Background Application to cardiology specialty training is competitive with uncertainty among candidates as to what the secret recipe for a successful appointment is. We aimed to investigate objective variables, which were demonstrated by successful appointees to cardiology training schemes in the UK.
Methods Data from successful cardiology applicants for the years 2014 to 2016 were obtained from the Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board under the Freedom of Information Act. These data included basic demographics as well as objective scores awarded for selection categories such as qualifications, academic, teaching and other achievements.
Results There were a total of 976 applicants during the study period, of whom 423 were successfully appointed, generating a competition ratio of 2.3 applicants for each position. There was an increasing proportion of successful female applicants (22% in 2014, 28% in 2015 and 32% in 2016). Median scores for postgraduate exams (14/14), presentations (6/6) and quality improvement (10/10) scores corresponded to maximum possible scores, whereas median scores for additional undergraduate and postgraduate degrees were 0. Median scores for prizes, publications and teaching experience were 6/10, 4/8 and 9/10, respectively.
Conclusion The secret to a successful cardiology training appointment is associated with completion of all postgraduate clinical exams, completion and presentation of quality improvement projects, national presentations and substantial teaching achievements. At least half of the successful candidates had no additional undergraduate or postgraduate degrees but had evidence of some prizes and publications. The ratio of successful female candidates is rising, but remains less than males in cardiology training.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors MBP, KM and HNH developed the idea and designed the project. All authors participated in collecting and analysing the data. MBP, KM and HCH generated the first draft of the paper. MBP and HNH reviewed the draft and amended it. All authors approved the final version.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval None required (anonymised data obtained through the Freedom of Information act)
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.