Differences in Applicant Perceptions of Virtual Interviews Between Integrated Plastic Surgery and Subspecialty Fellowship Applicants.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to survey and compare integrated plastic surgery and plastic surgery subspecialty fellowship applicants on their experiences with virtual interviews and to determine if there are differences between them. DESIGN: An IRB-approved survey study was conducted using the Qualtrics platform. SETTING: The study was conducted at the Johns Hopkins University and the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore Maryland. PARTICIPANTS: Applicants that applied to 1) the Johns Hopkins/University of Maryland or the University of California San Diego integrated plastic surgery residency programs, 2) craniofacial surgery fellowship, and 3) microsurgery, hand surgery, or burn surgery fellowship at the Johns Hopkins University were selected to participate in the survey. RESULTS: A total of 94 surveys were completed by residency applicants and 55 by fellowship applicants. After the interview season, 80% of fellowship applicants recommended virtual interviews compared to 61.7% of residency applicants (p = 0.03). Fellowship applicants reported significantly less issues with self-advocacy and did not view the virtual interview process as significant of a detriment when meeting program residents/staff, viewing the hospital/surrounding area, and learning about the program (p < 0.05). A higher percentage of fellowship applicants interviewed at multiple programs during a single day compared to residency applicants (56.4% vs 27.7%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A higher proportion of fellowship applicants prefer virtual interviews, which associated with key differences in perceptions, expectations, and priorities. Our data supports that fellowship programs may wish to continue virtual interviews even after COVID-related restrictions are lifted, because fellows are equally able to self-advocate in a virtual format while benefiting from cost and time savings; fellowship programs would also gain the cost and time savings from this model as well.

Perception of the Virtual Interview Format in Hand Surgery Fellowship Applicants.

PURPOSE: The Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic occurred during the interview period for numerous surgical fellowships, resulting in most programs transitioning to a virtual interview format during the 2020-2021 application cycle. This study investigated modifications adopted by fellowship programs and perceptions of the virtual interview format among hand surgery fellowship applicants. METHODS: Voluntary, anonymous online surveys were emailed to all applicants to the Johns Hopkins hand surgery fellowship during the 2020-2021 interview cycle. The surveys were released after the rank order list certification deadline on May 6, 2021, and closed on May 18, 2021, before the match results were released. Descriptive statistics based on the overall cohort and primary outcome of an applicant's willingness to recommend virtual interviews in the future were conducted. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 112 (30.4%) applicants completed their surveys. Twenty-seven (79.4%) survey respondents recommended the virtual interview format in the future and 7 (20.6%) did not. Applicants who recommended virtual interviews were similar to those who did not on the basis of the number of interviews received and taken, information provided by programs, and self-rated competency with the virtual interview format. Those who recommended virtual interviews rated the effectiveness of self-advocacy higher compared with those who did not. All respondents agreed that cost savings and scheduling were more effective with virtual interviews. Perceived weaknesses differed between the 2 groups and included the lack of physical tour, difficulty with self-advocacy, and technical difficulties. The majority of survey respondents preferred in-person interviews before the interview cycle (n = 32, 94.1%), whereas nearly half of survey respondents preferred virtual interviews after the interview cycle (n = 16, 47.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 80% of survey respondents recommended virtual interviews in the future. Major benefits included effectiveness of scheduling and cost savings. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Virtual interviews may be considered as an alternative or adjunct to in-person hand surgery fellowship interviews in the future.

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.

Changes in Burn Surgery Operative Volume and Metrics due to COVID-19.

Due to COVID-19, hospitals underwent drastic changes to operating room policy to mitigate the spread of the disease. Given these unprecedented measures, we aimed to look at the changes in operative volume and metrics of the burn surgery service at our institution. A retrospective review was conducted for operative cases and metrics for the months of March to May for 2019, 2020, and 2021, which correspond with pre-COVID, early COVID (period without elective cases), and late COVID (period with resumed elective cases). Inclusion criteria were cases related to burns. Case types and operative metrics were compared amongst the three time-periods. Compared to the hospital, the burn service had a smaller decrease in volume during early COVID (28.7% vs 50.1%) and exceeded prepandemic volumes during late COVID (+21.8% vs -4.6%). There was a significant increase in excision and grafting cases in early and late COVID periods (P < .0001 and P < .002). There was a significant decrease in laser scar procedures that persisted even during late COVID (P < .0001). The projected and actual lengths of cases significantly increased and persisted into late COVID (P < .01). COVID-19 related operating room closures led to an expected decrease in the number of operative cases. However, there was no significant decline in the number of burn specific cases. The elective cases were largely replaced with excision and grafting cases and this shift has persisted even after elective cases have resumed. This change is also reflected in increased operative times.

Craniofacial Fellowship Applicant Perceptions of Virtual Interviews.

INTRODUCTION: The 2021 interview cycle for craniofacial fellowship applicants was the first to be held virtually due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Here, we detail the craniofacial fellowship applicant perceptions and experience on the virtual interview process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional review board-approved 35-question survey study on the perception of the virtual interview process among craniofacial fellowship applicants was conducted. Surveys were distributed to individuals who had applied through the match, overseen by the American Society of Craniofacial Surgeons (ASCFS). RESULTS: Ten surveys were fully completed with a corresponding response rate of 48%. The average number of interviews completed was 12.7±7.7 and 50% of applicants interviewed at >1 program in a single day. Overall, 90% of respondents preferred in-person interviews before the interview season, however, only 10% preferred the in-person format afterwards. Preference for a virtual-only format increased from 10% to 70%. Applicants cited cost (100%), ease of scheduling (90%), and ability to participate in more interviews (70%) as the primary strengths of the virtual platform; none reported difficulties with self-advocacy. After the interview cycle, 90% stated they would recommend virtual interviews. CONCLUSIONS: The greatest strengths of virtual interviews were the ability to participate in more interviews, the ease of scheduling, and the cost benefits. Most applicants reported the same or increased ability for self-advocacy with virtual interviews. Following the index interview cycle for 2021, the majority of fellowship applicants now appear to prefer a virtual-only or hybrid format and would recommend virtual interviews in the future.