How real is a virtual interview? Perspectives of orthopaedic surgery residency directors.

OBJECTIVE: As a result of COVID-19 pandemic, the 2021 US residency MATCH was devoid of the traditional in-person interviews. Herein, we assess the impact of Virtual Interviews (VIs) on resident selection, from the perspectives of Orthopedic Surgery (OS) Program Directors (PDs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 14-item survey was sent to PDs of ACGME-accredited OS residencies. Questions were designed to assess the pros, cons, and robustness of VIs compared to their antecedent in-person format. RESULTS: Forty-seven PDs responded to our survey. VIs antagonized PDs' ability to assess applicants' fit to program (76.6%), commitment to specialty (64%), and interpersonal skills (68.1%). This led to heavier dependence upon applicants' portfolios (64%). Almost all respondents (97.9%) found VIs to be more cost-efficient, saving a median of $3000 in interview-related expenses. Overall, only 8.5% of PDs were willing to conduct exclusive VIs in future cycles, compared to the majority in favor of dual formats (51.5%) or exclusive in-person interviews (40.4%). CONCLUSIONS: VIs have been an overall success, making most PDs opt for dual interview formats in future cycles. How this technology is further implemented in the future remains to be seen.

Factors influencing medical student choices in the integrated vascular surgery match: Implications for future post-pandemic residency matches.

OBJECTIVE: Integrated vascular surgery residency is among the most competitive specialties, but little is known about the applicant perspective. The coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak impacted the 2021 integrated vascular surgery residency match because of travel restrictions. We sought to better understand pre-pandemic applicant recruitment strategies, logistics of away rotations, and the residency interview process to identify areas for improvement in the application process. METHODS: An anonymous survey was sent to matched students in 2020, inquiring about motivations for pursuing vascular surgery (VS), logistic of away rotations and interviews, and factors influencing students' rank lists. RESULTS: Seventy of the 73 matched students completed the survey (95.9% response rate). The median age was 27 (range, 25-41); 32.9% were female, 91.4% were U.S. medical students, and 77.1% were from institutions with a VS training program. Factors most strongly influencing the decision to choose VS as a career were interest in open vascular procedures, endovascular procedures, perceived job satisfaction, emerging technologies, and influence of a mentor. The prospect of the job market, future salary, and competitiveness of the application process had the least impact. Of the matched students, 82.9% completed an away rotation (median, 2; range, 1-4), with 51.7% of students paying a total cost of more than $2500. Fifty percent of students matched either at their home institution or where they had performed an away rotation. Students reported application submissions to a median of 50 programs (range, 1-70) and interviewed at 17 (range, 1-28), with 40% of students paying a total of more than $4000 for interview costs. The most significant factors affecting students' rank lists included program culture, open aortic surgical volume, geography, and complex endovascular procedure volume. Tours of facilities, resident salary, and male/female distribution had the least importance. CONCLUSIONS: Successfully matched applicants in 2020 prioritized operative case volume and program collegiality when ranking programs. Despite their high cost, away rotations played an important role in the Match, suggesting that time spent at potential institutions allowed ideal assessment of factors for students. The high average number of away rotations and in-person interviews performed in 2019-2020 was limited for the 2021 Match due to coronavirus disease 2019 restrictions. Programs will have to continue developing creative alternatives or additions to away rotations and the application processes to assure continued success in future post-pandemic Match cycles.

Pearls and Pitfalls of the Virtual Interview: Perspectives From Both Sides of the Camera.

As the SARS-COV-2 pandemic created the need for social distancing and the implementation of nonessential travel bans, residency and fellowship programs have moved toward a web-based virtual process for applicant interviews. As part of the Society of Asian Academic Surgeons 5th Annual Meeting, an expert panel was convened to provide guidance for prospective applicants who are new to the process. This article provides perspectives from applicants who have successfully navigated the surgical subspecialty fellowship process, as well as program leadership who have held virtual interviews.

Program and candidate experience with virtual interviews for the 2020 Complex General Surgical Oncology interview season during the COVID pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID crisis hit during the interview season for the Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellowship. With minimal time to adapt, all programs transitioned to virtual interviews. Here we describe the experience of both program directors (PDs) and candidates with virtual interviews, and provide guidelines for implementation based on the results. METHODS: Surveys regarding interview day specifics and perceptions were created for CGSO fellowship PDs and candidates. They were distributed at the conclusion of the season, prior to match. RESULTS: Thirty (94%) PDs and 64 (79%) candidates responded. Eighty-three% of PDs and 79% of candidates agreed or strongly agreed that they felt comfortable creating a rank list. If given the choice, 60% of PDs and 45% of candidates would choose virtual interviews over in-person interviews. The majority of candidates found PD overviews, fellows only sessions and pre-interview materials helpful. CONCLUSION: Overall, the majority of PDs and candidates felt comfortable creating a rank list; however, more PDs preferred virtual interviews for the future. Our results also confirm key components of a virtual interview day.

Challenges to Pharmacy School Enrollment Management Caused by a Global Pandemic.

Academic institutions work diligently each year to recruit, retain, and graduate Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) students who will be positive contributors to our healthcare system. The immergence of a novel coronavirus in 2019 (COVID-19) has threatened these systems. This commentary is a discussion of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the enrollment management processes of PharmD degree programs, including recruitment, admissions, orientation, retention, and graduation. The authors highlight enrollment management processes that may forever be changed by the COVID-19 pandemic. This commentary is intended to assist pharmacy administrators as they reflect on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their own programs and develop strategies to minimize the negative effects.

Impact of COVID-19 on Away Rotations in Surgical Fields.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a variety of challenges in the medical education curriculum, one of which is the possible loss of summer and fall away rotations for fourth year students applying into surgical subspecialties. Subsequently, a lack of in-person evaluations may have a major impact on an applicant's perception of the residency and the program's ability to assess the individual applicant. This is especially crucial for applicants without a home program in their specialty of interest, as away rotations are an important opportunity to confirm interest in pursuit of a subspecialty, obtain letters of recommendation, and make positive impressions at programs of interest. The objective of this article is to assess the current COVID-19 pandemic situation in light of away rotations and to provide recommendations for surgical subspecialty programs and applicants to have the best outcome during this upcoming application cycle. In particular, we emphasize the importance of implementing universal processes within each individual subspecialty. This will provide equitable opportunities for all applicants, minimizing potential biases or disadvantages based on geographic location or availability of a program at an applicant's home institution.