The recent murders of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breonna Taylor just up the road in Louisville have raised awareness of systemic racial injustice in our country. I believe it is important to comment on this topic and will use several upcoming posts to do so. I hope this generates some discussion and opportunities for continued learning and growth (starting with myself). First, some qualifiers:
This is not a political statement. I want to focus on medicine and our programmatic response. However, any reasoned comment on this topic cannot ignore the role of policies in creating and maintaining structural racism.
This represents my views and perspective. As program director, it also reflects our residency program, but I do not speak on behalf of my residents, faculty, departmental staff, or the broader university.
Relatedly and most importantly, this represents the views and perspective of a cis gendered white man of high socioeconomic status. I am the beneficiary of race. I have no experiential knowledge of this topic, and while I have vetted these posts with several colleagues and peers, I am certain that parts of this will be insensitive and perhaps inaccurate. I apologize in advance, especially if this somehow adds to the pain of any Black or Brown readers. Please critique these posts harshly and contact me with comments.
Where do we go from here? That’s the biggest question I have for myself and our society, and while I clearly have no answer, there are others with ideas. Research from Movement Netlab, a social movement think tank, frames social movements in cycles: from rising anger, to a trigger moment, heroic phase, disillusionment, learning and reflection, and re-growth (and then repeat).
According to this model, it would appear we are or near the peak, suggesting a contraction is coming. If we want to realize some of the changes the current movement is demanding, it will require sustained efforts to fight through the upcoming waves; on their own, words, institutional statements, and blog posts accomplish very little. With that in mind, I want to orient the remainder of this conversation around three areas within our profession that are necessary for long-term change: learning, reflection, and action.
In 2017, Dr. Ana Bastos de Carvalho and Dr. Eric Higgins founded the Global Ophthalmology (GO) division in our department. The goal of this outreach effort is to develop equity in eye care, not only with global partnerships, but also throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Several of their recent efforts are highlighted here and here.
The program is now starting to focus on education and our trainees, and we are excited to announce the establishment of a global ophthalmology track that we will start offering to an interested matched applicant each year.
Over the past decade, there has been a rise in the number of medical education training programs encouraging careers focusing on global health. These initiatives largely developed as a response to medical school graduates interested in addressing global health inequities. As stated in one editorial: “Global health is not about us; it is about others. The goal of investing in global health career pathways is to improve the health of disadvantaged populations, and it is a tangible investment in social justice, health equity, and the promise of the next generation of caring physicians.”
To help introduce our initiative – and keep this sporadic blog edgy – I’ve done a Q&A type conversation with Dr. Bastos de Carvalho.
What is “UK GO”? What’s your background and interest in global health?
The University of Kentucky Global Ophthalmology (UK GO) program was founded in 2017 by Dr. Ana Bastos de Carvalho and Dr. Eric Higgins, ophthalmologists at the UK Dept. of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences. Dr. Ramiro Maldonado more recently joined the program as director of Ecuador operations. Their life and work experiences have motivated them to build a program that would help improve eye care equity in Kentucky and internationally. Dr. Bastos de Carvalho has seen firsthand the impact of health inequities growing up in low- and middle-income countries, such as Brazil and Angola. The images she recalls as a child making trips to the hospital with her father, also an ophthalmologist, made an indelible impression that has lasted throughout her life. “I realized at a fairly young age that I wanted to go into medicine and do my part to bridge the gap for people who don’t have access to healthcare,” she says. As for Dr. Higgins, he believes his Appalachian roots and connections are what keep him focused on local underserved populations, while his year-long ophthalmology fellowship in Swaziland taught him the importance of cross-cultural eye care and education. Dr. Maldonado grew up and studied medicine in Ecuador. His strong roots to his homeland steered him towards developing strong relationships with educational and medical institutions in the country, with the goal of expanding ophthalmology education and eye care delivery to the poor in Ecuador.
What are some GO opportunities for residents?
UK GO has established several regional and international partnerships that may provide unique learning experiences to residents interested in Global ophthalmology. Regionally, UK GO directs a large academic-based network that provides diabetic retinopathy screening services to underserved populations and serve as the platform for high-quality implementation science research. Internationally, we have partnered with ophthalmology institutions in India, Ecuador and Haiti to build capacity in eye care in these countries. UK GO can provide our trainees with opportunities to experience global health delivery and research in different cultural and economic environments in all these systems.
