Avoiding Pitfalls: Recognizing Resident Turnover Warning Signs for US Citizen IMGs

Understanding Resident Turnover: Why It Matters for US Citizen IMGs

For a US citizen IMG (American studying abroad), choosing an Emergency Medicine–Internal Medicine (EM IM combined) residency is a high‑stakes decision. You’re investing years of your life, moving cities or states, and betting your future career on the training environment you pick. One of the most powerful, often underappreciated indicators of a program’s health is resident turnover—who leaves, how often, and why.

Turnover happens in every residency. Life events, genuine career changes, or geographic needs can lead residents to transfer or resign. But when multiple residents leave a program, especially in a short time, it can signal program problems: poor leadership, toxic culture, inadequate supervision, or unsafe workloads.

For EM IM combined applicants, this matters even more:

• Your training is longer (5 years), so you’re more vulnerable to culture and leadership changes.
• You depend on two departments (Emergency Medicine and Internal Medicine); problems in either can affect your well‑being, learning, and board eligibility.
• As a US citizen IMG, you may feel less empowered to speak up or transfer, so recognizing red flags before you match is critical.

This article will walk you through resident turnover warning signs specific to EM IM combined programs and offer practical, step‑by‑step strategies to spot and interpret them.

---

1. What Is “Normal” Resident Turnover vs. a Red Flag?

Not all turnover is bad. The key is to distinguish normal attrition from concerning patterns.

Normal or Understandable Turnover

These situations usually do not indicate systemic program dysfunction:

• A single resident leaving for:
  • Family reasons (spouse relocation, health issues, caregiving)
  • Genuine career change (e.g., switching to radiology, anesthesia, or psychiatry)
  • A move closer to home for support
• A categorical IM resident transferring into EM IM combined or vice versa (clearly planned and well explained)
• A resident repeating a year after extended leave for illness, pregnancy, or other personal circumstances, with strong program support

Normal programs will:

• Be transparent about what happened (within privacy limits)
• Explain what they learned and how they supported the resident
• Show that this is uncommon, not part of a pattern

Concerning Resident Turnover Patterns

Turnover becomes a warning sign when there is:

• Recurrent or clustered departures
  • Multiple residents leaving within 1–2 years
  • Residents leaving from multiple PGY levels (e.g., one PGY-1, one PGY-2, one PGY-4)
• Ambiguous or evasive explanations
  • “They just weren’t a good fit” without specifics
  • “It was mutual” with visible discomfort from faculty or residents
• Disproportionate EM IM loss
  • Several EM IM residents leaving compared with categorical EM or IM residents
  • EM IM residents consistently switching to only EM or only IM within the same institution
• Unaddressed structural issues
  • No clear changes after serious concerns (duty hours, supervision, mistreatment)
  • Repeated mention of “burnout” without acknowledgment of systemic drivers

For a US citizen IMG, programs with high unexplained turnover can be riskier, because:

• You may be less connected locally for support.
• Transfer options in EM IM combined are limited.
• Visa issues aren’t a factor for you, so if many people are still leaving, it suggests deeper problems.

Rule of thumb: One departure, well explained, may be fine. Multiple vague or uncomfortable stories about residents leaving program should prompt caution.

---

2. Specific Turnover Red Flags in EM–IM Combined Programs

EM IM combined programs are unique. You’re effectively part of two residencies with their own leadership, cultures, and stressors. Resident turnover warning signs can involve either department—or the integration between them.

2.1 Disproportionate EM IM Turnover Compared to Categorical Residents

Ask directly:
“Have any EM IM residents left the program in the last 3–5 years?”

