Pearls and pitfalls in letters of recommendation for neurology residency applications
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2025

Setting Up a Stroke Team Algorithm and Conducting Simulation-based Training in the Emergency Department - A Practical Guide
Published on: January 15, 2017
Ryka R Sehgal1, Harini Sarva2, Joseph E Safdieh2
1Department of Neurology, University of California - San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, M798, Box 0114, San Francisco, CA, USA 94143.
Abstract:
Letters of recommendation are a cornerstone of residency applications. Variability and bias in letters exists across specialties, neurology being no exception. Studies done in other specialty fields assessing nuanced language uncovered key attention points for improvement and mitigation of bias, lessons from which should be applied in the field of neurology. We review common pearls and pitfalls in the letter solicitation, writing and reading process, with suggested best-practices for residency applicants, letter writers, and program faculty reviewers. We advocate for the thoughtful selection of writers, emphasis on highlighting professional skills, and attention to implicit bias. This discussion focuses on recommendations for US advanced or categorical neurology programs, but elements of this guidance may apply more broadly to fellowship and faculty promotion letters as well.
Related Concept Videos
Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care...
Guidelines for Nursing Documentation I
Factual:
The following points emphasize the significance of upholding accurate and unbiased documentation in healthcare.

