"First Come, First Served" Serves No One: A Call for Change to Residency Interview Invitation Practices

Association of Academic Physiatrists Residency and Fellowship Program Directors' Resident Recruitment Subcouncil Position Paper on Residency Recruitment

ABSTRACT

Residency recruitment practices have undergone significant changes in the last several years. Interviews are now conducted fully virtually leading to both positive and negative downstream effects, including decreased cost to applicants and programs, decreased time away from clinical activities, flexibility in scheduling, and increased applications for applicants and program directors. In response to these changes, the Association of Academic Physiatrists Residency and Fellowship Program Directors Council convened a workgroup consisting of program directors, program coordinators, residents, and medical students who reviewed the available literature to provide an evidence-based set of best practices for program leaders and applicants. Available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and its relevance to future recruitment cycles are also discussed.

Key factors for residency interview selection from the National Resident Matching Program: analysis of residency Program Director surveys, 2016-2020

CONTEXT

As the number of medical school graduates continues to outpace the available residency training positions, applying for residency in the United States has become a highly competitive process, often associated with a low rate of selection and invitation for interview. The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Program Director survey provides data assessing factors considered by Program Directors (PD) in selecting and inviting candidates for interview. Assessing the evolution of these factors over time is efficacious to inform and guide prospective applicants toward improving preparation for residency application.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to synthesize NRMP data showing factors that PDs reported and rated as important in their decision to select and invite applicants for interview.

METHODS

Data from residency PD surveys from 2008 to 2021 were accessed, but after applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, only the data from 2016 to 2020 were reviewed and analyzed. The NRMP survey reports provided two metrics that characterized PDs' evaluation of the residency factors for interview, namely, "percent citing factor" and "average rating" on a 0 to 5 Likert-type scale. These two metrics were combined into an aggregate measure of importance (AI), and another measure of relative importance (RI) was constructed from normalizing the AI of each individual factor to the sum of the AI within each survey year.

RESULTS

The top ranked factors were United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1/Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Level 1, Letter of Recommendation (LOR) in the specialty, Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter), and USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK)/COMLEX Level 2 Cognitive Exam (CE) score, any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX, and perceived commitment to specialty. Factors rising in importance were Audition Elective/Rotation Within Your Department, Personal Statement (PS), Perceived Commitment to Specialty, Perceived Interest in Program, LOR in the Specialty, Other Life Experience, and Personal Prior Knowledge of the Applicant. Factors with declining importance were Interest in Academic Career, Awards or Special Honors in Basic Sciences, Graduate of Highly Regarded US Medical School, Awards or Special Honors in Clinical Clerkships, Lack of Gaps in Medical Education, Awards or Special Honors in Clerkship in Desired Specialty, and Consistency of Grades. Compared to the 2021 PD survey, our findings show continued predictive consistency, particularly related to specialty and program commitment.

CONCLUSIONS

The factors identified for the selection of medical school graduates for interview into a residency program reveal that PDs move toward a more integrated approach. Specifically, PDs are placing increasing emphasis on factors that border on subjective qualities more so than the more traditional, quantitative, and objective metrics. Medical students and educators need to continually apprise themselves of the NRMP data to inform students' preparation endeavors throughout medical school to strengthen their application portfolios and enhance their competitiveness for the matching process.

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.

Perceptions of the Universal Interview Offer Day in the Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Interview Process

INTRODUCTION

The American Orthopaedic Association's Council of Orthopaedic Residency Directors recommended implementing a universal offer day (UOD) in the 2020 residency match. Although this decision was an attempt to benefit applicants, it is important to assess how this endeavor was perceived.

METHODS

Questionnaires for applicants and program directors asked about the perception of the UOD and the experience with it. Responses were included from 383 applicants (43% response rate) and 84 program directors (45% response rate).

RESULTS

Applicant Survey: Most of the students (81.5%) were worried or very worried about the interview offer process. Most of the applicants (64.0%) stated that the UOD decreased their stress. The majority (93.2%) indicated that they would like to see the UOD continue in future years. Program Director Survey: Most of the program directors (83.1%) mentioned that they would like to see the UOD continued, and 86.8% indicated that they would participate in a similar process if implemented in future cycles.

