Applicants' Perspectives on Virtual vs In-person Colorectal Residency Interviews

Not From Around Here: Evaluation of In-Person Interviews in an Urban General Surgery Residency Program

OBJECTIVE

This study used a program evaluation approach to investigate the perceptions of utilizing in-person applicant interviews for a general surgery residency program.

DESIGN

The study utilized de-identified data routinely collected during the residency program applicant interviews in the General Surgery Residency Program during the fall of 2023. Applicant and faculty/resident exit interview questionnaires were developed to evaluate perceptions of in-person interviewing; the questions were informed by domains for considering the appropriateness and feasibility of continuing in-person interviews as identified by the institution's Graduate Medical Education Committee. Applicants completed the survey at the end of their interview day; faculty and resident interviewers completed the survey following the applicant rank meeting.

SETTING

The Sponsoring Institution approved a pilot transition from virtual to in-person interviews for the General Surgery Residency Program 2023 recruitment cycle. Surveys were completed electronically.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-four applicants were interviewed and requested to complete the exit survey. The survey was completed by 55 (Response rate = 86%) program applicants and eight (Response rate = 100%) faculty and residents in the program.

RESULTS

49.1% of applicants indicated a preference for in-person interviews, 40.0% of applicants indicated a preference to choose and only 10.9% indicated a preference for virtual interviews. Applicants from out-of-state had a significantly higher preference for in-person interviews than those from in-state. Applicants and faculty interviewers perceived in-person interviews to provide a strong assessment of applicants. Applicants from out-of-state had a significantly higher confidence in their ability to demonstrate their strength and assess fit than those from in-state.

CONCLUSIONS

While most applicants and faculty interviewers were generally comfortable with an in-person interviewing format, applicants from out-of-state had a particularly high preference for and perception of in-person interviews. General surgery residency programs and sponsoring institutions would benefit from the development of a comprehensive program evaluation strategies for their residency program interviews to make evidence-informed decisions about how best to structure interviews for their programs.

Internal Medicine Residency Program Applicant Perceptions of the SPLIT Recruitment Model Before and After Universal Virtual Interviews

BACKGROUND

Enhancing residency recruitment with modifications to interviews has been an area of national interest, further catalyzed by the transition to universal virtual interviewing (UVI). In 2018, our internal medicine residency program redesigned the recruitment process using virtual interviews.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluating this recruitment model allows programs to identify applicant perceptions of each component as they consider enhancements.

DESIGN

The new model, termed "SPLIT," included separating optional applicant visit days (AVD) from interviews (S), a pre-interview supplemental form (P), learning program information from a dedicated website (L), virtual interviews (I), and flexible timing (remote interview day and site visit) (T).

PARTICIPANTS

Applicants for the 2019 to 2023 Match who interviewed at one university-based internal medicine residency program.

MAIN MEASURES

After rank list certification and before the annual Match, interviewed applicants were surveyed regarding their perceptions of the SPLIT process. Responses before (2019-2020 Matches) and after (2021-2023 Matches) UVIs were compared.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 386 (75%) of 515 respondents favored video interviews. This preference was stronger in the post-UVI group (92%) than in the pre-UVI group (57%) (p < 0.001). In total, 76% of respondents attended an AVD (virtual or in-person). Applicants in the post-UVI group also favored having interviews separated from the AVD (p = 0.006) and optional AVDs (p < 0.001), more than those in the pre-UVI group. In the pre-UVI cohort, those who attended an in-person AVD tended to report a higher program understanding (OR 7.8), satisfaction with SPLIT (OR 2.1), and a better recruitment experience (OR 2.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual interviews were highly rated with increased preference following universal adoption. Optional AVDs separated from virtual interviews enhance applicant understanding of the program and were more effective when offered in-person before the pandemic-related restrictions. As programs begin to reintroduce in-person elements, the SPLIT recruitment model offers an innovative approach that addresses applicant and program needs.

Evidence-Based Practices for Interviewing Graduate Medical Education Applicants: A Systematic Review

Background Although the selection interview is a standard admission practice for graduate medical education (GME) programs in the United States, there is a dearth of recent reviews on optimizing the trainee interview process, which has low reliability, high cost, and major risk of bias. Objective To investigate the evidence base for different selection interview practices in GME. Methods We searched 4 literature databases from inception through September 2022. Two investigators independently conducted title/abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and quality assessment. Disagreements were mediated by discussion. We used backward reference searching of included articles to identify additional studies. We included studies of different interview methods and excluded literature reviews, non-GME related publications, and studies comparing different applicant populations. We examined study characteristics, applicant and interviewer preferences, and interview format. We evaluated study quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Results Of 2192 studies, 39 (2%) met our inclusion criteria. The evidence base was rated as moderately low quality using MERSQI criteria. Applicants reported preferences for several one-on-one interviews lasting 15 to 20 minutes, interviews by current trainees, and interviews including social events with only trainees. Applicants had mixed perceptions of virtual versus in-person interviews and reported that virtual interviews saved costs. The multiple mini interview (MMI) required more applicant and interviewer time than individual interviews but demonstrated construct and predictive validity and was preferred by applicants and interviewers. Conclusions Based on moderately low-quality evidence, using the MMI, training interviewers, and providing applicants with basic program information in advance should be considered for GME selection interviews.

Applicant Perceptions of In-Person versus Virtual Interview Format for Surgical Retina Fellowship

Purpose  This article compares applicants' perceptions of and experiences with virtual and in-person interviews for surgical retina fellowship. Methods  A survey was distributed via email to all applicants of three vitreoretinal surgery fellowship programs for the 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023 application cycles. Main Outcome Measures  Participants were surveyed regarding cost; burden of scheduling; number of applications and interviews completed; ability to gain a true feel of the program, location, and preceptor; and number of work and surgical days missed. Results  Of 151 applicants contacted, 36 completed the survey (23.8% response rate). Of the respondents, 25.0% attended only virtual interviews, 19.4% attended mostly virtual interviews, 30.6% attended mostly in-person interviews, and 25.0% attended half virtual and half in-person interviews. Average expenditure was significantly lower for applicants with mostly and completely virtual interviews compared with applicants with mostly in-person and half virtual, half in-person ( p  < 0.001). Applicants with mostly virtual interviews reported a lower ability to gain a true perception of the program and the program location ( p  = 0.003 and p  < 0.001, respectively). There was no difference in burden of scheduling, number of interviews completed, or number of work and surgical days missed. When applicants were asked what type of interview format they would prefer if they could repeat the cycle, those who interviewed mostly in-person largely chose in-person as their preference (72.7%), while participants who interviewed mostly or completely virtually were evenly split between in-person, virtual, and hybrid ( p  = 0.136). Conclusion  As fellowship programs and institutions decide whether they will return to in-person interviews or maintain a virtual interview format in the long term, they must weigh the lower cost of virtual interviews with the improved ability to gain a more accurate perception of the program and location allowed by in-person interviews, as well as potentially greater satisfaction with the in-person format.