Red flags:

• Several EM IM residents have:
  • Switched to categorical EM or IM
  • Left the institution entirely
  • “Transitioned to other opportunities” with no clarity
• Categorical EM and IM classes are stable, but the EM IM track has a history of residents leaving program repeatedly

What this might indicate:

• EM IM residents are:
  • Overused as “flex” labor between departments
  • Not adequately protected from being scheduled like two full‑time residents
  • Not fully accepted by either department (“outsiders” or “floaters”)

2.2 Confusion About Who “Owns” EM IM Residents

Combined residents should have clear leadership (often a designated EM IM program director or associate PD). Warning signs:

• Residents and faculty describe confusion about:
  • Who handles evaluations
  • Who to contact for schedule issues
  • Who advocates for EM IM residents in conflicts
• EM leadership assumes IM handles it; IM believes EM does—resulting in no one truly accountable
• EM IM residents say:
  • “We kind of fall through the cracks.”
  • “Sometimes I don’t know who my real PD is.”
  • “When something goes wrong, everyone says it’s the other department’s problem.”

Poor governance is a major risk factor for burnout and turnover.

2.3 Chaotic or Ever‑Changing Rotations and Schedules

Balanced training is the core of EM IM combined. Program problems may show up as:

• EM IM residents frequently:
  • Working EM shifts plus extra IM call to “cover” gaps
  • Being used to fill schedule holes in both departments during resident turnover
• Schedules frequently change last minute, with:
  • No regard for ACGME duty hour restrictions
  • No protection for continuity clinics, conferences, or wellness days
• EM IM residents consistently have less elective time or flexibility than categorical peers

Ask residents:

• “Do you feel your schedule is similar in workload to categorical EM and IM residents?”
• “Have EM IM residents ever needed to leave or transfer because of unmanageable scheduling?”

If residents hesitate or clearly “edit” their answer in front of faculty, take note.

2.4 Persistent Culture Clashes Between EM and IM

Every combined program must navigate different cultures:

• EM: rapid decision‑making, shift work, high acuity
• IM: longitudinal relationships, inpatient ward structure, call systems

Turnover warning signs appear when these differences become conflict, not complement:

• IM faculty resent EM IM residents:
  • “You’re never on the floor when we need you.”
  • “You’re not really one of our residents.”
• EM faculty undervalue IM work:
  • “Why are you wasting time on clinic?”
  • “We need you on more shifts; clinic is secondary.”
• EM IM residents feel pulled in two directions, with:
  • Conflicting expectations about conferences, sign‑outs, and continuity clinics
  • Little flexibility when two departments demand their presence simultaneously

If EM IM residents describe feeling “invisible” or “caught in the middle” and you learn that prior residents left due to these tensions, that’s a strong resident turnover red flag.

---

3. How to Investigate Turnover During the Application Season

As a US citizen IMG, you may worry about asking “hard” questions. You absolutely can—and should. The key is to ask professionally and strategically during virtual or in‑person interviews, open houses, and second looks.

3.1 Questions to Ask Faculty and Program Leadership

Aim for open‑ended, neutral questions that invite honest answers:

1. About overall stability

   • “How stable has your EM IM combined program been over the last 5–10 years?”
   • “Have there been any residents who transferred or left early? What were the circumstances, and how did the program respond?”

2. About EM vs IM culture

   • “How do you ensure EM IM residents feel fully integrated with both EM and IM categories?”
   • “Can you give examples of how the departments collaborate to support EM IM residents when conflicts arise?”

3. About governance and advocacy

   • “Who is directly responsible for EM IM residents’ evaluations, schedules, and wellbeing?”
   • “If there’s a conflict between EM and IM demands, who has the final say?”

4. About burnout and wellness

   • “What changes have you made in the last 3–5 years to reduce burnout or improve resident satisfaction?”
   • “Have you had any major culture issues, and how were they addressed?”

Green flags:

• Clear, specific answers
• Willingness to acknowledge past challenges and explain concrete improvements
• Data about retention, board pass rates, and alumni careers

Red flags:

• Vague reassurances: “Our residents are very happy,” without details
• Evasive body language or rapid topic changes
• Blaming individual residents (“they just couldn’t handle it”) without introspection

3.2 Questions to Ask Residents (Especially Off‑Camera or One‑on‑One)

Residents are often more candid, especially in breakout rooms or social events:

1. Direct but respectful

   • “Have any residents left the program in the last few years? If so, what happened?”
   • “Do you feel like EM IM residents are treated fairly compared to categorical EM and IM residents?”

2. Workload and safety

   • “Is workload manageable, or do people routinely stay well beyond scheduled hours?”
   • “Do residents ever worry about patient safety due to staffing or supervision?”

