Spotting Resident Turnover Red Flags: A Guide for DO Grad in EM-IM

Understanding Resident Turnover as a DO Graduate in EM-IM

As a DO graduate pursuing an Emergency Medicine-Internal Medicine (EM-IM) combined residency, you occupy a unique position in the residency landscape. You’re aiming for a rigorous dual-training pathway, you may still encounter bias as a DO applicant, and you’re likely looking closely at program stability and culture before ranking anywhere.

Resident turnover is one of the most important—and often under-discussed—signals of a residency program’s health. In small combined programs like EM IM combined residencies, even a few residents leaving can dramatically affect workload, morale, and educational quality. For a DO graduate residency applicant, understanding resident turnover warning signs can protect you from matching into a program with serious underlying problems.

This article focuses on how to recognize, interpret, and respond to resident turnover red flags specifically in Emergency Medicine-Internal Medicine combined programs, with particular attention to what matters most to DO candidates navigating the osteopathic residency match environment.

---

Why Resident Turnover Matters So Much in EM-IM

Resident turnover—residents leaving a program, changing specialties, transferring out, going on prolonged leave, or not being replaced—can reflect a range of issues:

• Benign reasons (family relocation, dual-career decisions, unexpected life events)
• Personal misfit (wrong specialty choice)
• Serious program problems (toxic culture, inadequate supervision, chronically excessive workload, failure of leadership, ACGME citations)

In a large categorical Internal Medicine program, one or two residents leaving might be absorbed by the system. In a small emergency medicine internal medicine combined program (often 4–6 residents per year, sometimes fewer), even one resident departure can:

• Increase call burden and ED shift load
• Reduce flexibility for vacation and electives
• Compress teaching time and mentorship
• Signal major internal dysfunction

For a DO graduate residency applicant, this matters for several reasons:

1. Smaller combined tracks = magnified impact. If two residents leave a six-resident cohort, that’s one-third of your class.

2. Less redundancy in training structure. EM-IM schedules are already tight: you’re meeting two sets of requirements. Program instability can quickly compromise required experiences.

3. Advocacy for DOs varies. Some institutions are still adapting to full integration of osteopathic and allopathic training pathways. DO residents may be more vulnerable in unstable cultures that don’t fully value their training.

4. Limited EM-IM slots nationally. If you end up needing to transfer, there are fewer alternative combined positions, so choosing carefully upfront is critical.

The goal is not to avoid any program that has ever had residents leaving—it’s to distinguish healthy, transparent programs from those with recurrent, unexplained, or minimized resident turnover.

---

Core Resident Turnover Red Flags to Watch For

1. Vague or Evasive Explanations About Past Residents

When you ask about residents leaving the program, you should receive clear, consistent, and reasonably detailed answers. Warning signs include:

• “People leave all the time; medicine isn’t for everyone,” repeated with no specifics.
• Faculty, PD, and residents giving different versions of the story.
• Changes of subject when you ask, “Have any EM-IM residents left this program in the past 5 years?”
• “We can’t discuss that,” used as a blanket answer to every turnover question (privacy laws limit detail, but you can still get general reasons and trends).

Better answers sound like:

• “In the last five years, two residents transferred out. One switched to purely Internal Medicine for family reasons; another realized they preferred outpatient primary care. We supported both transitions and maintain good relationships with them.”
• “We had one resident who left due to burnout and personal concerns. That prompted us to change our night float coverage and increase wellness support.”

Those explanations demonstrate accountability and reflection rather than defensiveness.

2. High Resident Turnover in a Small Program

In EM IM combined residencies, even a few departures over a short period are notable. As a DO graduate residency applicant, mentally benchmark:

• Low concern: 0–1 EM-IM residents leaving over 5–7 years, with clear, understandable reasons.
• Moderate concern: 2–3 residents leaving over 5 years, especially if reasons are unclear or cluster in a particular time period.
• High concern: Multiple residents leaving within 2–3 consecutive classes, especially if you hear phrases like “we’ve had a lot of resident transitions lately” or see empty spots on the roster.

High resident turnover red flag patterns may include:

• Underfilled classes or PGY-levels (e.g., “We have 3 PGY-3s instead of 5 this year.”)
• Perpetual recruitment of off-cycle residents to “patch holes”
• Residents referring to graduating “short” of a full class

It’s not that turnover can never be explained—it’s that repeated or concentrated losses in a small, intense combined program usually point to deeper program problems.

3. Residents Seem Afraid to Talk Candidly

Informal conversations with residents are some of your most valuable data. Concerning patterns:

• Residents constantly looking over their shoulder, lowering their voice, or changing the subject when you ask about workload, leadership, or prior residents leaving the program.
• Comments like, “We’re told not to talk about those things with applicants,” or “I’d rather not say too much about that.”
• Only chief residents or “hand-picked” residents are allowed to speak with you. You never get unstructured time with interns, mid-level residents, or anyone from the EM-IM track specifically.

