Remote interviews for medical residency selection during the initial COVID-19 crisis: a national survey

Post-COVID Analysis of Which U.S. Medical Schools Produce the Most Neurosurgery Residents: 2021-2023 in Review

OBJECTIVE

The process surrounding application to the national residency matching program changed drastically because of COVID. Virtual interviews, pre-interview Zoom socials, and limitations on sub-internships are major changes that applicants worldwide have had to overcome. The available literature does not reflect the impact of major changes to the interview process. Here, we examine the neurosurgery resident cohort from 2021-2023 to investigate differences between United States medical schools pre- and post-COVID.

METHODS

A database was constructed reporting the number of students matched to neurosurgery for U.S. medical schools (M.D. and D.O.) from 2021-2023. Percentage of total graduates matched to neurosurgery was calculated and institutions were ranked by this metric. This rank was compared to a rank reported in 2021. Variables were compared across the pre- and post-COVID cohorts.

RESULTS

Case Western, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, Vanderbilt, University of Illinois, and University of California San Francisco produced the most neurosurgical residents as a percentage of total graduates. There was a statistically significant difference in the post-COVID cohort between medical schools with a home program versus those without. For the top 20 ranked U.S. News and World Report medical schools, there was a statistically insignificant increase in the number of graduates matched to neurosurgery.

CONCLUSIONS

With the data provided, there have not been many significant changes in which medical schools produce the most neurosurgery residents since COVID changes were implemented. The playing field has remained relatively stable in the setting of major changes.

A Canadian survey of residency applicants' and interviewers' perceptions of the 2021 CaRMS R1 virtual interviews

BACKGROUND

All Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) R1 interviews were conducted virtually for the first time in 2021. We explored the facilitators, barriers, and implications of the virtual interview process for the CaRMS R1 match and provide recommendations for improvement.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey study of CaRMS R1 residency applicants and interviewers across Canada in 2021. Surveys were distributed by email to the interviewers, and by email, social media, or newsletter to the applicants. Inductive thematic analysis was used for open-ended items. Recommendations were provided as frequencies to demonstrate strength. Close-ended items were described and compared across groups using Chi-Square Fisher's Exact tests.

RESULTS

A total of 127 applicants and 400 interviewers, including 127 program directors, responded to the survey. 193/380 (50.8%) interviewers and 90/118 (76.3%) applicants preferred virtual over in-person interview formats. Facilitators of the virtual interview format included cost and time savings, ease of scheduling, reduced environmental impact, greater equity, less stress, greater reach and participation, and safety. Barriers of the virtual interview format included reduced informal conversations, limited ability for applicants to explore programs at different locations, limited ability for programs to assess applicants' interest, technological issues, concern for interview integrity, limited non-verbal communication, and reduced networking. The most helpful media for applicants to learn about residency programs were program websites, the CaRMS/AFMC websites, and recruitment videos. Additionally, panel interviews were preferred by applicants for their ability to showcase themselves and build connections with multiple interviewers. Respondents provided recommendations regarding: (1) dissemination of program information, (2) the use of technology, and (3) the virtual interview format.

CONCLUSIONS

Perceptions of 2021 CaRMS R1 virtual interviews were favourable among applicants and interviewers. Recommendations from this study can help improve future iterations of virtual interviews.

Expectations versus reality: Understanding the accuracy of impressions made during virtual interviews of pediatric pulmonary fellowship programs

RATIONALE

As a result of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, all pediatric pulmonary fellowship programs conducted virtual interviews for the first time in the Fall of 2020. This study aimed to understand the accuracy of virtual-interview derived-impressions of fellowship programs, as well as applicant preference for future fellowship interview cycles.

METHODS

A group of pediatric pulmonary fellows and Program Directors designed a REDCap survey. The survey was distributed to all first-year pediatric pulmonary fellows who participated in the 2020-2021 virtual interview season.

RESULTS

23/52 (44%) of first-year pediatric pulmonary fellows completed the survey. 96% were able to form general impressions about fellowship programs during their virtual interviews. 96% reported that generally their fellowship experience matched their virtual-interview derived-impressions. 17 of the 19 factors applicants use to rank programs had no statistically significant change (p > 0.05) in impression from virtual interview to fellowship experience. The two factors with a statistically significant (p < 0.05) change in impression were patient care related-volume of "bread and butter" pediatric pulmonary patients and volume of tertiary care pediatric pulmonary patients. 87% prefer some form of in-person interview option in future application cycles. A tiered interview format in which applicants are first invited to a virtual interview day followed by an optional in-person second look day was the most popular preference for future interview cycles (48%).

