The Perception and Costs of the Interview Process for Plastic Surgery Residency Programs: Can the Process Be Streamlined?

Preference Signaling and the Integrated Plastic Surgery Match: A National Survey Study

OBJECTIVE

Rooted in economics market strategies, preference signaling was introduced to the Plastic Surgery Common Application (PSCA) in 2022 for integrated plastic surgery residency applicants. This study surveyed program and applicant experience with preference signaling and assessed how preference signals influenced likelihood of interview invitations.

DESIGN

Two online surveys were designed and distributed to all program directors and 2022-2023 applicants to integrated plastic surgery. Opinions regarding the utility of preference signaling were solicited, and the influence of preference signals on likelihood of interview offers was assessed.

SETTING

All integrated plastic surgery programs.

PARTICIPANTS

All 88 program directors and 2022-2023 applicants to integrated plastic surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 45 programs and 99 applicants completed the survey (response rates, 54.2% and 34.2%, respectively). Overall, 79.6% of applicants and 68.9% of programs reported that preference signals were a useful addition to the application cycle. Programs reported that 41.4% of students who sent preference signals received interview offers, compared to 84.6% of home students, 64.8% of away rotators, and 7.1% of other applicants; overall, students who signaled were 5.8 times more likely to receive an interview offer compared to students who were not home students and did not rotate or signal. After multivariable adjustment, programs with higher Doximity rankings, numbers of away rotators, and numbers of integrated residents per year received more preference signals (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Applicants and programs report that preference signaling was a useful addition to the integrated plastic surgery application cycle. Sending preference signals resulted in a higher likelihood of interview offers among nonrotators. Preference signaling may be a useful tool to reduce congestion in the integrated plastic surgery application cycle.

Integrated Plastic Surgery Residency Applicant Perceptions of Virtual Interviews

PURPOSE

The 2020-2021 interview cycle for integrated plastic surgery applicants was the first to be held virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we detail the largest study on integrated plastic surgery applicant perceptions after the virtual interview cycle.

METHODS

A 35-question institutional review board-approved survey was distributed to medical students who had applied to the Johns Hopkins/University of Maryland or University of California San Diego integrated residency programs during the 2020-2021 interview cycle. Survey questions assessed the structure, strengths, and weaknesses of the exclusively virtual interview process. Survey administration and data collection were performed using the Qualtrics platform.

RESULTS

Of 318 distributed surveys, 94 were completed. In addition, 91.5% of respondents preferred in-person interviews before the interview season, whereas 54.3% preferred in-person interviews afterward. Applicants who favored virtual interviews did not view being unable to physically meet with program staff as a detriment (P = .001) and felt they could effectively advocate for themselves (P = .002). Overall, the most cited strengths were the ability to complete more interviews (P = .01) and cost benefits (P = .02). Criticisms were directed at the impersonal nature of the exchange (86.2%), lack of physical tour (56.4%), and difficulties at self-advocacy (52.1%).

CONCLUSION

Preference for virtual interviews increased from 7.5% to 34.0% after the virtual interview cycle. For several students, the ideal interview structure permits both in-person and virtual interviews to maximize flexibility. Augmenting with virtual city tours and one-on-one interviews may mitigate the impersonal nature of virtual interviews as perceived by some applicants.

The Impact of Virtual Interviewing During the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Residency Application Process: One Institution's Experience

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of virtual interviewing during the COVID-19 pandemic on the residency application process and to compare applicant costs and time spent interviewing during the 2020-2021 application cycle with prior years.

METHOD

Fourth-year medical students at the University of Kansas School of Medicine applying for first-year residency positions via the National Resident Matching Program Match completed an electronic 46-item survey after submitting their rank lists during each application cycle from 2015-2016 to 2020-2021. The authors used descriptive statistics and t tests to analyze and compare responses to demographics questions and questions regarding number of submitted applications, offered and completed interviews, ranked programs, costs, and time spent interviewing. They used thematic analysis to code respondents' narrative comments about the virtual interviewing experience.