What is the GO residency track?
The UK GO residency track is a structured experience that provides well-rounded education in global ophthalmology. To our knowledge we are the first ophthalmology residency in the country to offer this structured opportunity. Applicants selected to participate in the track will participate in and lead GO interventions regionally and internationally, interact with key players in global health, and complete GO scholarly projects. GO Track residents will have their international GO expenses covered and will receive a certificate at completion of the track.
What do you primarily want trainees to learn about global health care?
We hope UK GO can provide trainees with experiences that will allow cultivating a passion for reducing health disparities, cultural humility and awareness, and the tools to develop and sustain high quality symbiotic partnerships with institutions in low-resource settings.
Do you have any other resources or information for anyone interested in learning more?
As stated in a recent viewpoint on this topic in JAMA: “Changing the USMLE to a pass-fail format would require residency programs to find other, potentially more meaningful, ways of evaluating applicants. Although a more thorough review of applications would be resource intensive, programs might identify outstanding applicants who would have been overlooked based on a numerical cutoff.”
This sounds encouraging, but it would be naïve to think that changing to a pass/fail system would improve much if it occurs in isolation. The authors go on to state:
“Moving to a pass-fail system for USMLE could make it more difficult to counsel students because each residency program would develop independent review standards. Furthermore, the movement over the past decade to pass-fail grading in many medical schools could exacerbate this problem, making it difficult to predict success in the match. Unless the ERAS significantly improves the capacity for programs to screen applicants based on individual characteristics (key words, research area, etc.), program directors may use the variables they have access to such as placing more emphasis on medical school reputation or location. Changing such a complex system must be addressed carefully because it is a crucial factor in determining the specialty training of thousands of medical school graduates.”
Therein lies my biggest concern – if the USMLE is changed to pass/fail without other carefully considered, well implemented, uniform policies from our governing organizations, the process may become even more arbitrary and discriminatory. My hope is our leaders will be proactive in addressing these issues and start trialing and debating potential solutions in the near future.
What could these “more meaningful” evaluation tools look like? A brief literature review provides some insight, although most of these models are rather esoteric to me, and there is very little substantial evidence or use of them for the purpose of residency selection. I’ll briefly (and poorly) describe some of them below.
Gateway Exercises. These are uniform evaluation opportunities during various checkpoints in medical school training – for example, at the end of required clerkships or beginning/end of the academic year. A common exercise currently implemented by many medical schools are Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs).
Simulated Assessments. Simulated encounters and exercises are frequently used in medical training including the OSCE above or other standardized patient evaluations, computer-based cases, written clinical scenarios, mannequins (in bow ties) or a combination thereof.
Competency-Based Assessments. The transition to a competency-based curriculum in medical school (and residency) has been slow but persistent. The evaluation system necessitates assessment across multiple domains, thus creating a more comprehensive portfolio as students progress through training. Along those lines, longitudinal tools or dashboards that provide trajectories over time, as compared to one’s peers, may be a potential tool for comparing residency applicants .
Standardized Video Interview or Letter of Evaluation. Emergency Medicine is on the innovative and “early adapter” end of the curve as it applies to residency application. Not only have they adapted a standardized letter of evaluation at the end of required externships (which is felt to be the most important factor for determining which applicants to interview), but also piloted a standardized video assessment during the 2018 interview cycle. This assessment is an online interview involving questions based on “knowledge of professional behaviors and interpersonal and communication skills”. The interviews are scored by a third-party and both the scores and video are provided to residency programs.
To be honest, I’m not sure I really understand any of what was just stated, especially on a practical level. Some additional (major) limitations to any of these assessment models include: increased cost and complexity, lack of validation for resident selection, difficulty implementing and then comparing across schools, and program director and faculty acceptance.
Lastly, as mentioned in the quote above from the JAMA viewpoint, these measures and application review will likely be more “resource intensive”. I doubt many program directors, coordinators and review committees currently feel capable of devoting additional time and money to this process. To that end, I believe the application and interview process must also change, with several currently debated suggestions highlighted in this prior post. Again, my hope is that our leaders will be proactive rather than reactive with all this, mindful that the party with the most at stake is the applicants.
