Residency Applicant Preferences of Online Systems for Scheduling Interviews

Impact of the Standardized Interview Offer Date Initiatives: A Survey of Otolaryngology Applicants and Programs

OBJECTIVE

To investigate residency applicant and program compliance with and attitudes toward a newly implemented standardized interview offer date program.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

US Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery training programs.

METHODS

An electronic survey was distributed to applicants during match week in March 2022, and to program directors and program managers shortly after. The surveys included questions assessing program compliance with the standardized interview offer date as well as both applicant and program attitudes toward this newly implemented initiative.

RESULTS

This study achieved a 47% (263/559) response rate from applicants and 57% (68/120) from programs. Both applicants and program directors reported high program compliance with this initiative. Ninety-six percent of program directors reported complying with releasing interview offers on 1 standardized day. Applicants endorsed a reduction in their anxiety surrounding the residency application process as well as an increased ability to engage in the fourth year of medical school as benefits of the initiative. Providing clarity surrounding the applicant's final application status and further standardization of the interview scheduling process were identified as areas for improvement.

CONCLUSION

Standardization of residency interview offer and acceptance practices is both feasible and impactful. Providing applicants with a final applicant status and further efforts to improve the interview scheduling process may continue to bolster this initiative in future years.

Calming Troubled Waters: A Narrative Review of Challenges and Potential Solutions in the Residency Interview Offer Process

The rising numbers of residency applications along with fears of a constrained graduate medical education environment have created pressures on residency applicants. Anecdotal evidence suggests substantial challenges with the process of offering residency interviews. This narrative review is designed to identify and propose solutions for the current problems in the process of offering residency interviews. We used PubMed and web browser searches to identify relevant studies and reports. Materials were assessed for relevance to the current process of distributing residency interviews. There is limited relevant literature and the quality is poor overall. We were able to identify several key problem areas including uncertain timing of interview offers; disruption caused by the timing of interview offers; imbalance of interview offers and available positions; and a lack of clarity around waitlist and rejection status. In addition, the couples match and need for coordination of interviews creates a special case. Many of the problems related to residency interview offers are amenable to program-level interventions, which may serve as best practices for residency programs, focusing on clear communication of processes as well as attention to factors such as offer-timing and numbers. We provide potential strategies for programs as well as a call for additional research to better understand the problem and solutions.

High-Value Interviewing: A Call for Quality Improvement in the Match Process

Within the Match process, current residency interview practices are inefficient for both applicants and programs. Problems include disorganized interview offers and scheduling, excessive numbers of applicant interviews, unclear postinterview communication policies, and the significant expenses entailed. To address these issues, the authors propose applying a quality improvement approach to create a high-value interview process that would decrease investments of time, money, and energy and improve the quality of the Match experience for both applicants and programs. They propose establishing an interview offer week to streamline and systematize the interview offer and scheduling process; placing an evidence-based cap on the number of interviews that applicants are allowed to schedule; and enforcing a moratorium on postinterview communication that would apply to both applicants and programs. Implementing these proposals would decrease expenses, improve the efficiency of this process for all involved, and demonstrate that quality improvement methods used to improve patient care can also be applied to improving medical student and physician experiences.

Computerized Residency Interview Scheduling: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Categorical General Surgery Applicants

OBJECTIVE

Scheduling interviews can be stressful and time-intensive for general surgery applicants and program coordinators. The objectives of this study were to determine whether computerized scheduling program (CSP) would decrease time to schedule interviews, reduce workload for residency coordinators, and improve applicant satisfaction.

DESIGN

A prospective randomized controlled trial of 2 interview-scheduling methods was conducted. All categorical general surgery applicants selected to interview for the 2017 match were randomized to either standard e-mail/phone scheduling or CSP using InterviewBroker. Time required to schedule an interview, number of communications, reschedules, withdrawals, and cancellations were all recorded. Additionally, applicants completed a voluntary, anonymous 9-question paper survey on their interview date. The program director and interviewers were blinded to the experimental groups.

SETTING

A single general surgery residency program.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants in the study included all categorical general surgery applicants selected for an interview in the 2017 match cycle (N = 62 standard group, N = 62 CSP group).

RESULTS

The CSP group took less time to schedule interviews (9 minutes vs. 80 minutes; p < 0.01), had fewer e-mail/phone communications (3 vs. 1; p < 0.01), and more total rescheduling events (26 vs. 4; p = 0.03) when compared to the standard group. Survey responses showed that 55% of applicants used CSPs at 5 or fewer other programs. The CSP group reported increased overall satisfaction (80% vs. 56% very satisfied; p = 0.02) and access to preferred interview dates (80% vs. 53% very satisfied; p = 0.02). Overall, 77% of applicants responded that CSPs should be widely adopted among general surgery residency programs.

CONCLUSIONS

CSPs expedited interview scheduling, decreased workload for program coordinators, and improved general surgery applicant satisfaction. However, despite the benefits of CSPs for programs and applicants, CSP use is not widespread among general surgery residency programs. Adoption of CSPs by all programs could greatly improve interview-scheduling processes for applicants and programs.

Assessing Correlation of Residency Applicants' Interview Dates With Likelihood of Matching

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine whether the timing of an interview relative to the recruitment season was associated with being ranked or matched at an academic medical center.

METHODS

Eleven specialties (anesthesiology, diagnostic radiology, emergency medicine, family medicine, general surgery, internal medicine, neurology, neurosurgery, obstetrics-gynecology, orthopedic surgery, and psychiatry) that participated in the National Resident Matching Program were included in the study. Each program's total number of interview days during the October 2014-January 2015 interview season were divided equally into three interview time periods. The Cochran-Armitage trend test was used to evaluate associations among the three interview time periods (early, middle, and late) and interviewee outcomes (ranked or matched at our institution) for all subjects combined for each of the 11 programs and for specialty groups (medical, surgical, and hospital).

RESULTS

Of 1034 applicants included in the analyses, 60% were men. Most were graduated from US medical schools (59.8%; a total of 103 applicants obtained first-year training positions through the Match [95.4% combined fill rate]). Twenty-nine interviewed early, 38 in the middle, and 36 in the late period (P = 0.3877). A total of 864 applicants were ranked by 1 of the 11 residency programs at the study site: 267 in the early period, 319 in the middle, and 278 in the late period (P = 0.4184). Being ranked in association with specialty classification also showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Interview timing had no relation to the likelihood of a match or being ranked by 1 of the 11 programs studied at our institution. These findings help dispel misconceptions about the importance of the interview date for a successful match.