3. Culture and conflict

   • “If a resident has a serious concern, does leadership actually listen and make changes?”
   • “Have you personally considered leaving or do you know others who did?”

Listen for:

• Long, awkward pauses
• Glancing at faculty before answering (in person)
• Clearly “scripted” answers that sound rehearsed
• Contradictions between what multiple residents say

3.3 Using Public Data (ACGME, FREIDA, Program Websites)

You won’t find explicit “residents left program” labels on most public sites, but you can infer patterns:

• Graduation lists on program websites
  • Look at several years: are there missing graduates?
  • Example: A 5‑year EM IM program lists PGY-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 classes. If each year has 4 residents but only 2 or 3 graduates appear consistently, that suggests attrition.
• Program size fluctuations
  • If a program rapidly shrinks its EM IM class size without clear explanation (“We are rebalancing our curriculum”), it may reflect resident turnover or recruitment issues.
• FREIDA and ACGME data
  • Some information about complement, accreditation status, and citations can hint at underlying challenges.

Red flag patterns:

• Multiple years with fewer graduates than expected
• Sudden class size reductions with no transparent explanation
• ACGME citations related to duty hours, supervision, or resident well‑being

---

4. Interpreting Turnover as a US Citizen IMG: Risks and Nuances

As an American studying abroad, you bring unique strengths and vulnerabilities. Understanding how resident turnover interacts with your situation will help you weigh risk realistically.

4.1 Why High Turnover Can Be Especially Risky for US Citizen IMGs

1. Limited local support

   • You may not have strong family or social networks near the program.
   • In a troubled environment, isolation can intensify stress.

2. Perception and bias

   • IMGs sometimes encounter stereotyping or unequal treatment.
   • In a program already stressed by residents leaving, IMGs may feel pressure to “tough it out” rather than seek help.

3. Transfer realities

   • EM IM combined spots are few nationwide.
   • Transferring into another EM IM program is difficult; you may have to:
     • Shift to categorical IM or EM
     • Lose part of prior training
     • Delay graduation

4. Career trajectory

   • Unstable training can affect:
     • Board eligibility
     • Fellowship opportunities (CCM, EM ultrasound, cardiology, etc.)
     • Job prospects in both emergency medicine and internal medicine

4.2 When Turnover May Be a Yellow Flag, Not a Deal‑Breaker

Not all turnover should automatically remove a program from your rank list. Examples:

• A single EM IM resident left due to:
  • Spousal relocation
  • Serious family illness back home
  • Well‑articulated, thoughtful specialty change (e.g., neurology, dermatology)
• The program is candid:
  • Describes what occurred
  • Explains how they supported the resident (e.g., smooth transfer, letters of support)
  • Shows no repeated pattern

For a US citizen IMG, a program that honestly acknowledges past issues and demonstrates clear improvement can still be a strong choice—sometimes even safer than one that pretends it has never had any problems.

---

5. Practical Strategies to Protect Yourself When Ranking EM–IM Programs

You can’t control everything about residency culture, but you can reduce your risk by approaching the process intentionally.

5.1 Before Interviews: Research and Pattern Recognition

• Make a spreadsheet of EM IM combined programs:
  • Class size over the last 5–7 years
  • Graduates’ current positions (from websites/LinkedIn)
  • Any obvious gaps in graduation years
• Note accreditation details
  • Watch for recent probation or adverse actions.
• Check alumni outcomes
  • Stable programs usually have clear, proud lists of EM IM graduates in strong roles (academic EM, hospitalist leadership, critical care fellowships, etc.).

5.2 During Interviews: Compare EM, IM, and EM IM Stories

You are uniquely able to see differences within the same institution:

• Ask EM faculty about EM-IM residents:
  • How do they view their contributions?
  • Are they integrated into leadership roles (chiefs, committees)?
• Ask IM faculty similar questions.
• Then talk to EM IM residents themselves and compare narratives:
  • Strong programs: stories align, with minor nuances.
  • Struggling programs: clear discrepancies in how each group talks about EM IM.