I hope these posts have been informative and provocative. This is a pivotal aspect of the application process that is likely changing in the near future, so it will be hard to ignore. As always, please let me know any thoughts or perspectives! I have one additional topic to discuss in the near future that has been quite eye opening for me – I imagine it will be much the same for many of you.
The last post covered the purpose and validity of the USMLE exam, highlighting limitations in its current use as a screening tool for the residency selection process. In this post, I’ll briefly cover some of the potential harms in continuing to use the examination for this purpose, largely based on this excellent review article.
Cost ($). The mean medical student spends upwards of $2,000 preparing for and taking Step 1 of the USMLE, often paid for by ever increasing student loans. The cumulative cost – simply for registering – for Step 1, Step 2 CK and CS, and Step 3 is $3,485. For a foreign medical graduate, the cost is $4,490 (for the same tests).
This does not include any travel or test preparation materials or classes, and currently, the test prep industry is quite solvent. An average student will purchase at least 3-4 test prep resources and 3 practice exams prior to taking Step 1.
Teaching to (or learning to) the test. Given the known importance of USMLE scores, the preclinical curriculum is influenced by the test, and studies demonstrate that students preferentially prepare for Step 1 at the expense of other aspects of their preclinical curriculum. Given the largely isolated nature of USMLE test preparation, social and collaborative learning may be de-emphasized. Important aspects of medical school training such as professionalism, interpersonal skills, and critical and innovative thinking may potentially be sacrificed. Clearly medical school curriculum is outside my wheelhouse, but I’m not the only one concerned by this prioritization. A study this year authored by medical students argued that test prep materials are “the de facto national curriculum of preclinical medical education.”
Workforce Diversity. Data demonstrates the USMLE (like many standardized tests) may be biased against ethnic and racial minorities, and use of these scores as a metric for screening resident applicants may therefore further cement these disparities. A 2019 study authored by the National Board of Medical Examiners found that female students scored 5.9 points lower on Step 1 compared to white males, and Asian, Hispanic and Black testers scored 4.5, 12.1 and 16.6 points lower than white males, respectively. Given known differences in access, outcomes and trust in the healthcare system amongst different minority populations, it is imperative that the physician workforce reflect the diversity of the populations they serve. The current makeup of enrolled medical students nationwide falls short of national demographic data, and this divide is even greater in competitive residency specialties.
Well-Being. It goes without saying, but a single test that can determine one’s career after such a substantial investment of time and effort leading up to it is going to be anxiety provoking. Perhaps relatedly, the mean Step 1 score has been steadily rising. In 1992, the mean score was 200, which would fall at the 9th percentile today. For ophthalmology residency, the mean matched Step 1 score this past year was 244, while it was 235 ten years ago. The mean unmatched score this year was 231 (the mean match score for all applicants in the National Residency Matching Program is 233), while the mean in 2009 was 212. This test-taking arms race has been shown to lead to isolation, anxiety and depression. Given medical students (and all healthcare professionals) are at an increased risk of burnout, depression and suicidal ideation, we should be focusing on efforts that mitigate rather than exacerbate the situation.
With all the preceding points from these past two posts in mind, the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners have released joint recommendations that the USMLEs move to a pass-fail scoring system. This suggestion will be further considered in the final post on this topic.
Years – sometimes a lifetime – of work to get to this point, and a single three-digit score from one day of testing determines your future. If it’s better than expected, you can dream big; if it’s good enough, you can feel some measure of confidence; if it’s “fair to middling” you have some work to do; and if it’s low, then you need some soul searching.
Sadly, the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) was not developed to serve this purpose. It was initially administered by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) in 1992 after many years of attempting to find a way to unify the complicated, erratic interstate physician licensure process; it’s official purpose is to aid authorities granting medical licenses (and also assure stake holders that licensed physicians have “attained a minimum standard of medical knowledge”) I hate to be redundant, but to drive it home: the psychomotor validity of USMLE scores is as a pass/fail measure for decisions related to physician licensure.
It was not and is not meant to serve as a “Residency Aptitude Test”, and at one point, the NBME had to issue a disclaimer to that effect.
But, stepping back … what are we screening? What do the USMLEs reliably predict? On its face, Step 1 is a multiple-choice test of basic science, little of which has much direct relevance to the practice of ophthalmology (to no one’s surprise). Perhaps even less shocking is that very little of the material tested is retained by most students – there is significant decline in examinee performance after just one or two years. There is little correlation between Step 1 scores and patient care or clinical outcomes. The strongest link is between Step 1 and performance on other standardized tests.