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual interviews may provide accurate representations of pediatric pulmonary fellowship programs and applicants prefer some type of in-person interview option in future application cycles.

No difference in subsequent trainee satisfaction associated with in-person exposure prior to remote interviews

BACKGROUND

In 2020-2021, residency and fellowship applicants participated in virtual interviews. There was concern that trainees who had not been to the area before would potentially have different satisfaction with their new workplace and community.

OBJECTIVE

To compare satisfaction and likelihood to recommend work and community among new trainees with or without prior exposure to a single academic center or its environs.

METHODS

We conducted an IRB-approved cross-sectional survey of new trainees. An electronic survey included demographic items, self-report of prior exposure to the area, satisfaction with the program and area, and likelihood to recommend the program and area. Descriptive statistics were used for responses and Chi square tests for comparisons.

RESULTS

In September 2021 and May 2022 electronic surveys were sent to all 173 trainees who started residency or fellowship in July 2021, which had 87 responses (50.3% response rate) and 31 (18.0% response rate) responses, respectively. At both times, most respondents were interns. The majority of the September group (55.6%), while 38.7% of the May group had prior exposure to the area. Overall, the majority were satisfied with Penn State Health and would recommend their workplace. The majority also agreed they were satisfied with their new community and would recommend it to others. There were no significant differences in the proportions of satisfied trainees for any of the four outcomes at either timepoint.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfaction with training and the community were not significantly different for trainees with or without prior in-person exposure to the institution or surrounding area.

Virtual interviewing for graduate medical education recruitment and selection: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 80

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic caused graduate medical education (GME) programs to pivot to virtual interviews (VIs) for recruitment and selection. This systematic review synthesizes the rapidly expanding evidence base on VIs, providing insights into preferred formats, strengths, and weaknesses.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO, MedEdPublish, and Google Scholar were searched from 1 January 2012 to 21 February 2022. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument. Findings were reported according to Best Evidence in Medical Education guidance.

RESULTS

One hundred ten studies were included. The majority (97%) were from North America. Fourteen were conducted before COVID-19 and 96 during the pandemic. Studies involved both medical students applying to residencies (61%) and residents applying to fellowships (39%). Surgical specialties were more represented than other specialties. Applicants preferred VI days that lasted 4-6 h, with three to five individual interviews (15-20 min each), with virtual tours and opportunities to connect with current faculty and trainees. Satisfaction with VIs was high, though both applicants and programs found VIs inferior to in-person interviews for assessing 'fit.' Confidence in ranking applicants and programs was decreased. Stakeholders universally noted significant cost and time savings with VIs, as well as equity gains and reduced carbon footprint due to eliminating travel.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of VIs for GME recruitment and selection has accelerated rapidly. The findings of this review offer early insights that can guide future practice, policy, and research.

Faculty Members’ Perspective on Virtual Interviews for Medical Residency Matching during the COVID-19 Crisis: A National Survey

During the COVID-19 pandemic, conducting face-to-face medical residency interviews was challenging due to infection prevention precautions, social distancing, and travel restrictions. Virtual interviews were implemented by the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS) as an alternative process for residency matching while striving to maintain the same quality standards. This national survey was conducted to assess the satisfaction and perceptions of faculty members’ virtual interview performance in the assessment for the medical training residency programs. Among the participating 173 faculty members, 34.1% did not have previous experience with video-conferencing. The Zoom application was the most commonly used platform (65.9%). Most (89.6%) of the faculty perceived virtual interviews as “adequate” platforms on which the candidates could express themselves, while almost half of the faculty (53.8%) agreed that virtual interviews allowed them to accurately reach an impression about the candidates. Overall, 73.4% of faculty felt comfortable ranking the virtually interviewed candidates. We conclude that the acceptance of participating faculty members in the first Saudi medical residency training matching cycle virtual interviewing event was well-perceived. This study provides evidence for future application and research of virtual interviews in residency candidates’ assessment, especially after the pandemic crisis resolves.