RESULTS

From 2015-2016 to 2020-2021, 994 (of 1,190; 83.5%) respondents completed the survey. From 2019-2020 to 2020-2021, the average total cost of applying to residency per applicant dropped by $3,566 (P &lt; .001) and the average time spent interviewing dropped by 13.3 days (P &lt; .001). At the same time, the average number of applications per applicant dropped by 3.4, and applicants completed the same number of interviews and ranked 2.3 fewer programs, none of which were statistically significant differences. Narrative comments from 113 (79%) respondents in 2020-2021 revealed 4 themes related to virtual interviewing: convenience of time and cost, positive aspects of the process, negative aspects of the process, and overall impressions of the program.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual interviewing during the 2020-2021 application cycle resulted in an approximately 80% reduction in cost for applicants and an approximately 50% decrease in time spent interviewing compared with previous years but was not associated with large increases in number of submitted applications, completed interviews, or ranked programs. Applicants generally perceived virtual interviewing as positive although they raised notable concerns.

Impact of the Virtual Format on Plastic Surgery Residency and Fellowship Interviews: A National Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

The 2020-2021 residency and fellowship application cycles were profoundly affected by the introduction of virtual interviews (VIs). The authors investigate the impact that the virtual format (VF) had on plastic surgery residency and fellowship interviews from the perspectives of program directors (PDs).

METHODS

Surveys were sent to PDs of integrated plastic surgery residency (RPD) and fellowship (FPD) programs to ascertain their perspectives regarding the VF's impact on residency and fellowship interviews. PDs were stratified into residency and fellowship cohorts, and comparative analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 92 PDs, 28 RPDs and 64 FPDs, completed our survey (35%). When compared to in-person interviews, VIs were reported to be more economical and time efficient by RPDs (100% and 46%, respectively) and FPDs (97% and 48%, respectively). Consequentially, 36% and 47% of residency and fellowship programs were able to interview more applicants, respectively. RPDs and FPDs reported that VIs hindered their ability to assess applicants' fit with the program (75% and 63%, respectively), personality and communication skills (75% and 64%, respectively), and commitment to the field along with their ability to function as a trainee (57% and 50%, respectively). Overall, 71% of RPDs and 58% of FPDs preferred in-person interviews. The majority of residency (71%) and fellowship (56%) programs intend to conduct both in-person and VIs in future application cycles (p=0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite preferring in-person interviews, PDs intend on hosting both in-person and VIs in future application cycles. It remains to be seen how VIs will be employed moving forward.

Virtual Residency Interviews: Applicant Perceptions Regarding Virtual Interview Effectiveness, Advantages, and Barriers

BACKGROUND

Studies of the virtual interview format are needed to inform medical residency program leaders as they plan for future virtual interview seasons.

OBJECTIVE

In the current study, completed in 2021, we sought to assess applicant perspectives of virtual interview effectiveness, advantages, and barriers, including factors that might impact equity and inclusion.

METHODS

Interviewees applying to 7 residency programs and 2 clinical psychology programs at an academic medical center in the Pacific Northwest completed a post-interview survey.

RESULTS

A total of 565 of 1429 interviewees (40%) completed the survey. A vast majority (83%-96%) agreed virtual interviews were effective in each measured domain, except for learning institutional culture (352 of 565, 62%). Many also found information regarding social/living environments inadequate. Participants selected advantages to virtual interviews more frequently than disadvantages. Commonly selected advantages included cost savings, time efficiency, reduced burden of travel, and reduced carbon footprint. Disadvantages included time zone differences, access to an appropriate interview setting, and reliable access to internet. The majority of interviewees (84%, 456 of 542) desired to keep a component of virtual interviews in the future. There were no significant disparities in results based on gender, rural/suburban/urban location, race, or underrepresented minority status.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual interviews were perceived as effective, more advantageous than burdensome, and widely acceptable, with no disparities in these findings by included demographic characteristics.

Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the residency match among surgical specialties

Background

Despite unprecedented changes to undergraduate medical education and the residency selection process during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is little objective evidence on how the pandemic affected match outcomes such as matched applicant characteristics, interview distribution, geographic clustering, and associated costs. We investigated COVID-19’s impact on the residency match by comparing surgery applicants’ characteristics, interview distribution, and related costs from 2018 to 2020 to 2021.

Methods

Data from the Texas Seeking Transparency in Applications to Residency initiative were analyzed. Descriptive statistics, bivariate testing, and sensitivity analysis were performed to compare matched applicants in surgical specialties from 2018–2020 to 2021.

