Evaluation of the Virtual Interviews for Resident Recruitment Due to COVID-19 Travel Restrictions: A Nationwide Survey of US Senior Medical Students.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Due to COVID-19, residency programs could not conduct in-person interviews during the 2020-2021 match and were forced to implement a virtual format. We conducted a nationwide survey of US senior medical students to evaluate their perception of the virtual interview process and to solicit their recommendations for future virtual interview best practices. METHODS: This study was administered to US fourth-year medical students currently participating in the residency match using Survey Monkey during March 2021. Students were contacted through their respective student affairs deans. Surveys solicited demographic information, 26 4-point Likert-scale questions, and four free-response questions. RESULTS: A total of 357 surveys were completed. Most respondents stated that they could confidently represent themselves to the program (71.7%) using a virtual platform. However, only 11.6% stated that they could confidently assess a program's facility using a virtual platform. Although most respondents (58.26%) found that virtual meet and greets helped them better assess their fit for the program, less than half (46%) confidently believed they could assess their fit into the program after the conclusion of the virtual interview. Regarding potential disparities introduced by virtual interviews, 40.6% believed that the virtual interviews introduce greater inequalities into the match process. Two-thirds of respondents (239, 66.95%), believed that there should be a limit on the number of interview offers an applicant can accept, with the maximum number of interviews per specialty capped at 25.7 (10-150). Finally, just over two-thirds (69.47%), claimed they could confidently prepare their rank-order list at the conclusion of the interview. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents found virtual interviews financially beneficial, however difficulty in assessing fit was a challenge. Best practice recommendations from the respondents include shorter interviews, more engaging resident-led social hours without faculty present, and preinterview packages to include video representations of the program facilities.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Trauma Service Utilization at a New York City Level I Trauma Center.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic globally impacted trauma facilities and overall healthcare utilization. This study was conducted to characterize the utilization of trauma services at our Level I Trauma Center in New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the preceding pre-pandemic year. Methods: A retrospective study of patient presenting to our Level 1 Trauma Center in Staten Island, New York. The pre-pandemic data was extracted from March 1st, 2019-February 29th, 2020. The pandemic year was divided into two phases: the initial wave (March 1st-Sept 1st, 2020) and the protracted phase (September 1st, 2020-March 1st, 2021). Patients were identified using ICD-10 coding and data regarding patient factors, mechanism of injury, and service utilization was extracted from the medical record. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS v.24. Results: A total of 1650 trauma activations registered during the pre-pandemic phase, 691 during the initial wave, and 826 during the protracted phase. Compared to pre-pandemic, the number of Level 1 trauma activations remained unchanged, however mechanisms of injury shifted. Gunshot wounds (2.6% vs 1.2%), motorcycle crash (4.2% vs 2.0%) and blunt force injury caused by an object (strike injuries) (2.7% vs 1.3%) significantly increased during the initial wave (p-value <0.05). There was a significant decrease in the percentage of both female (2.93% vs 2.33% vs 5.64%, p-value <0.01) and pediatric (3.30% vs 3.64% vs 12.9%, p-value <0.001) assault activations during the initial wave and protracted phase when compared to pre-pandemic levels, respectively. No significant changes were observed for self-harm, falls, accidents, burns, sports injuries, stab wounds, autobody collisions, or motor vehicle accident activations. Conclusion: Trauma centers should be prepared for increases in violent trauma. We also emphasize the need to implement strategies to raise public awareness of pediatric and female assault in the domestic setting, particularly during a mandatory stay-at-home policy where underreporting may occur.

Evaluation of the Virtual Interview Format for Resident Recruitment as a Result of COVID-19 Restrictions: Residency Program Directors' Perspectives.

PURPOSE: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, residency programs could not conduct in-person interviews during the 2020-2021 Match cycle and were forced to implement a virtual format. The authors conducted a nationwide survey of residency program directors (PDs) to assess their confidence in using a virtual platform to holistically evaluate applicants during the 2020-2021 Match cycle and their desire to continue virtual recruitment during forthcoming interview seasons. METHOD: This prospective study was conducted by email questionnaire administered through the survey tool Survey Monkey to residency PDs from March 7, 2021-March 27, 2021. The residency PDs surveyed represented these subspecialties: internal medicine, general surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, psychiatry, and other. Email addresses of PDs were collected from a public list developed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Surveys contained demographic questions, 4-point Likert scale questions evaluating several factors regarding the interview and matching process, and free-response questions. RESULTS: A total of 463 surveys were sent; response rate was 402 /463 (86.8%). Most PDs were less confident assessing an applicant's interpersonal skills (247, 61.4%) and professionalism (239, 59.5%) using a virtual platform. Assessment of an applicant's "fit" into the program was also challenging: 44.3% (178) of those surveyed disagreed with the statement that they could do so confidently. Additionally, 73.9% (297) of PDs found it challenging to gauge an applicant's genuine interest and only 41.3% (166) strongly agreed or agreed that they could accurately represent their own program using a virtual platform. More than half of PDs (220, 54. 7%) found it more difficult to rank interviewees compared with previous in-person Match cycles. CONCLUSIONS: Most residency PDs found virtual interviews convenient. However, difficulties in assessing fit virtually, gauging applicants' interest, and showcasing their respective programs were challenges that may persist should virtual interviews continue post-pandemic.

The virtual interview format for fellowship recruitment in obstetrics and gynecology: a nationwide survey of program directors.

Due to Covid-19, fellowship programs could not conduct in-person interviews during the 2020-2021 interview cycle and were forced to implement virtual interviews. We conducted two nationwide surveys of residency and fellowship Program Directors (PDs) involved in the Obstetrics and Gynecology (Ob/Gyn) Subspecialty Fellowship match cycle to gain a better understanding of virtual interviews from each of their perspectives. 1) Fellowship PDs' confidence in using a virtual platform to holistically evaluate applicants during the 2020-2021 match cycle, 2) Residency PD's perception of virtual interviews and impact on their program's operations, and 3) to assess the desire of fellowship and residency PDs to continue virtual recruitment during forthcoming interview seasons. Two separate nationwide web-based surveys were administered to 1) Ob/Gyn fellowship PDs and 2) residency PDs through SurveyMonkey from July-September 2020 to assess the impact of virtual interviews form each parties' perspective. Surveys solicited demographic information, four-point Likert scale questions, and free response questions Of programs meeting inclusion criteria, 75/111 (67.6%) fellowship PDs and 67/117 (57.3%) residency PDs responded to their respective surveys. Most fellowship PDs believed that they could confidently assess applicants' professionalism (88%) during a virtual interview and (90.7%) felt confident in making a rank-order list. However, only 73.3% were just as confident in preparing a rank list after a virtual interview as they have been with in-person interviews. Most residency PDs (69.9%) believed that virtual interviews made it easier for their program to comply with duty hours, and 76.8% agreed that virtual interviews allowed their residents to accept more interviews than an in-person format. Most fellowship PDs found virtual interviews convenient. However, difficulty in observing social interaction and gauging applicant interest may be the biggest challenge moving forward.