Virtual "Matchmaking": Stakeholder Perspectives on the Future of the Urology Residency Match.

OBJECTIVE: To examine stakeholder perspectives regarding the lack of in-person externships and transition to a virtual urology residency interview format. The unprecedented disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic forced an abrupt pivot to a "virtual" Urology Match for the 2021 cycle. We aim for our study to inform ongoing deliberations on the future of the Urology Match. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following Urology Match day in February 2021, two surveys were distributed by the Society of Academic Urologists to all applicants and program directors (PDs) who participated in the 2021 Urology Match. RESULTS: Overall, 192 of 481 applicants (40%) and 63 of 160 PDs (39%) responded. Most applicants (67%) were satisfied with their match outcomes, although unmatched applicants were significantly more likely to be unsatisfied than matched applicants (98% vs 9%, P <.0001). Most PDs were equally (79%) or more satisfied (13%) with their match outcomes compared with prior years. Nearly all applicants (93%) and PDs (94%) recommended retaining an in-person externship option. Most applicants (61%) and PDs (71%) felt their outcomes would not have changed with in-person interviews. Applicants and PDs were evenly split as to whether interviews should be conducted in-person or virtually in the future. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of applicants and PDs recommended retaining in-person externships for future match cycles despite high costs. In contrast, there was ambivalence amongst both groups of stakeholders regarding the format of interviews for future match cycles. We recommend virtual interviews moving forward to help alleviate the financial burden placed on applicants and increase equity.

Rapid Utilization of Telehealth in a Comprehensive Cancer Center as a Response to COVID-19: Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in March 2020 created unprecedented challenges in the provision of scheduled ambulatory cancer care. As a result, there has been a renewed focus on video-based telehealth consultations as a means to continue ambulatory care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to analyze the change in video visit volume at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Comprehensive Cancer Center in response to COVID-19 and compare patient demographics and appointment data from January 1, 2020, and in the 11 weeks after the transition to video visits. METHODS: Patient demographics and appointment data (dates, visit types, and departments) were extracted from the electronic health record reporting database. Video visits were performed using a HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)-compliant video conferencing platform with a pre-existing workflow. RESULTS: In 17 departments and divisions at the UCSF Cancer Center, 2284 video visits were performed in the 11 weeks before COVID-19 changes were implemented (mean 208, SD 75 per week) and 12,946 video visits were performed in the 11-week post-COVID-19 period (mean 1177, SD 120 per week). The proportion of video visits increased from 7%-18% to 54%-72%, between the pre- and post-COVID-19 periods without any disparity based on race/ethnicity, primary language, or payor. CONCLUSIONS: In a remarkably brief period of time, we rapidly scaled the utilization of telehealth in response to COVID-19 and maintained access to complex oncologic care at a time of social distancing.

Effect of COVID-19 on Urology Residency Training: A Nationwide Survey of Program Directors by the Society of Academic Urologists.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has profoundly impacted residency training and education. To date, there has not been any broad assessment of urological surgery residency changes and concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Society of Academic Urologists distributed a questionnaire to urology residency program directors on March 30, 2020 exploring residency program changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive statistics are presented. A qualitative analysis of free response questions was undertaken. A post hoc analysis of differences related to local COVID-19 incidence is described. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 144 residency programs with 65 responses for a 45% response rate. Reserve staffing had started in 80% of programs. Patient contact time had decreased significantly from 4.7 to 2.1 days per week (p <0.001). Redeployment was reported by 26% of programs. Sixty percent of programs reported concern that residents will not meet case minimums due to COVID-19. Wellness activities centered on increased communication. All programs had begun to use videoconferencing and the majority planned to continue. Programs in states with a higher incidence of COVID-19 were more likely to report resident redeployment (48% vs 11%, p=0.002) and exposure to COVID-19 positive patients (70% vs 40%, p=0.03), and were less likely to report concerns regarding exposure (78% vs 97%, p=0.02) and personal protective equipment availability (62% vs 89%, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: As of April 1, 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic had resulted in significant changes in urology residency programs. These findings inform a rapidly changing landscape and aid in the development of best practices.