Results

This study included 5,258 applicants who matched into 10 surgical specialties from 2018 to 2021. In 2021, there was a decrease in proportion of students who reported a geographic connection to their matched program (38.4% vs 42.1%; P = .021) and no significant difference in number of interviews attended (mean [SD], 13.1 [6.2] vs 13.3 [4.7]; P = .136) compared to prior years. Applicants in 2021 had more research experiences and fewer honored clerkships (both P < .001), and these associations persisted in sensitivity analysis. Matched applicants in 2021 reported significantly lower total costs associated with the residency application process compared to 2018 to 2020 (mean [SD] $1,959 [1,275] vs $6,756 [4,081]; P < .001).

Conclusion

Although COVID-19 appeared to result in a reduction in number of honored clerkships, it may have provided more opportunities for students to engage in research. Overall, the adoption of virtual interviews and away rotations may have successfully mitigated some of the adverse consequences of the pandemic on the residency match for surgical specialties.

How Does Geographic Region Affect the Total and Individual Costs for Medical Students Applying to the Competitive Surgical Residencies?

OBJECTIVE

Studies have individually assessed the expenses for medical students desiring a surgical residency in neurosurgery, orthopaedic surgery, otolaryngology, plastic surgery, and urology. A detailed comparison of expenses by geographic region have not been reported. The aim was to geographically compare the expenses of United States medical students applying to the 5 most competitive surgical residencies.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Anonymous nationwide survey of plastic surgery, orthopaedic surgery, otolaryngology, urology, and neurological surgery residency applicants.

DESIGN

A cross sectional, retrospective analysis of the 2019-2020 Texas STAR Dashboard database, an online tool generated from a nationwide survey of students. Individual (application, away rotation, interview) and total costs for medical school seniors were recorded in addition to applicant characteristics. Mean and median costs were reported for each specialty with percentile distributions and geographic comparisons. A Kruskal-Wallis H test was performed to compare differences in costs between surgical specialties and medical school region.

RESULTS

In total, 1136 applicants to surgical residency were included. The number of applicants to orthopaedic surgery (OS) (n = 459), neurological surgery (NS) (n = 121), urology (UR) (n = 191), plastic surgery (PS) (n = 117), and otolaryngology (OTO) (n = 248) were reported. Mean total costs were (OS; $8,205), (NS; $11,882), (UR; $8,207), (PS; $10,845), and (OTO; $7,516) (p ≤ 0.029). Application fees were only significantly different in the northeast and southern applicants between the different specialties, notably orthopaedic surgery applicants spent the most. In all geographic regions excluding the west, neurosurgery and plastic surgery applicants spent significantly more than other specialties for interview costs and away rotation costs. In all geographic regions neurosurgery and plastic surgery applicants spent significantly more than other specialties in total costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthopaedic surgery applicants spend the most on application fees in select geographic regions. Neurosurgery and plastic surgery applicants spend more on interviews, away rotations, and total costs in nearly all geographic regions.

Total Costs of Applying to Integrated Plastic Surgery: Geographic Considerations, Projections, and Future Implications

In 2020, the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons and the Association of American Medical Colleges recommended residency programs suspend away rotations and in-person interviews. This study quantifies applicant costs and potential savings in the residency application process resulting from that change, while also evaluating differences in cost with respect to geographic region of the applicant.

METHODS

A retrospective evaluation of the 2019-2020 Texas STAR (Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency) database was conducted. We queried responses from plastic surgery residency applicants, including expenses associated with the application, away rotations, interviews, and total costs for medical school seniors. Applicant characteristics were recorded. A Kruskal-Wallis H-test was used to evaluate differences in mean costs by medical school region.

RESULTS

In total, 117 US allopathic applicants to plastic surgery residency were included. Total expenses for the application cycle were $10,845. This was made up of $1638 in application costs, $4074 in away rotation costs, and $5486 in interview costs. No significant differences were observed for mean total costs for applicants from schools in the Central ($11,045/applicant), Northeast ($9696/applicant), South ($11,332/applicant), and West ($11,205/applicant) (P = 0.209).

CONCLUSION

Assuming relatively minimal expenditures related to a virtual interview cycle and lack of away rotations in 2021, the average cost savings for plastic surgery residency applicants during the COVID-19 pandemic was estimated to be over $9000.

Inefficiencies in Residency Matching Associated with Gale–Shapley Algorithms

Objective This study aimed to investigate emerging trends and increasing costs in the National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) and San Francisco Residency and Fellowship Match Services (SF Match) associated with the current applicant/program Gale–Shapley-type matching algorithms.