Ok, but let’s be realistic – even if that’s all this test measures, standardized test performance is a big deal. We can’t forget the summative standardized test in medicine – the specialty boards. Since board certification is of obvious importance on an individual and program level, surely this test is an appropriate predictor of that? Well, let’s look at the data.
I’m only aware of three studies in our literature (please inform me if you find others), and first a bit of alphabet soup that will become second nature if you matriculate through ophthalmology residency:
WQE = Written Qualifying Exam, the written boards for the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO). It is the first of two tests one must pass to become board certified (the second being an oral exam). Not coincidentally, it is 250 questions long and similar in format to the OKAP.
So, first – the most recent publication that just came out this year. It is an online survey sent to program directors and then disseminated to residents. It was anonymous, self-reported and only 19 programs (15.7%) passed it on to residents, for a completion rate of 13.8% of all ophthalmology residents (read: major limitations). Respondents selected their USMLE scores in increments of 10 (210-220, 220-230, etc.) and similarly reported their OKAP scores. The authors found that in this sample, a 9-point increase in OKAP percentile and a 2.5 higher odds of scoring about the 75thpercentile on the OKAPs when USMLE scores moved up by every 10-point category. Take home – major limitations, but suggests that a higher USMLE score correlates to a better OKAP performance.
Second, a study of 76 residents from 15 consecutive training classes (1991-2006) at 1 ophthalmology residency training program found that OKAP scores were significantly associated with WQE pass rate, and that passing or failing the OKAP exam all three years of residency was associated with a significant odds of passing or failing the WQE, respectively (“passing” on OKAPs was considered above the 30thpercentile in this study). Interestingly, the authors did not find an association with USMLE Step 1 scores and WQE performance. Take home – in this single institutional longitudinal study, passing OKAPs was correlated with passing the boards (and vice versa), but USMLE scores were not.
Lastly, a study of 15 residency programs for a total of 339 residents graduating between 2003-2007 were evaluated to determine whether five variables (USMLE scores, OKAP scores years 1, 2, and 3 and maximum OKAP scores) were predictors of passing or failing the WQE. The authors found that OKAP scores during the final year of residency was the best and USMLE scores were the poorest predictor of board performance. Take home – in this older study, but the most robust in our field, doing well on your OKAPs just prior to taking the boards is way more predictive of board pass rate than USMLE scores.
All data and conclusions need careful scrutiny, but based on what I’ve seen, there is little evidence to support using USMLEs as a residency screening tool. Having hopefully established there is not much demonstrating the scores are helpful, in an upcoming post I’ll cover why this practice is potentially harmful. In the subsequent post (and last on this topic), I’ll discuss a proposed and seemingly likely major change to USMLE reporting coming our way, and what may (or may not) replace the void in screening.
It’s that time of year again – leaves are falling, temperatures are supposed to be dipping, pumpkin spice is doing its thing and the collective groans of program directors/coordinators/faculty when wading through residency applications are only silenced by the palpable and justified anxiety of the applicants themselves.
Looking through all these applications, I am annually and increasingly reminded how comparatively unremarkable my application must have been and wonder how I squeezed through. I am also progressively aware of the limitations and biases embedded within our recruitment process.
With that in mind, I want to share a few posts on some of these issues, including one that has only recently been pointed out to me. I know this website gets little traffic, and I missed the boat by posting this after our application deadline, but hope it sparks some interest for those that read it – whenever that may be. Much of what I will be discussing was provided initially and experientially by others going through this process, and I am very grateful for those that guide me through my ignorance. I hope these posts can continue that conversation and look forward to any further insights you all have.
It’s been several months since the last post, and in the interim we had a very successful match. We are incredibly excited to have the opportunity to train the four individuals coming to our department. From a personal perspective, match day is a polarizing affair – the thrill of first viewing the results and opportunity to call and welcome our new trainees, mixed with the initial concern that our program wasn’t as high on their list as they were on ours.
More disheartening is scrolling through our overall list of ranked applicants and finding those that did not match. It would be ignorant to think anything other than luck and circumstance separated my medical school match day from theirs.
