Plastic Surgery Program Leadership Perspectives on Doximity Residency Navigator Rankings: Do We Need a Better Guide for Prospective Applicants?

[INTRODUCTION] Doximity has become integrated into the residency application process without any clear merit, comparing programs based on reputation and research. Our study aims to gather program directors' and Chiefs/Chairs' perspectives on the Doximity ranking system and to assess what a better system might entail.

[METHODS] A 16-question survey was sent to 177 program directors and Chief/Chairs of plastic surgery residency programs. The questions covered three categories: (1) demographic information; (2) Doximity ranking perceptions; (3) input on characteristics of a better tool. The responses were statistically analyzed.

[RESULTS] Ninety-three questionnaires were received (53%). Twenty-nine (31%) respondents represented programs in the Northeast, 23 (25%) South, 20 (21%) Midwest, and 21 (23%) West. Seventy-three (79%) respondents were male and 16 (17%) female. 90% of respondents (n = 84) believe Doximity rankings are not accurate, all indicating their institution should be ranked higher. No significant association between program geography and ranking satisfaction was observed (p = 0.75). Only 33% (n = 31) of respondents were aware of Doximity methodology. Most respondents (95%; n = 88) do not recommend the use of Doximity to medical students. Most participants (87%; n = 81) are willing to share resident case logs to inform a future tool. "Strength of technical training/preparedness" was ranked most highly as important training program qualities.

[CONCLUSIONS] The results of this program leadership survey show dissatisfaction with and a lack of understanding of the Doximity system. When considering future steps, program leadership support a strength-based categorization system and sharing case logs to guide student decision-making.