Design A longitudinal observational study of behavioral trends in national residency matching systems with modeling of match results with alternative parameters.

Patients and Methods We analyzed publicly available data from the SF Match and NRMP websites from 1985 to 2020 for trends in the total number of applicants and available positions, as well the average number of applications and interviews per applicant for multiple specialties. To understand these trends and the algorithms' effect on the residency programs and applicants, we analyzed anonymized rank list and match data for ophthalmology from the SF Match between 2011 and 2019. Match results using current match parameters, as well as under conditions in which applicant and/or program rank lists were truncated with finalized rank lists, were analyzed.

Results Both the number of applications and length of programs' rank lists have increased steadily throughout residency programs, particularly those with competitive specialties. Capping student rank lists at seven programs, or less than 80% of the average 8.9 programs currently ranked, results in a 0.71% decrease in the total number of positions filled. Similarly, capping program rank lists at seven applicants per spot, or less than 60% of the average 11.5 applicants ranked per spot, results in a 5% decrease in the total number of positions filled.

Conclusion While the number of ophthalmology positions in the United States has increased only modestly, the number of applications under consideration has increased substantially over the past two decades. The current study suggests that both programs and applicants rank more choices than are required for a nearly complete and stable match, creating excess cost and work for both applicants and programs. “Stable-marriage” type algorithms induce applicants and programs to rank as many counterparties as possible to maximize individual chances of optimizing the match.

Virtual Ophthalmology Fellowship Interviews: Perceptions of U.S. Ophthalmology Fellowship Applicants in 2020

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the experiences and preferences of ophthalmology fellowship applicants utilizing a virtual interview format.

Design Present study is a cross-sectional study.

Subjects All fellowship applicants to Wills Eye Hospital during 2020 to 2021 application cycle were included.

Methods A nonvalidated, online survey was conducted, and surveys were distributed at the conclusion of the interview process after rank list submission.

Main Outcome Measures Applicant demographics, application submissions, interview experiences, financial considerations, and suggestions for improvement of the virtual interview process were the primary outcomes of this cross-sectional study.

Results Survey responses were received from 68 fellowship applicants (34% response rate). Thirty (44%) applicants preferred in-person interviews, 25 (36%) preferred virtual interviews, and 13 (19%) would like to prefer the option to choose either. Fifty-five of 68 (80%) applicants attended the same range of interviews for which they received interview invitations. Reduced costs were reported as the highest ranked strength of virtual interviews in 44 (65%) applicants, with a majority of respondents (68%) spending less than U.S. $250 throughout the entire process. The highest ranked limitation for virtual interviews was limited exposure to the culture/environment of the program in 20 (29%) respondents. On a scale of 0 to 100, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) satisfaction level with the fellowship application process was 74.6 (18.3) and mean (SD) perceived effectiveness levels of virtual interviews was 67.4 (20.4).

Conclusion Respondents were generally satisfied with virtual interviews and noted reduced costs and increased ability to attend more fellowship interviews as the strengths of the virtual interview format. Limited exposure to the culture/environment of the program was cited as the most important limitation.

Virtual Recruitment in Surgical Residency Programs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The Covid-19 pandemic forced residency programs to drastically change their interview processes and adopt virtual interviewing for the 2020-2021 match cycle.

RECENT FINDINGS

While virtual interviewing decreased cost and increased convenience for applicants and programs involved in the match, it also introduced several potential disadvantages. Maximizing technological capabilities was an area of utmost concern at the start of the interview cycle, and multiple medical education organizations quickly recommended ways to move to virtual process, and to prevent and troubleshoot technical problems. However, other issues were less straightforward, such as how to address new sources of bias introduced by virtual interviewing, and how to ensure that programs and applicants could make informed decisions about their rank lists after only limited virtual interactions. Additionally, the increased convenience of interviewing raised concerns that students would accept more interviews, disrupting the established calculus programs used to determine how many interviews to offer per spot available.

SUMMARY

In this review, we examine the benefits and disadvantages of virtual interviewing, review recommendations from the current literature on how to improve the process, and discuss what we learned from our own experience at an academic general surgery residency program over the course of this unprecedented interview season.

Linear Modeling to Reduce Bias in Plastic Surgery Residency Selection

BACKGROUND

Consistently selecting successful, productive applicants from an annual candidate pool is the goal of all resident selection practices. Efforts to routinely identify high-quality applicants involve scrutiny of multiple factors and formulation of an ordinal rank list. Linear modeling offers a quantified approach to applicant selection that is strongly supported by decades of psychological research.