Clearly, the match is an imperfect process. Not only are there highly qualified and deserving unmatched applicants each year, but:
The number of applications per applicant continues to increase, likely driving even greater metrics-based screening of applications by programs.
The costs to applicants (and programs) are substantial.
It is a time consuming process, occupying a sizable portion of the 4th year of medical school.
The San Francisco Match recently released the 2019 summary match report. This document demonstrates the average matched applicant submitted 75 applications this past fall. In 2004, this number 41. In 2009 it was 50. Despite this significant increase in the number of applications, the competitiveness of the match (percent matching) has not changed.
We recently performed a financial analysis of the 2018 match, and found that, conservatively, the mean estimated cost to match for an ophthalmology applicant was $6,613, with an aggregate of $4,636,950 spent by all applicants. We estimated that our department spent a total of $179,327 in direct and indirect costs over four interview days, or $3,736 per each interviewed applicant.
In the current system, applicants are incentivized to apply to as many programs as possible, while programs respond in large by limiting interview applications to candidates with pre-approved metrics and stronger objective criterion on applications. What can be done to stop the swell and improve this? Multiple suggestions have been brought forth recently, and I’ll comment on a few of the more common themes.
A mutually beneficial option would be to limit the number of applications an individual can submit. Data from the 2017 and 2018 ophthalmology residency match found that the number of interviews offered did not increase beyond 40 applications. Using this number as a cap, the application costs would decrease from $1,665 to $410 per applicant. Of course, this would come at the cost of the SF Match and its beneficiaries, with an estimated 80% loss in revenue if no further changes were made in the tiered cost structure. This would similarly result in an average of 176 fewer applications received and estimated 14.6 hours of time saved reviewing charts at a program level. This approach presents several reasonable objections, reviewed in detail here. Regardless of potential merits, leaders in ophthalmology and the ACGME both have suggested this possibility is exceedingly unlikely given each applicant’s consumer rights to apply to as many programs as financially feasible.
Another proposal is to conduct an interview match prior to the standard match process. After applications have been submitted and reviewed, both applicants and programs would create ranks lists and utilize the same matching algorithm to fill a more limited number of interview spots. Individual programs would be able to modify their interview limit based on competitiveness. In this system, both parties would theoretically interview preferentially with fewer required interviews. This proposal was initially for the surgical fellowship interview process and would likely need to first be trialed on a smaller scale (? such as ophthalmology) prior to widespread consideration. Further, this system necessitates applicants signal interest in a program prior to the interview itself; there are multiple examples (including my own) of a relatively surprising interview invite and experience ultimately influencing an applicant’s rank list and match results.
A final proposal tested a computer model of the 2014 Otolaryngology match and found that offering applicants the opportunity to provide programs with preference leads to an increase in overall interview invitations, and allows programs the opportunity to review applications more “holistically” instead of using strict cut-off parameters. This proposal is entirely voluntary and at the time of initial application allows the applicant to choose to reveal if a program is within their list of top programs. Early editorials of this approach have beenveryfavorable.
While each of these suggestions have relative advantages, any change would require governing bodies to act. Impetus aside, the financial implications of these and any other proposed changes will be important. It is worth noting that 2015 fees for all Electronic Residency Application Services (ERAS) applications was $72 million, representing approximately 40% of the Association of American Medical Colleges operating revenue for that year. It may be naïve to hope any substantial changes favor the pockets of the students.
Lastly, one seemingly universal need in this process is increased transparency. Programs should divulge internal metrics utilized to screen applicants and additional pertinent information to allow applicants sufficient information to make educations on where to selectively apply. There has been movement within the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology (AUPO), the voice of academic ophthalmology, to create standard statistics and disclosure for all of our programs that would be readily available to applicants. While still in the development phase, this is one change that appears quite likely in the near future. I hope we start to see more.
Residency interview season is upon us, with our four dates scheduled for the non-holiday Fridays in November (11/2, 11/9, 11/16 and 11/30). It’s an exciting time for the department and program, but the selection process always weighs heavily on me.
I am increasingly impressed by the caliber of the applications we receive and genuinely wonder how I ever was fortunate enough to match into this specialty. Attempting to select appropriate candidates from a large pool of exceptional individuals is truly somewhat arbitrary, but I thought I would share some insight into our process. There are many different ways programs tackle this, so by no means are we a sterling example, but I hope transparency can stimulate some discussion on ways we can improve our system. I’ll share a couple of thoughts for potential future directions in a later post.
