Evaluation of Virtual Vitreoretinal Surgery Fellowship Interview and Match Experience

Reimagining the Rheumatology Fellowship Interview: Using Participatory Design-Thinking Process to Create a More Applicant-Centered Experience

OBJECTIVE

Design thinking is a creative problem-solving process used to better understand users' needs and experiences so that a product or service can be improved. Its emphasis on empathy, iterative prototyping, and participatory collaboration make it an ideal methodology for innovation in medical education. We apply this framework to the virtual rheumatology fellowship interview process so that interviews can become more applicant centered.

METHODS

This educational quality improvement project uses a design-thinking framework to identify opportunities and challenges for rheumatology fellowship applicants. The investigators use the 5-step process (Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test) and incorporate rapid qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews to innovate the interview experience. The iterative and collaborative nature of this process has empowered participants to codesign an applicant-centered interview experience.

RESULTS

Interviews with fellowship applicants (n = 9), fellow physicians (n = 4), and faculty members (n = 3) identified three major dynamics of the interview process: (1) Is it a safe environment to ask questions? (2) How do I exchange information effectively? and (3) How do I fit all these data into the bigger picture? Creative brainstorming techniques at a series of three workshops yielded four prototypes emphasizing customization, hybridization, facilitation, and preparation. A finalized applicant-centered interview template was devised in preparation for the 2023-2024 application season.

CONCLUSION

Design thinking has yielded insights into three important dynamics that drive applicant experiences. These insights allow for a redesign of processes so that virtual interviews can be more applicant centered. This framework allows for further iterations and modifications as the needs of applicants and programs evolve over time.

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.