In a psychologically safe program, residents can acknowledge challenges and past issues without fear of retaliation. Their tone should be honest but not fearful.

---

4. Chronic Overwork and Schedule Instability

Excessive workload alone does not prove problematic turnover, but certain patterns interact strongly with resident departures:

• Residents working consistently beyond duty-hour limits without meaningful correction.
• Frequent last-minute schedule changes (“We’re short again this month, so we had to move everyone’s days off.”).
• Residents covering both EM and IM responsibilities simultaneously due to vacancies (e.g., extra ICU calls plus ED shifts).
• Cancelled or routinely interrupted conferences because “we don’t have enough people to cover the ER/wards.”

When residents leave and positions remain unfilled, remaining trainees often absorb extra shifts. If you sense unstable schedules + multiple vacancies, this is a serious turnover warning sign.

5. Negative or Defensive Reactions to Fair Questions

Pay attention to how program leadership responds when you—especially as a DO applicant—ask about turnover and culture. Red flags:

• Dismissing your questions as “overly anxious” or “social media driven.”
• Minimizing resident experiences: “Well, some people are just complainers.”
• Immediate pivot to how prestigious the institution is, rather than responding directly.
• Subtle DO-related bias when explaining turnover (e.g., “Those residents came from weaker schools” alluding to osteopathic schools, rather than talking about systems issues).

A stable, healthy program usually welcomes deeper questions and does not punish or shame you for asking them.

---

Specific Warning Signs in EM-IM Combined Programs

Because emergency medicine internal medicine combined training is structurally different from categorical EM or IM, you need to evaluate some additional details.

1. Unequal Treatment of EM-IM Residents vs Categorical Residents

You want to know if EM-IM residents are full members of both departments—not an afterthought. Worrisome patterns:

• EM-IM residents routinely get the least desirable shifts in the ED “because they can handle it” or “they owe more time.”
• Internal Medicine services view EM-IM residents as “visitors” and exclude them from leadership roles, research projects, or teaching opportunities.
• Combined residents consistently describe themselves as “falling between the cracks,” with no clear home or advocacy.

Ask directly:

• “How are EM-IM residents represented on resident councils or committees in both departments?”
• “Do EM-IM residents have equal access to chief positions, fellowships, and leadership roles?”

Repeated turnover specifically among EM-IM residents (but not among categorical residents) may indicate that the combined track has design or culture issues.

2. Disorganized Integration of Two Departments

EM-IM success depends on coordination between Emergency Medicine and Internal Medicine leadership. Warning signs include:

• Residents complaining that schedules from EM and IM are poorly coordinated—leading to back-to-back night shifts on different services, or no protected continuity clinic time.
• Confusion about who is responsible for their evaluation, remediation, or career development.
• Conflicting expectations: EM wants aggressive procedural volume while IM pushes heavy inpatient census without balancing duty hours.

If multiple EM-IM residents have left, ask whether those departures were related to combined-track structural problems. Listen to how leadership addresses this. Do they show insight and concrete changes made, or gloss over it?

3. Frequent PD Turnover or Leadership Instability

In a combined program, you have at least two main leaders: the EM PD and the IM PD, plus often a specific EM-IM track director. Signals of instability:

• Multiple PD changes within a few years in either department.
• Vacant or “interim” EM-IM track director for long periods.
• Residents speak of “transition periods” or “a lot of leadership changes” without clear timelines or solutions.

Frequent leadership turnover and residents leaving program around the same time are often correlated. Ask:

• “When did your current PD and EM-IM director start?”
• “What changes have they made based on resident feedback?”

Stable, long-term leadership that acknowledges and addresses past issues is reassuring; constant churn with defensive language is not.

---

How to Gather Turnover Intel as a DO Applicant

You can’t rely on a single interview day to understand the truth about resident turnover. Use a multi-step approach throughout your osteopathic residency match process.

Step 1: Pre-Interview Research

Before you even apply or accept interviews:

• Check program websites:

  • Look for current resident rosters by year. Are there missing PGY years? Odd class sizes that change abruptly?
  • See if EM-IM residents are clearly featured or buried.

• Search online:

  • Browse forums, but treat them as anecdotal—not absolute truth. Patterns matter more than isolated comments.
  • Look for news of ACGME citations or probation affecting EM, IM, or specifically the EM-IM track.

• Network:

  • Ask recent grads from your DO school if anyone has rotated or matched there.
  • Reach out to EM or IM mentors who may have national insight into program reputations and known resident turnover red flags.

Step 2: Ask Focused Questions on Interview Day

You’ll get many chances to probe directly. For a DO graduate residency applicant, questions that both show insight and gather data include:

For program leadership:

• “In the last 5 years, have any EM-IM residents left the program or changed specialties? What factors led to that, and how did the program respond?”
• “How do you monitor workload and well-being across both EM and IM rotations, and how has that evolved?”
• “What changes have you made in response to resident feedback in the last few years?”

