Virtual Recruitment: Experiences and Perspectives of Internal Medicine Program Directors

Program Directors Survey on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cardiology Fellowship Training

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed unprecedented changes to medical education, including CV fellowship programs. CV fellowship PDs offer a unique perspective regarding the impact of the pandemic on CV medical education.

Objectives

The 4th annual Cardiovascular Diseases (CV) Fellowship Program Directors (PDs) Survey sought to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CV fellows and fellowship programs.

Methods

The survey contained 31 items examining the clinical, educational, and academic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CV fellowship programs.

Results

Survey response rate was 54%. Most respondents (58%) represented university-based programs. Most PDs felt that changes to clinical practice during the COVID-19 negatively impacted fellow education in cardiac catheterization (66%), outpatient cardiology (52%), nuclear imaging (51%), and echocardiography (50%). Despite improving attendance, 75% of PDs felt that virtual educational conferences adversely impacted interaction between participants. Only 22% felt they improved fellow education. Most PDs (85%) reported a negative impact of the pandemic on fellow well-being and burnout, and 57% reported a decrease in research productivity among fellows. Even though virtual recruitment allowed programs to interview more competitive candidates, most PDs felt that virtual interviews adversely impacted interactions between their fellows and candidates (71%) and their ability to convey the culture of their program (60%).

Conclusions

Most CV fellowship PDs felt the COVID-19 pandemic brought changes that negatively impacted the clinical training, didactic learning, academic productivity, and well-being among cardiology fellows. The implications of these changes on the competency of cardiologists that trained during the COVID-19 pandemic deserve future study.

The mitigated carbon emissions of transitioning to virtual medical school and residency interviews: A survey-based study

PURPOSE

Prior to COVID, thousands of medical school and residency applicants traversed their countries for in-person interviews each year. However, data on the greenhouse gas emissions from in-person interviews is limited. This study estimated greenhouse gas emissions associated with in-person medical school and residency interviews and explored applicant interview structure preferences.

METHODS

From March to June 2022, we developed and distributed a nine-question, website-based survey to collect information on applicant virtual interview schedule, demographics and preference for future interview format. We calculated theoretical emissions for all interviews requiring air travel and performed a content analysis of interview preference explanations.

RESULTS

We received responses from 258 first-year and 253 fourth-year medical students at 26 allopathic US medical schools who interviewed virtually in 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, respectively. Residency applicants participating in the study were interviewed at a mean of 15.3 programs (SD 5.4) and had mean theoretical emissions of 4.31 tons CO2 eq. Medical school applicants participating in the study were interviewed at a mean of 6.9 programs and had mean theoretical emissions of 2.19 tons CO2 eq. Ninety percent of medical school applicants and 91% of residency applicants participating in the study expressed a preference for hybrid or virtual interviews going forward.

CONCLUSION

In-person medical training interviews have significant greenhouse gas emissions. Virtual and hybrid alternatives have a high degree of acceptability among applicants.

Medical student advising during virtual residency recruitment: results of a national survey of internal medicine clerkship and sub-internship directors

INTRODUCTION

The residency application process is a critical time for medical students. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted changes to the residency recruitment procedures with the conversion of interviews to a virtual format. For medical school advisors guiding students on an all-virtual residency application process brought uncertainty to their advising practices. Thus, this study aimed to identify advising practices during the 2021 virtual application cycle.

METHODS

We administered an IRB-exempt national survey through the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine to 186 internal medicine core/co-/associate/assistant clerkship directors and sub-internship directors representing 140 Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited U.S./U.S.-territory-based medical schools in spring 2021. The 23-question survey was designed and pilot-tested by faculty-educators and leaders with expertise in undergraduate medical education. Data analysis included paired t- and z-tests and thematic analysis of open-ended questions.

