Identifying Resident Turnover Warning Signs for EM-IM Combined Programs

Understanding Resident Turnover as a Red Flag

When you’re an MD graduate evaluating EM IM combined programs, resident turnover is one of the clearest—and most often overlooked—warning signs. A single resident leaving a program is not necessarily a crisis. Patterns of residents leaving program after program, or a specific site, can signal deeper program problems that you must take seriously.

For someone targeting an emergency medicine internal medicine (EM-IM) combined residency, the stakes are even higher. These programs are small, intensely demanding, and structurally complex. Losing even one resident per class can significantly shift workload, call schedules, and the culture of the program. Understanding resident turnover red flag patterns before you rank a program can protect your training, well-being, and career trajectory.

This article breaks down:

• What “normal” vs “concerning” resident turnover looks like
• Specific warning signs that suggest systemic issues
• How turnover uniquely affects EM IM combined residents
• What questions to ask and how to interpret the answers
• How to balance turnover against other factors in your rank list

---

Normal vs Concerning Resident Turnover

Not all turnover is a red flag. As an MD graduate entering residency, it’s important to distinguish the understandable from the alarming.

What Counts as “Normal” Turnover?

In any allopathic medical school match cycle, some residents inevitably change programs or paths. Reasonable, non-alarming reasons for a resident leaving include:

• Family relocation: Partner’s job, aging parents, or childcare needs.
• Change of specialty: A resident discovers EM-IM isn’t the right long-term fit and switches to internal medicine only, another combined program, or a different specialty.
• Health or personal crisis: Serious illness, mental health needs, or personal emergencies.
• Visa or administrative complications: Especially in programs with many international residents.

When programs candidly explain that a resident left for one of these reasons and can provide a coherent, consistent story, it’s usually not a major red flag—especially if turnover is infrequent and the remaining residents are thriving.

What Is “Concerning” Turnover?

Resident turnover becomes a red flag when it’s:

• Frequent: Multiple residents across recent classes have left or were dismissed.
• Clustered: More than one resident from the same class or within a short time frame.
• Unexplained or vague: Faculty/residents dodge the topic or give inconsistent answers.
• Patterned: Repeatedly associated with the same rotation site, program leader, or issue.

In EM-IM combined tracks, even two or three residents leaving over a few years can be major, simply because the overall program size is so small. Losing one resident per class in a 3–4 resident/year program is far more serious than in a large categorical internal medicine program with 30–40 residents per class.

---

Why Turnover Matters More in EM-IM Combined Programs

Emergency medicine internal medicine programs are structurally different from categorical residencies. That makes resident turnover especially consequential.

Dual Commitments, Dual Vulnerabilities

As a combined EM IM resident, you’re:

• Splitting time between two departments (EM and IM), sometimes at different hospitals.
• Navigating two cultures—fast-paced ED shifts and continuity-focused inpatient/clinic work.
• Fulfilling two sets of requirements—board eligibility for both specialties.

When residents leave, the impact isn’t doubled; it’s multiplied:

• Schedule strain: Gaps in coverage affect both departments. You may see more nights, weekends, or high-acuity ED shifts and more demanding IM block schedules.
• Increased cross-coverage: Fewer EM-IM residents to fill crucial rotations unique to the combined pathway.
• Mentorship loss: Each resident is a potential mentor/role model in a small cohort. Turnover narrows your support network.

Small Cohorts Amplify Problems

A typical EM-IM class may have 2–4 residents. Losing even one means:

• A 25–50% decrease in your immediate peer group.
• Fewer people to share informal teaching, study resources, and exam prep.
• Less flexibility when emergencies arise (illness, parental leave, or life events).

In small cohorts, interpersonal conflict, burnout, or a single problematic attending can be harder to buffer. If turnover is already happening, it may indicate the program isn’t adequately supporting residents through predictable stresses of this intense dual training.

Turnover as a Symptom of Structural Stress

EM-IM programs are also dependent on cooperation between EM and IM leadership. When systems are poorly coordinated, residents can experience:

• Schedule chaos: Overlapping obligations, last-minute changes, unclear expectations.
• Identity confusion: Feeling like a “guest” in both departments, fully belonging to neither.
• Uneven advocacy: One department may support residents strongly; the other may not.

If more than one resident has left under such conditions, you should assess carefully whether the program has taken concrete steps to fix the underlying issues—or if turnover is an ongoing symptom of unresolved structural problems.

---

Specific Resident Turnover Warning Signs to Watch For

Here are the most important resident turnover red flags to assess during your application, interview, and ranking process.

1. Multiple Residents Leaving in the Last 3–5 Years

Ask directly:

• “Have any residents left the program early in the last few years?”
• “Did anyone switch out of the EM-IM track or to another institution?”