For current residents:

• “Have there been any residents in your cohort or recent classes who left or transferred? How was that handled?”
• “If you could change one thing about the EM-IM training structure here, what would it be?”
• “Do you feel the program responds effectively when residents raise concerns about schedule or culture?”

Watch not just the words, but the tone, body language, and consistency of answers.

---

Step 3: Trust Your Impressions from Away Rotations

If you complete an EM-IM or EM rotation at a target site:

• Note how often you hear about being “short-staffed” or “losing people.”
• Observe whether residents seem cohesive and supportive or fragmented and burned out.
• Ask senior residents, in appropriate moments, how the program has changed over their training.

As a DO graduate, also attend to whether any subtle bias emerges, especially when discussing past residents who left. Dismissive comments about “lower-quality” DO schools or “less prepared” residents can hint at a culture that may not fully support you.

Step 4: Post-Interview Reflection and Data Triangulation

After interviews:

• Write down everything you heard about turnover, especially inconsistencies between leadership and residents.
• Consider emailing current EM-IM residents with additional questions if something doesn’t sit right.
• Compare programs not only on prestige and fellowship prospects but also on stability, transparency, and resident-driven improvement.

When building your rank list, factor in that a strong, mid-tier, stable program may serve you better than a name-brand program with repeated, poorly explained residents leaving program issues.

---

Distinguishing Normal Turnover from a True Red Flag

Not all turnover is created equal. Here’s how to differentiate:

Normal or Understandable Turnover

• One resident leaves to join a spouse who relocated to another city.
• A resident switches from EM-IM to categorical IM after realizing they dislike shift work.
• A resident leaves medicine altogether after a major family crisis or health issue.

Signs this is not a major red flag:

• Leadership discusses it openly, without blaming or shaming the resident.
• Residents feel the program was supportive of the transition.
• No pattern of similar departures year after year.

Concerning Turnover Patterns

• Several residents in successive classes leave, transfer, or take extended leave citing burnout or mistreatment.
• Explanations consistently blame “resident resilience” or “fit” instead of acknowledging systemic stressors.
• The EM-IM track, specifically, loses more residents than categorical EM or IM at the same institution.

In these scenarios, “resident turnover red flag” becomes an appropriate label. The pattern suggests underlying program problems that haven’t been addressed.

---

Practical Advice for DO Graduates Ranking EM-IM Programs

As you finalize your osteopathic residency match list, use these guiding principles:

1. Prioritize transparency over perfection. A program that admits, “We had problems three years ago and here is what we changed” is generally safer than one that insists “Everything is perfect; those residents just weren’t strong enough.”

2. Weight resident voices heavily. If multiple current residents imply instability, burnout, or fear around raising concerns, listen closely, even if the institution’s brand is impressive.

3. Consider impact of size. In a 3-3-3 EM-IM program (three residents per year), one departure is a 33% class loss. Ask what backup systems are in place when this happens.

4. Be realistic about your own tolerance. If you’re already concerned about burnout or work-life balance, be extra cautious about programs where turnover is tied to workload or lack of support.

5. Remember that leaving is hardest in combined programs. If you later decide EM-IM is not for you, transferring may be harder than from categorical EM or IM. That makes choosing a stable, resident-centered program up front even more crucial.

---

FAQs: Resident Turnover and EM-IM Programs for DO Graduates

1. As a DO graduate, should I automatically avoid any EM-IM program that has had residents leave?

No. Residents leaving program does not automatically mean the program is unsafe. Context matters:

• Why did they leave?
• How many residents left, and over what time frame?
• What did leadership and residents say about it?
• Were constructive changes made afterward?

Avoid programs with repeated, unexplained, or minimized turnover, not those with a single, well-explained event.

2. How do I ask about turnover without offending the program?

Be direct but professional. You might say:

• “I know all programs have some turnover over time. Could you share whether any EM-IM residents have left in the past few years and what the program learned from those experiences?”

This frames you as thoughtful and informed rather than accusatory.

3. Are there specific resident turnover red flags uniquely important in EM-IM compared to categorical EM or IM?

Yes. For EM IM combined residencies:

• Watch for EM-IM residents feeling “homeless” between departments.
• Check whether EM-IM schedules are coordinated or chaotic across both specialties.
• Pay attention to whether EM-IM residents, specifically, have left more frequently than categorical peers—this can signal structural problems in the combined pathway.

4. How much should resident turnover weigh compared to fellowship opportunities or name recognition?

For a demanding path like EM-IM, program stability and culture should be at least as important as fellowship placement or brand. A prestigious name will not protect you from chronic understaffing, unsupportive leadership, or burnout. Stable, transparent programs with happy, well-trained graduates are better foundations for your career—whether you pursue critical care, EM-IM hospitalist roles, or academic leadership.

---

By systematically assessing resident turnover warning signs, especially in the context of EM-IM structure and your position as a DO graduate, you protect your training, well-being, and long-term career options. Use every stage of the process—research, rotations, interviews, and reflection—to ensure that the program you rank highly is not just impressive on paper, but genuinely stable, supportive, and worthy of your five years of dual-specialty commitment.