METHODS

For the 2019 residency application process, the University of Wisconsin Plastic Surgery Residency Program used linear modeling in their evaluation and ranking process. A linear model was developed using United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 scores, letters of recommendation, publications, and extracurricular activities as inputs.

RESULTS

The applicant's total score was calculated from a maximum total score of 100. The mean and median scores were 49 and 48, respectively, and applicants were ranked according to total score. A separate rank list was maintained using our program's standard methodology for applicant ranking, which involves global intuitive scoring during the interview process. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient between the two lists was 0.532, and differences between the rank lists were used as a fulcrum for discussion before making the final rank list.

CONCLUSIONS

This article presents the first known instance of the use of linear modeling to improve consistency, increase fairness, and decrease bias in the plastic surgery residency selection process. Transparent sharing of methodology may be useful to other programs seeking to optimize their own ranking methodology. Furthermore, it indicates to applicants that they are being evaluated based on fair, quantifiable criteria.

Virtual Interviews at Graduate Medical Education Training Programs: Determining Evidence-Based Best Practices

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the nation's health care system, including on graduate medical education (GME) training programs. Traditionally, residency and fellowship training program applications involve in-person interviews conducted on-site, with only a minority of programs offering interviews remotely via a virtual platform. However, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is anticipated that most interviews will be conducted virtually for the 2021 application cycle and possibly beyond. Therefore, GME training programs need to prepare for the transition to virtual interviews using evidence-based practices. At the University of California, San Francisco, a multidisciplinary task force was convened to review existing literature about virtual interviews and determine best practices. This article summarizes these findings, first discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the virtual interview format and then providing evidence-based best practices for GME training programs. Specifically, the authors make the following recommendations: develop a detailed plan for the interview process, consider using standardized interview questions, recognize and respond to potential biases that may be amplified with the virtual interview format, prepare your own trainees for virtual interviews, develop electronic materials and virtual social events to approximate the interview day, and collect data about virtual interviews at your own institution. With adequate preparation, the virtual interview experience can be high yield, positive, and equitable for both applicants and GME training programs.

A chance for reform: The environmental impact of travel for general surgery residency interviews

BACKGROUND

In light of the global climate emergency, it is worth reconsidering the current practice of medical students traveling to interview for residency positions. We sought to estimate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with travel for general surgery residency interviews in Canada, and the potential avoided emissions if interviews were restructured.

METHODS

An eight-item survey was constructed to collect data on cities visited, travel modalities, and costs incurred. Applicants to the University of Ottawa General Surgery Program during the 2019/20 Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) cycle were invited to complete the survey. Potential reductions in CO2 emissions were modeled using a regionalized interview process with either one or two cities.

RESULTS

Of a total of 56 applicants, 39 (70%) completed the survey. Applicants on average visited 10 cities with a mean total cost of $4,866 (95% CI=3,995-5,737) per applicant. Mean CO2 emissions were 1.82 (95% CI=1.50-2.14) tonnes per applicant, and the total CO2 emissions by applicants was estimated to be 101.9 (95% CI=84.0 - 119.8) tonnes. In models wherein interviews are regionalized to one or two cities, emissions would be 57.9 tonnes (43.2% reduction) and 84.2 tonnes (17.4% reduction), respectively. Overall, 74.4% of respondents were concerned about the environmental impact of travel and 46% would prefer to interview by videoconference.

CONCLUSION

Travel for general surgery residency interviews in Canada is associated with a considerable environmental impact. These findings are likely generalizable to other residency programs. Given the global climate crisis, the CaRMS application process must consider alternative structures.

Systems-Level Reforms to the US Resident Selection Process: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Calls to reform the US resident selection process are growing, given increasing competition and inefficiencies of the current system. Though numerous reforms have been proposed, they have not been comprehensively cataloged.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review was conducted to characterize and categorize literature proposing systems-level reforms to the resident selection process.

METHODS

Following Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, searches of Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were performed for references published from January 2005 to February 2020. Articles were included if they proposed reforms that were applicable or generalizable to all applicants, medical schools, or residency programs. An inductive approach to qualitative content analysis was used to generate codes and higher-order categories.