RESULTS

The institutional response rate was 67% (93/140) and individual rate 55% (103/186). Half of the respondents felt prepared/very prepared (40% and 13% respectively) for their advising roles. Compared to pre-pandemic cycles, respondents advised a typical student in the middle-third of their class at their institution to apply to more residency programs (mean 24 programs vs 20, p < 0.001) and accept more interviews (mean 14 interviews vs 12, p < 0.001). Sixty-three percent (64/101) of respondents spent more time on student advising; 51% (51/101) reported more students asked them for informal advice. Fifty-nine percent (60/101) of respondents reported their advisees were able to assess a residency program 'somewhat well;' 31% (31/101) expressed that residency recruitment should remain entirely virtual in the future.

CONCLUSION

The transition to virtual residency recruitment due to COVID-19 prompted advising practices that may have contributed to application inflation and increased advising workload. Future studies should explore longitudinal outcomes of virtual interviews on student success to guide best practices in how to advise students during residency recruitment.

Multicenter Study of Optional In-Person Visits to Residency Programs After Virtual Interviews

Background Compared to in-person recruitment, virtual interviewing reduces costs and promotes equity. However, many residency applicants believe that visiting programs helps inform their rank decisions. Objective We assessed the feasibility of and stakeholder opinions about optional in-person visits after virtual interviewing and program rank list finalization. Methods Six internal medicine residency programs conducted virtual recruitment in 2022-2023 and finalized their rank lists 4 weeks before the deadline. Applicants were invited for optional in-person visits after program rank list finalization. Interviewed applicants, program directors, and program administrators were given surveys that included 7-17 questions and employed "skip logic," discrete answers (eg, "yes/no/unsure" or multiple choice), and open-ended questions. Survey questions assessed stakeholders' opinions about the value, equity, and potential downsides of this recruitment process. Results Participating programs interviewed an average of 379 applicants (range 205-534) with 39 (10.3% [39 of 379], range 7.9%-12.8% [33 of 420-51 of 397]) applicants completing in-person visits. Of 1808 interviewed applicants, 464 responded to the survey (26%); 88% (407 of 464) believe a similar optional in-person visit should be offered next year, 75% (347 of 464) found this process equitable, but only 56% (258 of 464) trusted programs not to change their rank lists. Nearly all who attended an in-person visit (96.5%, 109 of 113) found it valuable. All program directors liked the optional in-person visit and believe future applicants should be offered similar in-person visits. Conclusions A large majority of participating applicants and program directors believe that in-person visits should be offered after program rank list finalization. The majority of respondents felt this recruitment process was equitable.

Internal Medicine Resident Perspectives on Virtual Recruitment

This survey study describes the perceived implications of virtual-only recruitment and the preferred application process for residents and fellows.

Interview Without Harm: Reimagining Medical Training's Financially and Environmentally Costly Interview Practices

The looming threat of climate change urgently calls for reimagining unsustainable systems and practices, including academia's culture of emissions-intensive travel. Given that medical educators are uniquely invested in the future of the trainees they represent, this reimagination can and should begin with medical education. Making significant reforms to the application process has historically been challenging, but the COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed an abrupt shift from in-person to virtual interviews for medical school, residency, and fellowship. Programs and applicants alike demonstrated resilience, innovation, and satisfaction in adapting to virtual interviews during 2 full application cycles. This restructuring has prompted consideration of the necessity of environmentally costly, expensive, and time-consuming cross-country travel for single-day interviews. However, evolving conversations about the future of medical training interviews have not prioritized environmental impact, despite the sizeable historical emissions generated by interview-related travel and the incompatibility between ecological damage and population health. Beyond environmental impact, virtual interviews are more equitable, with significantly fewer financial costs, and they are more efficient, requiring less time off from school or work. Many concerns associated with virtual interviews, including interview inflation and limited applicant exposure to programs and their surrounding areas, can be addressed via creative and structural solutions, such as interview caps and in-person second-look programs. The medical training interview process underwent a forced restructuring due to the unprecedented disruption caused by COVID-19. This moment presents a strategic inflection point for medical education leadership to build on the momentum and permanently transform the process by focusing on sustainability and equity.

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.