A single center evaluation of applicant experiences in virtual interviews across eight internal medicine subspecialty fellowship programs.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most graduate medical education (GME) training programs conducted virtual interviews for prospective trainees during the 2020-2021 application cycle. Many internal medicine (IM) subspecialty fellowship programs hosted virtual interviews for the first time with little published data to guide best practices.To evaluate how IM subspecialty fellowship applicants perceived the virtual interview day experience.We designed a 38-item questionnaire that was sent via email to applicants in eight IM subspecialty programs at a single tertiary academic medical center (University of California, San Francisco) from September-November, 2020.Seventy-five applicants completed the survey (75/244, 30.7%), including applicants from all eight fellowship programs. Most survey respondents agreed that the length of the virtual interview day (mean = 6.4 hours) was long enough to gather the information they needed (n = 65, 86.7%) and short enough to prevent fatigue (n = 55, 73.3%). Almost all survey respondents agreed that they could adequately assess the clinical experience (n = 71, 97.3%), research opportunities (n = 72, 98.6%), and program culture (n = 68, 93.2%). Of the respondents who attended a virtual educational conference, most agreed it helped to provide a sense of the program's educational culture (n = 20, 66.7%). Areas for improvement were identified, with some survey respondents reporting that the virtual interview day was too long (n = 11) or that they would have preferred to meet more fellows (n = 10).Survey respondents indicated that the virtual interview was an adequate format to learn about fellowship programs. These findings can inform future virtual interviews for GME training programs.

Perceptions and lessons from web-based interviews for the reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellowship application cycle.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the experience and perceptions of reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellowship applicants and program directors (PDs) regarding the current and future use of web-based interviews (WBIs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Nationwide cohort. PATIENT(S): Reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellowship applicants and PDs participating in the 2020 application cycle. INTERVENTION(S): Anonymous survey sent to applicants and PDs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Descriptive study evaluating the experience and satisfaction of applicants and PDs with WBIs. RESULT(S): Forty-six percent of applicants and eligible PDs responded to our survey. Most applicants and PDs responded that WBIs were adequate for conveying a sense of a program's strengths, faculty, diversity, clinical training, and research opportunities, but less than half responded that WBIs were adequate in providing a sense of the program's clinical site and facilities. After WBIs, both applicants (73%) and PDs (86%) were able to rank with confidence. The cost of WBIs was significantly lower for both applicants (median: $100) and programs (median: $100) than the costs previously reported for in-person interviews. The applicants interviewed at more programs than they would have if the interviews were on-site, and Zoom was the highest rated platform used. Most applicants and PDs responded that WBIs were an adequate substitute, and that they should continue after the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Furthermore, most of the PDs were planning to continue to use WBIs in some capacity. CONCLUSION(S): Both applicants and PDs had favorable experiences with and perceptions of WBIs, and most endorse the continued use of this interview modality. The findings of this study can help guide and optimize future WBI practices.

Maternal-fetal medicine program director experience of exclusive virtual interviewing during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic necessitated an abrupt transition to exclusive virtual interviewing for maternal-fetal medicine fellowship programs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the maternal-fetal medicine fellowship program directors' approaches to exclusive virtual interviews and to obtain program director feedback on the virtual interview experience to guide future interview cycles. STUDY DESIGN: A novel cross-sectional online survey was distributed through the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine to program directors after the completion of the interview season, but before the results of the National Resident Matching Program on October 14, 2020. Survey data were collected anonymously and managed using secure Research Electronic Data Capture electronic data capture tools. RESULTS: Overall 71 of 89 program directors (80%) responded. All respondents completed their 2020 interviews 100% virtually. Nearly half of program directors (33 of 68, 49%) interviewed more candidates in 2020 than in 2019. Of those who interviewed more candidates in 2020, the mean number of additional candidates per fellowship position was 5.8 (standard deviation, ±3.8). Almost all program directors reported no (35 of 71, 49%) or minimal (34 of 71, 48%) negative impact of technical difficulties on their virtual interview processes. Most programs structured their interview to a half day (4 hours) or less for the candidates. Many programs were able to adapt their supplemental interview materials and events for the candidates into a virtual format, including a virtual social event hosted by 31 of 71 programs (44%). The virtual social event was most commonly casual and led by current fellows. Ultimately, all program directors reported that the virtual interview experience was as expected or better than expected. However, most program directors felt less able to provide candidates with a comprehensive and accurate representation of their program on a virtual platform compared with their previous in-person experiences (46 of 71 [65%] reported minimally, moderately, or significantly less than in-person). In addition, most program directors felt their ability to get to know candidates and assess their "fit" with the program was less than previous in-person years (44 of 71 [62%] reported minimally, moderately, or significantly less than in-person). In a hypothetical future year without any public health concerns, there were 23 of 71 respondents (32%) who prefer exclusive in-person interviews, 24 of 71 (34%) who prefer exclusive virtual interviews, and 24 of 71 (34%) who prefer a hybrid of virtual and in-person interviews. CONCLUSION: The virtual interview experience was better than expected for most program directors. However, most program directors felt less able to present their programs and assess the candidates on a virtual platform compared with previous in-person experiences. Despite this, most program directors are interested in at least a component of virtual interviewing in future years. Future efforts are needed to refine the virtual interview process to optimize the experience for program directors and candidates.