the few places outside my program where I've rotated.  But, I'm in Ortho and we've got lots of ORs with external pressure to cut spots due to the job market.  It's also worth noting that the first residency spot we cut was the IMG stream when we started cutting again.  And again, surgical specialties are really in the minority in this thread and really the point was that the limits on numbers in a given program come mostly from lack of funding and not practical limits.  Has there really been a conversation in your program with the conclusion that you couldn't take more residents even though you were offered more funding? 

 

FYI-the way that we tend to miss ORs is when you're doing a subspecialty rotation.  You can't bail on a subspecialty clinic to go do something totally different just because there's no resident in the room.  A lot of our procedures could also support a junior and a senior resident as opposed to a single resident and a surgical assist.  Even with all that, a fair number of ORs just don't have a resident because there aren't enough residents.

[NLengr]

That's the official line of our program too; but we do have enough ORs to add a few more (my program has been much larger in the past). That may be unique; but it seems to be pretty consistent the few places outside my program where I've rotated. But, I'm in Ortho and we've got lots of ORs with external pressure to cut spots due to the job market. It's also worth noting that the first residency spot we cut was the IMG stream when we started cutting again. And again, surgical specialties are really in the minority in this thread and really the point was that the limits on numbers in a given program come mostly from lack of funding and not practical limits. Has there really been a conversation in your program with the conclusion that you couldn't take more residents even though you were offered more funding?

 

FYI-the way that we tend to miss ORs is when you're doing a subspecialty rotation. You can't bail on a subspecialty clinic to go do something totally different just because there's no resident in the room. A lot of our procedures could also support a junior and a senior resident as opposed to a single resident and a surgical assist. Even with all that, a fair number of ORs just don't have a resident because there aren't enough residents.

Yeah that's different than us. We have a resident in every room. Frequently as a first assist.

 

Yes. We have that conversation every year. We have lots of pressure to add spots and lots of extra funding but we've resisted due to concerns about having too many residents.

 

Personally I think that if we are gonna make IMGs have an ROS, we should be putting more spots in specialties where there still is a need (psych comes to mind) We shouldn't be sticking them in already flooded specialties (ortho, Uro, ENT etc).

[rmorelan]

Capacity is a very real issue. At some point adding more learners makes a negligible difference to "service" and only dilutes the experience for everyone. This isn't limited to surgery programs, but procedural experience isn't only an issue for them either. You get good at clinical work by repetition and refinement of skills.

 

we have that problem in Rads as well - there are only so many interesting cases to go around in many of the more senior blocks and you can end up fighting for whatever imaging is available.

[heydere]

-

[sleeping_sickness]

I heard the plastic surgery was extremely competitive this year. That being said, I knew a few people gunning for plastics and I'm really not sure how they fared. Can anyone shed some light?

[chromeboker]

People I know we're 0 for 3, but I'm unsure of their true competitiveness as applicants. 

 

I heard the plastic surgery was extremely competitive this year. That being said, I knew a few people gunning for plastics and I'm really not sure how they fared. Can anyone shed some light?

[ralk]

Plastics is always very competitive, pretty hard to tell without the official numbers whether any particular year is more or less competitive than usual. When the baseline match rate is around 50%, 0 for 3 is a pretty plausible outcome.

[anxious_101]

I heard the plastic surgery was extremely competitive this year. That being said, I knew a few people gunning for plastics and I'm really not sure how they fared. Can anyone shed some light?

 

People can speculate all they want. Carms releases their 2016 stats in May/June. Until then, not even program directors know how the matches played out across the country.

[rmorelan]

People can speculate all they want. Carms releases their 2016 stats in May/June. Until then, not even program directors know how the matches played out across the country.

 

true - all we know is whether the spots offered were filled. That doesn't say much for plastics for instance - they basically always fill.

[daretotry]

People can speculate all they want. Carms releases their 2016 stats in May/June. Until then, not even program directors know how the matches played out across the country.

 

 

I heard the plastic surgery was extremely competitive this year. That being said, I knew a few people gunning for plastics and I'm really not sure how they fared. Can anyone shed some light?

 

Plastics this year was I'd say slightly more competitive than average. The usual number of applicants is around 45~50 in any given year, and I believe it was about 50 applicants this cycle. Unfortunately, there were 2 spots that were cut for plastics (1 at McMaster, 1 at Calgary), reducing the overall # of spots from 22 to 20 (excluding French schools). 

[anxious_101]

Plastics this year was I'd say slightly more competitive than average. The usual number of applicants is around 45~50 in any given year, and I believe it was about 50 applicants this cycle. Unfortunately, there were 2 spots that were cut for plastics (1 at McMaster, 1 at Calgary), reducing the overall # of spots from 22 to 20 (excluding French schools). 

 

But we have no idea how many people applied this year. We won't know until the stats are released was my point. Last year 56 CMG applied to plastics. I don't even know how many applied to our program this year let alone across the country. 

[daretotry]

But we have no idea how many people applied this year. We won't know until the stats are released was my point. Last year 56 CMG applied to plastics. I don't even know how many applied to our program this year let alone across the country. 

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The number 50 I stated was not pulled out of thin air. For whatever reason, University of Toronto when they respond for interview invitations state how many applicants they had. This year they said they received 50 applications for their 4 CMG positions. If I make a generalized assumption that most people who want plastics will be applying across Canada, I believe it is safe to say there are at least 50 applicants nationwide this cycle. There certainly may be some additional applicants that did not apply broadly or specifically to U of T, but I also feel safe in assuming that this is a minority among plastics applicants (give or take 5 people).

 

You are right though, we won't know the exact numbers until the data comes out, but I believe we have a pretty good idea.

[Letsdothisthing]

Where can we see the number of applicants to a specific program from previous years? like which carms table? I feel like I haven't seen that and I am fairly familiar with the R1 match reports.

 

Thanks!

[Lactic Folly]

I don't believe CaRMS publicizes that particular detail. Too specific.

[distressedpremed]

Anyone know how ophthalmology looked this year compared to other years? More/Less/Same? 

[chromeboker]

Where can we see the number of applicants to a specific program from previous years? like which carms table? I feel like I haven't seen that and I am fairly familiar with the R1 match reports.

 

Thanks!

doesn't exist

[northernnurse]

I heard the plastic surgery was extremely competitive this year. That being said, I knew a few people gunning for plastics and I'm really not sure how they fared. Can anyone shed some light?

I applied to all CMG programs and McGill, including research streams (total of 12 programs). I tried to show I was willing to go anywhere by doing an elective on each coast and some in the middle. My electives went well and I received great evaluations, but I only got 1 interview. I'm unsure what I was missing that set my application apart from those who received several. I matched, but not to my first or second choice discipline and not to a surgical specialty, which is what I had always seen myself doing. Despite the fact I ranked a third choice discipline, I don't think I ever expected to not match to one of the 18 surgical programs I had applied to when I submitted my application. I've been struggling with trying to reframe my aspirations and career goals now that a surgical career seems unobtainable. 

[anxious_101]

Where can we see the number of applicants to a specific program from previous years? like which carms table? I feel like I haven't seen that and I am fairly familiar with the R1 match reports.

 

Thanks!

 

 

doesn't exist

 

Absolutely it exists - that's the whole point why carms publishes their annual match statistics. 

 

Here's the table for 2015: http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Table_9_Active_CMG_Application_Counts_by_Discipline_English.pdf

 

Similar tables can be found for previous years since 1972.