This application cycle we received 388 applications. We require all applicants to submit a secondary, short essay on “Why I want to come to UK” to attempt to limitedly differentiate those that are broadly applying versus those truly interested in our program. The deadline for the secondary application is usually the middle of September. At that point, I review each of the completed applications to get a gestalt of our applicant pool and distribute the applications to faculty volunteers. They will then review the applications and whittle them down to a group of roughly 90-100. Our faculty are free to ultimately utilize their own criteria when reviewing applicants, but are encouraged to complete a scoring sheet to frame the process. Included in this evaluation are six sections: Aggregate USMLE Scores, Clinical Performance, Academic and Research Accomplishments, Letters of Recommendation, Interest in our Program, and Outside Interests and Diversity Enhancement.
Once I have the final group of applications from our faculty, I select 48 applicants to invite for an interview (12 applicants on each of the 4 days). We also offer “alternate” status to an additional 20 applicants, who are able to pick up interview slots that either go unfilled or are dropped. Because of the fluid nature of the interview acceptance process, we generally have 10 or more dropped slots between the invitation for interview (around October 1st) and the interviews themselves. Hence, we consider both groups of 68 (48 invites + 20 alternates) as essentially the same: applicants on paper that seem most appropriate for our program. I then generate a list of the applicants and summative statistics (see below) for final faculty review prior to sending invites. The goal of this final review is to ensure we have an equitable list of applicants that seem to fit our program priorities.
This final step – going from 100 to 68 – is the most difficult for me. What differentiates each applicant at this point? Are we being as fair as possible? How can we know if applicant A is more or less likely to ultimately have interest in our program than applicant B? These and so many other questions underlie the potential limitations and bias in this process.
How’d it look this year? I’ve copied a table below of some of our statistics for the total group. We determined gender based on the pronoun used in letters of recommendation, and Underrepresented Minority (URM) is self-identified. A personal connection included a rotation at our program or other associations to the program/university. For Mean USMLE, we took an average of Step 1 and 2 (if Step 2 was available), weighted for Step 1 scores: [(Step 1 score *2)+(Step 2 score *1)] / 3).
M = 54%
MW = 35%
242 (Range 200-265)
F = 46%
SA = 28%
SE = 18%
SW = 15%
W = 7%
NE = 1%
So: 388 applicants trimmed to 68, 48 applicants will be interviewed, and 4 new residents welcomed into the program this coming January. This is by no means an idealized system, and at the end of the day, both my biggest hope and concern is that we treat our program and all our applicants justly.
At any rate, let me know what you think – about the entire system or how we manage it at UK. I’ll share some thoughts and data I’ve collected on potential changes to the process sometime soon.
On Sunday, September 9th, we had the 16thannual “Tri for Sight” Sprint Triathlon/Duathlon under … wet conditions. The triathlon was founded and continues to be organized by our own Dr. Sheila Sanders, and all the proceeds go to support our department’s UK Eye Research Fund. It’s estimated that over $300,000 have been generated and some of this year’s proceeds will benefit our newly established UK GO outreach division.
Over 350 athletes swam the 400 meter serpentine length of the pool,
biked the (usually picturesque) 12.6 mile ride through the rolling horse farms,
and 3.1 mile jog around the Spindletop estate.
Unbeknownst to certain program directors that thought they finally possessed superhuman speed and endurance at the end of the jog, the course was actually shortened to 2 miles this year at the last minute because of the rain and lightning risk.
Despite the weather, it was another great event. We had numerous faculty, staff and even medical student volunteers that arrived before sunlight to spend the next 6 hours waterlogged.
We also had several faculty and residents compete this year, with a notable relay team of Drs. Ellen Sanders, Laura Coyne and Michelle Abou-Jaoude completing the event, aptly named “Velocirefractors”
The date for next year’s race has already been set – Sunday, September 8th. More than enough time to put it on the calendar!
Sooo …. I’m new to all of this website design and social media activity. My hope, though, is to start a blog of sorts to discuss happenings in our department and residency program, comment on topics in the field and other random things that may or may not be of interest. We’re going to try and link other social media to this and create an interactive platform. More to come …
Feel free to comment below and offer any other suggestions!