Applicant Perspectives of Virtual General Surgery Residency Interviews

Breast Imaging Fellowship Virtual Interviews: The Program Director's Perspective

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate breast imaging fellowship program directors' perspectives on the virtual interview process.

METHODS

A 20-question survey constructed by members of the Fellowship Match Committee of the Society of Breast Imaging was distributed to all 99 breast imaging program directors registered with the Society. An initial e-mail with a link to the survey was distributed on September 9, 2022, and the survey was closed on October 1, 2022. Results were compiled and a descriptive statistical analysis was performed utilizing Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

There were 63 total responses (63/99, 64% response rate). There was a wide distribution in both the number of applications received and the number of interviews each program offered. Just under a fifth (12/63, 19%) of programs received 1 to 5 applications, whereas a quarter (16/63, 25%) received over 40 applications. In contrast, over a quarter (17/63, 27%) of programs interviewed 1 to 5 applicants, and only a small number (3/63, 5%) interviewed over 40 applicants. When reporting what worked best with the virtual interview process, the responses fell into the following 4 categories: efficiency, flexibility, virtual format, or other. When reporting what did not work well, the most common response (14/37, 38%) was conveying the atmosphere of the program in the virtual setting.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an assessment of the virtual interview experience from the perspective of breast imaging fellowship programs, which may be useful in optimizing future interview experiences for programs and applicants.

Applicants Performance in Interview for a General Surgery Residency Pre- and During Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has created a shift from traditional in-person interviews for a residency position to a virtual platform over the last 2 y (2020-2021). With this significant shift, there is controversy about how this may affect applicant performance. We hypothesized that applicants scored higher during virtual interviews than in-person interviews.

METHODS

Applicants interviewed for postgraduate year 1 positions at a single university-based residency program over six interview cycles were divided into group A (4 cycles, pre-COVID-19) and group B (2 cycles, during COVID-19). All candidates were interviewed by faculty and senior surgical residents and scored on letters of recommendation (LOR), personal statement (PS), research (RS), the way the candidate represented themselves (RP), interest in the geographic area (IN), and degree of connection between candidate and interviewer (CN). Differences in mean scores between candidates in these two groups were assessed using an independent-sample t-test.

RESULTS

Of 332 total applicants, 187 (56.3%) were in group A (cycles 2016-2019) and 145 (43.7%) were in group B (cycles 2020-2022). Group-B had higher United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 and Step 1 mean (standard deviation) scores (251.1 ± 10.6 versus 247.6 ± 11.8, P = 0.006 and 241.1 ± 10.3 versus 238.4 ± 10.4, P = 0.02). Group A scored higher median [interquartile range] in CN (4.4 [4.1, 4.6] versus 4.2 [3.9, 4.6], P = 0.005) and IN (4.3 [4.0, 4.5] versus 4.1 [3.8, 4.4], P = 0.002), while group B scored higher in LOR (4.3 [4.1, 4.6] versus 4.2 [3.9, 4.5], P = 0.011) and PS (4.3 [4.1, 4.4] versus 4.1 [3.8, 4.4], P = 0.001). No differences were noted between groups A and B in RS (3.9 [3.4, 4.5] versus 4.1 [3.5, 4.5], P = 0.108) or RP (4.4 [4.1, 4.7] versus 4.4 [4.2, 4.8], P = 0.317). No differences in the median [interquartile range] total scores of personal characteristic categories (25.1 [23.7, 26.5] versus 25.1 [23.8, 26.7], P = 0.703) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

From a program perspective, there were no differences between groups; however, candidates in the pre-COVID era scored higher in CN and IN, while those who interviewed virtually had higher scores in LOR and PS. Applicants perceptions may differ regarding in-person versus virtual interviews.

Intern Experience Reflects Information Gathered During the Virtual Interview Process

OBJECTIVE

The onset of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought many changes to the residency application process including transitioning to a virtual interview platform, which continues today. The transition brought many concerns from general surgery applicants about their ability to obtain adequate information about a program virtually. We sought to characterize how information presented by programs during the first ever virtual interview cycle matched the experience of general surgery interns after training at a program for 1 year.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In May of 2022, a survey was distributed to 243 program directors who were asked to forward it to their general surgery categorical interns who matched during the 2021 virtual match cycle. Demographics, resources used to determine an impression of a program, and correlations between information presented virtually and what was subsequently experienced as an intern were collected.

RESULTS

Forty-six program directors confirmed forwarding the survey to their categorical interns. A total of 102 general surgery interns completed the survey. Most interns (88.2%) agreed that their experience matched expectations based on information received through the virtual interview process and 98% of interns were satisfied with their experience at their training program. Interviews with faculty (40.0%), residents (68.0%) and the program web site (29.0%) were the top 3 resources used to create the most accurate impression of a program. Interns felt they were well informed during the virtual interview experience about support from fellow residents (84.3%), culture (73.0%), surgical volume (72.5%), and intern operative experience (71.6%). In addition, 65.7% of participants thought they were able to obtain a good understanding of the program's culture from the virtual process. However, 16.7% thought that their program unintentionally misrepresented aspects of the training program.

CONCLUSIONS

The faculty and residency interviews were the most important factors in program ranking and most participants agreed that their virtual interview experience matched their expectations during their intern year. Most interns felt they were able to obtain a good understanding of the program's culture from the virtual process. In addition, a majority of interns felt well informed during the interview on aspects ranging from surgical volume, autonomy, and work hours to support from faculty and residents. If virtual interviews are to continue, residents can be satisfied that information gathered virtually will match the reality of their training. Programs should continue to make every effort to present their program realistically.

Virtual Interviews: Assessing How Expectations Meet Reality

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the post-matriculation perceptions of interns and faculty who participated in the 2020-2021 virtual interview process and how their expectations of the program and the applicants, respectively, aligned with reality.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Published surveys on virtual interviewing were reviewed and modified to design two surveys, for interns and for faculty who interviewed. Interns and faculty members from the Departments of Surgery and Medicine at one institution who participated in the 2020-2021 virtual interview process completed the surveys four to six months after the start of the academic year. Following survey completion, surgical interns from the same application cycle participated in one in-person focus group nine months after the start of the academic year to clarify points raised in the surveys.

RESULTS

Forty-six interns and faculty members responded to the survey (subgroup response rates ranging from 13-30%) and ten interns participated in the focus group (participation rate 100%). Most faculty and intern participants found that expectations formed during virtual interviews were accurate. However, our respondents noted limitations to virtual interviews that reduced their usefulness, including challenges with unnatural social interactions, understanding city fit, and getting a sense of resident and program culture. Participants provided possible solutions to address these challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this mixed-methods study at a single institution found that perceptions from virtual interviews were generally accurate but with some limitations. We describe several opportunities to improve the virtual interview process and optimize the application experience.