Red flags:

• More than one resident per 2–3 years has left, especially in a small EM-IM program.
• Multiple residents from the same class left or transferred.
• A pattern of residents switching out of EM-IM but staying at the same institution (e.g., switching to IM-only or EM-only in the same hospital). This often suggests:
  • Combined schedule was unsustainable
  • Poor support specific to the EM-IM track
  • Departmental misalignment or political tension

Follow-up questions:

• “What changes did the program make in response to residents leaving?”
• “How has the program supported remaining residents after turnover?”

You’re looking for a thoughtful, transparent explanation—not defensiveness or silence.

2. Vague or Inconsistent Explanations About Why Residents Left

Programs that are transparent—even about painful events—tend to be healthier. Conversely, evasiveness is a major warning sign.

Concerning responses:

• “It just wasn’t a good fit” with no further detail.
• “We don’t really talk about that” or “That was complicated,” followed by topic changes.
• Residents and faculty giving different versions of what happened.

Safer responses:

• Consistent explanation from PD, faculty, and residents.
• Appropriate respect for privacy, but clear structural causes are acknowledged:
  • “They had an unexpected family situation and moved closer to home.”
  • “They realized they preferred outpatient-focused IM and transferred to a categorical IM program. We’ve since improved our career counseling.”
  • “The schedule design for EM-IM wasn’t working well that year, and it pushed them toward burnout. We completely restructured EM off-service rotations and added additional backup coverage.”

You’re not expecting names and personal details—you’re assessing whether leadership is honest, reflective, and committed to improvement.

3. High Emotional Intensity Around the Topic

Watch the body language and tone when you ask about resident turnover:

• Do residents hesitate, look at each other, or visibly tense up?
• Does the program director become defensive, overly reassuring, or dismissive?
• Does anyone suggest you shouldn’t be asking about it?

These reactions can indicate unresolved conflict, fear of retaliation, or ongoing cultural toxicity. Even if the formal explanation sounds reasonable, emotional cues can reveal deeper distress.

4. A Culture of “Surviving,” Not Learning

Even if turnover is not explicitly discussed, you can often sense programs with underlying problems through how current residents describe their experience.

Red-flag phrases:

• “We just push through; it’s only five years.”
• “You learn to live with the schedule.”
• “It’s tough, but that’s what residency is supposed to be.”
• “We lose some people along the way, but those who stay are strong.”

For an MD graduate from an allopathic medical school, you’ve likely been socialized to accept hard work and sacrifice. However, a culture that normalizes burnout, attrition, or emotional distancing is not benign—it’s often a precursor to residents leaving program quietly or struggling in ways they don’t feel safe to share.

In contrast, healthy EM-IM programs say things like:

• “It’s intense, but we feel supported.”
• “We’ve had problems in the past, but these are the concrete changes we made.”
• “Wellness is not perfect here, but leadership listens when we raise concerns.”

5. Gaps in Senior or Chief EM-IM Residents

Look carefully at the current resident roster, especially in EM IM combined programs:

• Are there missing PGY levels?
• Do they have no EM-IM chief resident when they previously did?
• Are they recruiting more prelim or categorical residents to “fill holes” in coverage?

Questions to ask:

• “Do you typically have EM-IM chiefs? If not now, why?”
• “Your website shows a smaller PGY-3 class—did someone leave or transfer?”
• “How has the program handled schedule coverage when someone leaves?”

Significant gaps can indicate prior resident turnover and potential program problems in adaptation and planning.

6. Over-Reliance on EM-IM Residents for Coverage

In some institutions, EM-IM residents become the “flex glue” that fills every open gap between departments. That might look like:

• Frequent last-minute schedule changes “because you can work both sides.”
• Expectations to cover extra ED shifts due to EM staffing problems.
• Heavy ICU or night float exposure beyond what’s necessary for training.

If the program has a history of residents leaving and simultaneously describes a culture of “we’re all team players, we just pitch in whenever needed,” verify that this generosity is not being exploited.

Ask:

• “How often are EM-IM residents pulled to cover open shifts?”
• “What’s the backup system when someone is sick or on leave?”
• “Has turnover ever led to increased call or shift burden on remaining residents?”

If remaining residents look exhausted or uneasy when answering, take note.

---

How to Investigate Turnover During Interviews and Virtual Interactions

You won’t see “residents leaving program” listed on ERAS or NRMP. You have to actively look for it in subtle and explicit ways.

1. Pre-Interview Research

Before your interview:

• Check the website’s resident list across several years (using tools like the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine if needed).

  • Do the listed residents “disappear” without explanation?
  • Are EM-IM classes shrinking or inconsistent in size?

• Review alumni lists:

  • Are there EM-IM graduates each year?
  • Any gaps where no combined residents finished?

• Look for online comments or threads:

  • Be cautious—anonymous forums can be misleading or biased.
  • Use them as a prompt for questions, not as your sole evidence.

2. Questions to Ask Residents

Ask these in a non-threatening, curious tone:

• “Have any residents from your EM-IM track left or transferred in recent years?”
• “How did the program handle it when that happened—for scheduling and for morale?”
• “Has the program changed anything in response to feedback from those residents?”
• “Do you feel comfortable speaking up about concerns without retaliation?”

