Rodríguez GJH, Velázquez MEÁ, Zamudio CP, Torres LL, Lee Á

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 176-181
PDF size: 295.16 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: usually, candidates of critical care fellowship turn to the internet for information that can help them choose the hospital where they will perform their medical specialty. Currently, the information available is scarce and confusing. Objective: evaluate the content and accessibility of information on official websites. Material and methods: a descriptive analysis of the official websites of critical medicine residency sites was carried out through an evaluation of 13 information criteria. Results: a total of 67 hospitals were found in Mexico to perform the critical care medicine fellowship, 28 (42%) have an official website with an average compliance of information of 3.5 points (27%). The main criteria were "contact (telephone/email)" with 100%, "selection process" 72%, "main professor" 61% and "university endorsement" 57% of compliance. The least found criteria were "financial remuneration" 4%, "graduate fellows" 4%, "current fellows" 4% and "research lines" 4%. None of them referred to "social life" within or outside of the hospital. Conclusions: most of the hospital where they offered the critical care medicine fellowship in Mexico do not have an official website where candidates can search for information related to the fellowship program. In those found, the information is limited, outdated and difficult to access. This becomes an important opportunity for the teaching departments of all hospitals.

REFERENCES

1. CIFRHS. Información del 2021. Gob.mx. Consultado septiembre 25, 2023. Disponible en: http://www.cifrhs.salud.gob.mx/site1/enarm/2022.html

2. Kirkendoll SD, Carmody JB, Rhone ET. Information quality for residency applicants in fellowship and residency electronic interactive database (FREIDA) and program websites. Cureus. 2021;13(3):e13900. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13900.

3. Quave AA, Akhondi H, Ayutyanont N. The important factors applicants consider when choosing a residency: a survey study. HCA Healthc J Med. 2022;3(1):13-22. doi: 10.36518/2689-0216.1367.

4. Phitayakorn R, Macklin EA, Goldsmith J, Weinstein DF. Applicants' self-reported priorities in selecting a residency program. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7(1):21-26. doi: 10.4300/jgme-d-14-00142.1.

5. Aagaard EM, Julian K, Dedier J, Soloman I, Tillisch J, Pérez-Stable EJ. Factors affecting medical students' selection of an internal medicine residency program. J Natl Med Assoc. 2005;97(9):1264-1270. [Consulted September 25, 2023]. Available in: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16296217/

6. Slanetz PJ, Cooke E, Jambhekar K, Chong A. Branding your radiology residency and fellowship programs in the COVID-19 era. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020;17(12):1673-1675. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.07.027.

7. Ferre AC, Ho VP, Lasinski A, Claridge JA. Content and accessibility of surgical critical care fellowship websites in the United States. Am Surg. 2023;89(5):1709-1712. doi: 10.1177/00031348221074233.

8. Embi PJ, Desai S, Cooney TG. Use and utility of web-based residency program information: a survey of residency applicants. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5(3):e22. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5.3.e22.

9. Ashack KA, Burton KA, Soh JM, et al. Evaluating dermatology residency program websites. Dermatol Online J. 2016;22(3). doi: 10.5070/d3223030367.

10. Donenfeld TT, Basnet A, Clemen BM, et al. Evaluation of online critical care fellowship programs. Cureus. 2023;15(2):e35408. doi: 10.7759/cureus.35408.

11. Lu F, Vijayasarathi A, Murray N, Hamid S, Khosa F. Evaluation of pediatric radiology fellowship website content in USA and Canada. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2021;50(2):151-155. doi: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2020.01.007.

12. Tools to help you (no date) FREIDA. [Accessed: 06 October 2023] Available in: https://freida.ama-assn.org/

13. Applying to residencies with the ERAS® system (no date) Students & Residents. [Accessed: 06 October 2023] Available in: https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-residencies-eras/applying-residencies-eras-system