DISCUSSION

Benefits of a standardized interview offer date include decreased stress and fewer clinical interruptions. Advantages can also extend to scheduling conflicts and over-interviewing. These favorable results, along with positive experiences from other specialties implementing a UOD, encourage the continued use of this approach for offering interviews.

DATA AVAILABILITY

N/A.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

N/A.

Proposal for the Standardization of Otolaryngology Residency Interview Offer Dates

The process of receiving and scheduling residency interviews for otolaryngology-head and neck surgery positions is chaotic, inducing unnecessary anxiety for applicants and introducing inefficiencies for programs. With incomplete information, applicants often accept all invitations they receive, resulting in interview hoarding and late cancellations. Various specialties have attempted to improve the interview offer and scheduling process through standardization of interview offer dates. In this commentary, we propose that otolaryngology programs adopt a uniform interview offer and scheduling date. We also advise programs commit to limiting the number of interview invitations to the number of interview slots available, and we review best practices to optimize the interview offer and scheduling process for both applicants and programs.

Residency match interview scheduling: quantifying the applicant experience

BACKGROUND

The process of offering and scheduling residency interviews varies widely among programmes. Applicants report distress and have advocated for reform. However, there is a paucity of quantitative data to characterise applicant concerns.

OBJECTIVE

We quantified the interview scheduling experience for US allopathic medical students in the 2020 main residency match.

METHODS

An anonymous, 13 question survey was sent to student representatives from each Association of American Medical Colleges member institution. Recipients were asked to forward the survey to their entire fourth-year class.

RESULTS

Of 4314 applicants to whom the survey was sent, 786 (18.2%) responded. Overall, 20.4% reported missing the opportunity to interview at a programme because they did not have adequate time to respond to an invitation; applicants into surgical specialties were significantly more likely than their non-surgical peers to report this experience (26.4% vs 18.4%, p<0.05). Most (57.4%) respondents scheduled an interview knowing they would likely cancel it in the future. The most commonly cited reason for this behaviour was concern that applicants would not receive invitations from other programmes (85.6%). A majority (56.4%) of respondents did not believe the match interview process functions based on equity and merit.

CONCLUSIONS

About one in five respondents missed the opportunity to interview at a programme because they did not respond to an invitation in time. Most respondents scheduled interviews knowing that they were likely to cancel them in the future. Standardisation of the interview invitation timeline would address these concerns.

Don't Shoot the Messenger: Surgical Programs Can Do More to Keep Applicants Informed

OBJECTIVE

The interview process for applying to general surgery residency is burdened by a high volume of applicants, resulting in unprofessional behavior by both applicants and programs. Sharing more information regarding interview scheduling with applicants may limit fourth year medical student educational disruptions, minimized late cancellations to interview, and improve overall satisfaction with the process. Thus, we set out to determine what information is currently available to applicants.

DESIGN

We used publicly accessible sources to determine what information was shared by US general surgery residency programs with applicants. Specifically, we looked at the deadline for applications, United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and 2 score cutoffs, number of interview dates available, specific interview dates, a stated policy to not offering more interviews than slots, dates when applicants can expect to be notified of interview offers, notification of decision to decline, and International Medical Graduate and visa policies.

SETTING

This study took place at Maine Medical Center in Portland, Maine, an academic medical center with a general surgery residency program.

PARTICIPANTS

Not applicable.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventeen programs were examined. Seventy-six percent of programs specified an application deadline, 65% of programs specified a Step 1 cut-off score, 50% of programs specified a Step 2 cut-off score, 61% of programs stated a visa policy, and 50% of programs stated an International Medical Graduate policy. Twenty-five percent of programs disclosed the number of interview dates, 23% disclosed what those interview dates were. About 3.4% of programs gave interview release dates, 2.8% of programs notify applicants of decline to interview, and 0.63% of programs explicitly describe a policy of offering only as many interviews as slots available. Thirty-two percent of programs provided conflicting information.

CONCLUSIONS

The information available to applicants from public access sources regarding interview scheduling is minimal, unstandardized, and unreliable. Notably lacking were policies that only offer as many interviews as slots available, dates when applicants can expect to be notified of interview offers, and notification of declines. Providing such information to applicants in a standardized way may improve satisfaction with the interview scheduling process.

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.