RESULTS

Of 10 407 unique references screened, 116 met our inclusion criteria. Qualitative analysis generated 34 codes that were grouped into 14 categories according to the broad stages of resident selection: application submission, application review, interviews, and the Match. The most commonly proposed reforms were implementation of an application cap (n = 28), creation of a standardized program database (n = 21), utilization of standardized letters of evaluation (n = 20), and pre-interview screening (n = 13).

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review collated and categorized proposed reforms to the resident selection process, developing a common language and framework to facilitate national conversations and change.

The Association between Away Rotations and Rank Order in the Integrated Plastic Surgery Match

BACKGROUND

Given the competition in the integrated plastic surgery Match, away rotations are ubiquitous among plastic surgery applicants to differentiate their applications. This study aimed to characterize how performing an away rotation affects rank order and Match outcomes for integrated plastic surgery programs.

METHODS

An online survey was designed and distributed to the top 25 integrated plastic surgery programs in the United States as determined by Doximity. Programs were polled about away rotation structure, position of rotators on their 2018 to 2019 rank list, and composition of current resident classes.

RESULTS

Twenty-five programs completed the survey (response rate, 100 percent). On average, programs interviewed 34.9 applicants (range, 22 to 50 applicants) and ranked 32.8 applicants (range, 10 to 50 applicants). Most "ranked-to-match" positions were occupied by home students or away rotators (60.9 percent). Rank order of home students, away rotators, and nonrotators varied significantly (p < 0.001), with median rank order of home students [5 (interquartile range, 1 to 9)] and rotators [14 (interquartile range, 6 to 27)] higher than nonrotators [17 (interquartile range, 10 to 29)]. Rank orders of away rotators tended to follow a bimodal distribution. Furthermore, 64.4 percent of integrated residents were either a home student or away rotator at their matched integrated program, with 20 percent of residency programs composed of greater than 70 percent of away rotators/home students across postgraduate years 1 through 6 classes.

CONCLUSIONS

For integrated plastic surgery programs, the majority of ranked-to-match students on rank lists and current residents were either home students or away rotators at their respective program. Performing well on an away rotation appears to confer significant benefit to the applicant applying in the integrated plastic surgery Match.

Time and Financial Costs for Students Participating in the National Residency Matching Program (the Match©): 2015 to 2020

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to provide information to assist students, faculty, and staff in making critical career-determining decisions regarding the residency NRMP “Match^©” process.

Methods

A 47-item survey questionnaire was developed and piloted on a regional medical school campus in 2015. The revised questionnaire was distributed each year from 2016 to 2020 to fourth-year medical students after rank lists had been submitted. The questionnaire incorporated a request for comments about the interviewing experience and suggestions to improve the process. This narrative feedback was coded using a thematic analysis.

Results

The overall response rate was 86.1% (897/1,042). Annual response rates ranged from 70.0% in 2020 to 97.0% in 2018. Respondents’ average age was 27.3 (± 2.7) years and 50.0% (448/897) were male. Most applied to family medicine (164/897; 18.2%) and internal medicine (140/897; 15.6%). Eight specialties had fewer than ten applicants over the six-year period. The number of students applying to individual specialties fluctuated annually, but no specialty showed a consistent upward or downward trend over the study period.

Conclusions

This study found huge differences in numbers of applications, expenses, and days interviewing. Students crave more guidance, a more efficient system, transparent communication with programs, and less pressure during the process. Reducing escalating volumes of applications is central to improving the system. Despite efforts to inform applicants better, student behavior is unlikely to change until they feel safe in the belief that lower and more realistic numbers of applications and interviews are likely to result in securing an appropriate residency position.

Virtual Interviews for the Independent Plastic Surgery Match: A Modern Convenience or a Modern Misrepresentation?

OBJECTIVE

The virtual interview for residency and fellowship applicants has previously been utilized preliminarily in their respective processes. The COVID-19 pandemic forced many programs to switch to a virtual interview process on short notice. In the independent plastic surgery process, which was underway when the pandemic started, applicants had a heterogeneous experience of in-person and virtual interviews. The purpose of this study was to assess if applicants prefer a virtual interview experience to an in-person interview as well as determine if virtual interview applicants had a different opinion of a program compared to the in-person interview applicants.

DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

The 2019 to 2020 applicants who interviewed at the Indiana University Independent Plastic Surgery program were administered an anonymous online survey about their interview experience at our program.