5.3 After Interviews: Debrief and “Gut Check”

Immediately after each interview day, jot down:

• What did residents say when I asked about turnover?
• Did anyone seem nervous discussing residents leaving program?
• Did EM IM residents look exhausted, disengaged, or unsupported?
• Would I feel comfortable raising a concern here as a US citizen IMG?

Across your list, look for:

• Multiple programs with no major warnings
• A few programs where turnover concerns stand out

If you have to choose between two similar programs, prioritize:

• Transparency and stability over prestige
• Protective culture over sheer clinical volume
• Clear EM IM leadership over vague “combined oversight”

5.4 Safe Communication and Backchannel Information

You can often get additional, candid insight respectfully:

• Reach out to:
  • Recent alumni on LinkedIn or via email
  • EM IM residents at other institutions who may know the program’s reputation
• Ask neutrally:
  • “I’m ranking EM IM programs and would love your general impressions of Program X. How do they treat residents? Any major concerns?”

Avoid:

• Gossip or invasion of privacy about specific residents
• Posting accusations online—focus instead on gathering enough information to make your own decision

---

6. Putting It All Together: A Framework for Evaluating Resident Turnover Red Flags

When considering an Emergency Medicine–Internal Medicine combined program, use this simple framework:

1. Data

   • How many residents have left in the last 5–7 years?
   • Is there a pattern (e.g., mainly EM IM, multiple PGY levels)?

2. Transparency

   • Does leadership openly discuss what happened and what they learned?
   • Do residents’ stories generally match leadership’s?

3. Culture and Support

   • Are EM IM residents treated as valued members in both departments?
   • Is there clear leadership advocacy for EM IM?

4. Your Position as a US Citizen IMG

   • Would you feel safe raising concerns here?
   • Is the environment supportive of diverse backgrounds and training paths?
   • If something went wrong, would the program help you find solutions (transfer, schedule changes, academic support)?

If several of the following are true:

• Multiple residents leaving program without clear reasons
• Evasive answers about turnover
• EM IM residents look burnt out or isolated
• Conflicting stories between EM, IM, and EM IM

…then you are likely looking at a resident turnover red flag and potential program problems significant enough to strongly consider ranking that program lower—or not at all.

---

FAQ: Resident Turnover and EM–IM Combined Programs for US Citizen IMGs

1. As a US citizen IMG, is it “too aggressive” to ask about resident turnover during interviews?
No. Asking about turnover is reasonable and professional. Frame it neutrally:
“I’m especially interested in the long‑term stability of EM IM combined training. Could you share how often residents have transferred or left in the past several years, and how the program supported them?”
Good programs respect applicants who ask thoughtful, informed questions.

---

2. What if a program says residents left only because of ‘personal reasons’?
“Personal reasons” can be genuine, but if it’s the only explanation given repeatedly—and residents seem uncomfortable discussing it—it may mask real concerns. Look for patterns:

• More than one departure with the same vague phrase
• No description of what the program did in response Combine that with your impression of resident morale and schedule reality before ranking.

---

3. I love the clinical opportunities at a program, but I saw signs of high turnover. Should I still rank it highly?
Clinical volume is important, especially in emergency medicine internal medicine, but a toxic or unstable environment can undermine your whole career. If red flags are substantial—multiple residents leaving program, resident turnover red flag conversations that feel evasive, clear burnout—you should strongly consider ranking safer, more stable programs higher, even if they seem less “prestigious.”

---

4. Are EM IM combined programs inherently more likely to have turnover than categorical EM or IM?
Not inherently, but they are more complex:

• Two departments
• Longer training
• More moving parts in scheduling and culture
  Programs with strong, dedicated EM IM leadership and clear policies often have excellent stability. Those that treat EM IM as an afterthought or “extra labor” are more likely to struggle with retention. Your task as a US citizen IMG is not to avoid EM IM, but to carefully identify which programs demonstrate true integration and long‑term stability.

---

By systematically evaluating resident turnover warning signs and asking the right questions, you can choose an Emergency Medicine–Internal Medicine combined program that not only offers strong training, but also provides the safety, support, and stability you need to thrive as a US citizen IMG.