Finding the Next Resident Physicians in the COVID-19 Global Pandemic: An Applicant Survey on the 2020 Virtual Urology Residency Match.

OBJECTIVE: To assess interviewing applicant perceptions of a virtual urology residency interview in the setting of changes mandated by COVID-19 and to determine applicant preference for virtual or in person interviews. Applicant perceptions of multiple interview components were queried to identify program specific and interview modality specific strengths or weaknesses in the 2020 to 2021 Urology Match. METHODS: A 12 question multiple choice and free text survey was emailed to 66 virtually interviewed applicants for open residency positions at a metropolitan training program after conclusion of interviews. Items of interest included interview type preference, overall interview impression, and recommendations for improvement. RESULTS: A total of 50 of 66 (76%) applicants completed the survey corresponding to approximately 11% of the 2020 national urology applicant pool. A total of 49 of 50 (96%) respondents assessed faculty interaction and the virtual platform positively. A total of 38 of 50 (76%) was satisfied with their resident interaction and 32 of 50 (64%) applicants stated they were able to satisfactorily evaluate the site and program. Ultimately, 39 of 50 (78%) respondents would have preferred an in person interview to our virtual interview. Respondents cited challenges in assessing program culture and program physical site virtually. CONCLUSION: The majority of survey respondents indicated a preference for in person interviews. A smaller proportion of applicants preferred virtual interviews citing their convenience and lower cost. Efforts to improve the virtual interview experience may focus on improving applicant-resident interaction and remote site assessment.

Virtual grand rounds as a novel means for applicants and programs to connect in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has disrupted the 2020-2021 residency application cycle with the cancellation of away rotations and in-person interviews. This study seeks to investigate the feasibility and utility of video conferencing technology (VCT) as an opportunity for applicants to interact with faculty from outside programs. METHODS: 18 prospective urology applicants were randomized to 6 urology programs to give a virtual grand rounds (VGR) talk. Presentations were recorded and analyzed to determine audience engagement. Students were surveyed regarding perceived utility of VGR. Faculty were surveyed to determine system usability of VCT and ability to evaluate the applicant. RESULTS: 17 students completed the survey, reporting a 100% satisfaction rate with VGR. A majority felt this was a useful way to learn about outside programs. 85 physicians completed the faculty survey, with nearly half feeling confident in their ability to evaluate the applicant. Video transcription data shows sessions were interactive with minimal distractions. CONCLUSIONS: VGR can be a useful means for medical students to express interest in programs as well as an additional marker for faculty to evaluate applicants.