RESULTS

Our survey response was 60% (18/30). The in-person interview group (n = 10) rated their overall interview experience higher than the virtual interview group (n = 8) 8.8 vs 7.5 (p = 0.0314). The in-person interview group felt they became more acquainted with the program, the faculty, and the residents more than the virtual group (4.7 vs 3.25, p < 0.0001) (4.3 vs 3.25, p = 0.0194) (4.3 vs 2.75, p < 0.0001). The majority of applicants favored in-person interviews (16/18, 88.9%). The in-person interview group spent significantly more money on their interview at our program compared to the virtual interview group ($587 vs $0, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that the virtual interview process was an efficient process for applicants from both a financial and time perspective. However, the virtual interview process left applicants less satisfied with their interview experience. The applicants felt they did not become as acquainted with the program as their in-person counterparts. The virtual interview process may play a large role in residency and fellowship applications in the future, and programs should spend time on how to improve the process.

Videoconference Interviews: A Timely Primary Care Residency Selection Approach

BACKGROUND

Videoconference interviews (VCIs) are increasingly being used in the selection process of residency program candidates across a number of medical specialties, but nevertheless remain an underutilized approach, particularly in the field of primary care.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective data review with cost analysis explores financial and acceptability outcomes of VCI implementation over a 9-year period.

METHODS

VCIs were incorporated into the recruitment process at a community-based academic family medicine residency program in 2011, whereby suitable candidates were selected for VCIs after Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application review. Based on the outcome of VCI, candidates were invited via a structured interview tool for a subsequent in-person interviews to determine final rank decisions. Costs of the interview process were tracked, as well as perceptions of VCIs.

RESULTS

VCI implementation over 9 years demonstrated a median 48% reduction of in-person interviews-or 95 applicants eliminated out of a total 195 VCIs performed. This represents a mean annual direct cost savings estimated at $9,154, equating to a 55% reduction in allocated program costs, in addition to indirect cost savings to both applicants and the program.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to exclusively in-person interviewing, the utilization of VCIs is potentially more cost-effective for residency programs and candidates, while creating a more personal experience for applicants early in the recruitment process. Limited data of acceptability among faculty and candidates is generally favorable but remains mixed.

Integrated Plastic Surgery Applicant Review: Important Factors and Selection Criteria

Matching into integrated plastic surgery residency is highly competitive. Applicants to these programs are among the most accomplished graduating medical students, consistently demonstrating some of the highest United States Medical Licensing Examination scores, mean numbers of research publications, and rates of Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society membership. The applicant review process requires programs to rely on a number of objective and subjective factors to determine which of these qualified applicants have the most potential for success. We outline these factors, discuss their correlation with resident performance, and provide our institution’s applicant review process both for applicants hoping to optimize their applications for success in the National Resident Matching Program and for program faculty hoping to optimize their resident selection process.

Do Websites Provide What Applicants Need? Plastic Surgery Residency Program Websites Versus Applicant Self-reported Needs

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Plastic surgery residency program websites (PSRWs) remain a major resource for applicants to one of the most competitive specialties in medicine, yet it is unclear how the website content aligns with information applicants need.

Objective:

To evaluate PSRWs and whether they are meeting applicant needs.

Methods:

An anonymous online survey of 2016 plastic and reconstructive surgery applicants evaluated the use of PSRWs and information desired. Two researchers then independently analyzed all 93 PSRWs in the United States to determine whether the websites met the needs of applicants based on a quantitative scoring system.

Results:

Out of 369 total applicants to plastic surgery, the survey was sent to the 189 applicants to University of Southern California, and 87 responded (46% response rate). Ninety-eight percentage of respondents used websites during the application process. For 31%, websites served as the only source of information. Websites were moderately (60%) and only slightly useful (32%). For 22% and 34%, the quality of a website influenced their decision to apply or interview, respectively. Out of the 22 common components between the applicant survey and scoring assessment of websites, there was a significant difference in 17 components (77%) between those rated as “important” by applicants and availability of the corresponding component on websites (P < 0.05). Average (SD) score among websites was 18.7 (5.3) out of 49 maximum points (36.9%). Over 30% of websites displayed broken links or missing or outdated information. Only 19.6% displayed a link to provide website feedback.

Conclusions:

PSRWs commonly include pertinent information that is useful; however, most are lacking components valued by applicants. These findings can help guide the design, content, and improvement of PSRWs to be quality resources for applicants.