If possible, ask multiple residents individually, not just in group settings. Compare answers.

3. Questions to Ask Program Leadership

To the Program Director or APD:

• “Can you walk me through the history of the EM-IM program over the last 5–10 years in terms of resident retention?”
• “If residents have left, what were the main contributing factors, from your perspective?”
• “How do you measure resident satisfaction and well-being, and what do you do with that data?”
• “What specific changes have you made in the last few years to improve the EM-IM experience?”

You’re assessing transparency, accountability, and the presence of a continuous quality improvement mindset.

4. Red-Flag Responses from Leadership

Be cautious if you hear:

• “We don’t really have those issues here.” (Every program has issues.)
• “Residency is hard everywhere; we expect people to tough it out.”
• “The residents who left just weren’t strong enough for this program.”
• “This is a high-powered place—if you can’t handle it, you shouldn’t be here.”

These statements can indicate a culture that normalizes attrition and fails to differentiate “rigor” from “unnecessary harm.”

---

Balancing Turnover Concerns with Other Factors

No program is perfect. An MD graduate aiming for EM IM combined training must balance realistic expectations with self-protection.

When Moderate Turnover Isn’t a Dealbreaker

You may still rank a program highly if:

• Turnover was infrequent and well-explained (e.g., family, true career redirection).
• The program can clearly articulate concrete improvements made in response.
• Current residents:
  • Feel heard and supported.
  • Seem tired but not broken—busy but engaged and purposeful.
  • Would choose the program again despite known flaws.

In such cases, resident turnover is an important data point but not necessarily a reason to eliminate the program.

When Turnover Should Strongly Lower a Program on Your Rank List

Consider ranking a program lower (or not at all) if:

• There have been multiple residents leaving in the recent past with vague or shifting explanations.
• Current residents:
  • Look chronically exhausted or cynical.
  • Hesitate or show anxiety when discussing leadership.
  • Have clear stories of retaliation or ignored concerns.
• There is an evident mismatch between:
  • Program leadership’s portrayal (“We’re very supportive”) and
  • Resident reality (“We’re drowning, and things haven’t changed”).

In EM-IM specifically, if the dual-department structure appears disorganized, politically tense, or over-reliant on residents to solve systemic staffing problems, consider that a high-risk environment for burnout and further turnover.

Protecting Your Own Training and Career

Long-term, the cost of training in a dysfunctional setting can be greater than the perceived short-term prestige of the institution. Consider:

• Board pass rates in both EM and IM.
• Graduation rates of EM-IM residents.
• Fellowship outcomes and career trajectories of alumni.
• Whether you would feel safe seeking help if you were struggling.

You’ve invested years in your MD education. The right EM-IM program will challenge you intensely but also protect your growth, health, and future—not treat resident turnover as an expected casualty of training.

---

FAQs: Resident Turnover and EM-IM Combined Programs

1. Is one resident leaving a program always a red flag?

No. A single case of a resident leaving—especially for clearly explained family, health, or honest career-fit reasons—is not in itself a red flag. The concern arises when there’s a pattern of residents leaving program tracks, especially from the same EM-IM pathway or class, and when explanations are unclear, inconsistent, or minimized.

2. How much turnover is “too much” in an EM-IM combined program?

In EM IM combined programs with small cohorts, even 2–3 residents leaving within 5 years can be significant. Ask how many residents started vs how many graduated over the last decade. If more than 10–15% didn’t finish as planned—and there are no strong, individually specific explanations—you should investigate deeply and likely rank more stable programs higher.

3. What if I love everything about a program except its history of resident turnover?

Use a structured approach:

1. Identify why you love it: clinical volume, academic prestige, location, fellowship opportunities.
2. Clarify the specific reasons residents left and whether they still apply.
3. Assess whether concrete, documented changes have been made (schedule, staffing, wellness, leadership shifts).
4. Compare with at least 2–3 other programs with similar strengths but more stable retention.

If high turnover is paired with ongoing resident distress or evasive leadership, it’s usually safer to prioritize a slightly “less shiny” but more stable environment.

4. Can a program with previous turnover problems improve enough to be a good choice now?

Yes—but improvement must be visible and specific. Signs of genuine progress:

• New program leadership with a clear, communicated vision.
• Documented changes in scheduling, supervision, or workload.
• Enhanced resident support systems (mentorship, mental health resources, EM-IM specific advising).
• Current residents describe the old problems frankly and can point to real improvements they’ve experienced.

If both residents and leadership tell a consistent story of “We had issues, we learned from them, and here’s exactly what we changed,” then prior turnover may represent an inflection point rather than an ongoing threat.

---

As an MD graduate targeting EM-IM combined training, viewing resident turnover through a critical but nuanced lens can help you distinguish demanding-but-supportive programs from those with deeper structural or cultural issues. Ask targeted questions, listen carefully to both words and tone, and prioritize programs where residents not only survive but truly grow into the kind of emergency medicine internal medicine physician you aim to become.