Understanding the Urology Program Directors Perspective on the Current Resident Selection Process: The Society of Academic Urologists National Survey of Urology Program Directors.

OBJECTIVE: The traditional residency selection process was altered dramatically by the SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. For the 2020-2021 application cycle in-person interviews were transitioned to the virtual format. What was thought to be a temporary transition has now become the new standard with continued endorsement from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Society of Academic Urologists (SAU) for virtual interviews (VI). We sought to assess the perceived efficacy and satisfaction of the VI format from the urology residency program director's (PDs) perspective. DESIGN: A designated SAU Taskforce on "Optimizing the Applicant Experience in the Virtual Interview Era" developed and refined a survey composed of 69 questions on VI and was distributed to all urology program directors (PD) of member institutions of the SAU. The survey focused on candidate selection, faculty preparation, and interview day logistics. PDs were also asked to reflect on the impact of VI on their match results, recruitment of underrepresented minorities and female gender, and what their preference would be for future applications cycles. PARTICIPANTS: Urology residency PDs (84.7% response rate) between January 13, 2022 - February 10, 2022 were included in the study. RESULTS: Most programs interviewed a total of 36 to 50 applicants (80%), with an average of 10 to 20 applicants per interview day. The top 3 ranked criteria for interview selection reported by urology PDs surveyed included letters of recommendation, clerkship grades, and USMLE Step 1 score. The most common areas of formal training for faculty interviewers were diversity, equity and inclusion (55%), implicit bias (66%), and review of the SAU guidelines on illegal questions (83%). Over half (61.4%) of PDs believed that they were able to accurately represent their training program through the virtual platform, while 51% felt that VI did not afford similar assessments of applicant as in-person interviews. Two-thirds of PDs believed the VI platform improve access for all applicants to attend interviews. Focusing on the impact of the VI platform for recruitment of underrepresented minorities (URM) and female gender applicants, 15% and 24% reported improved visibility respectively for their program, and 24% and 11% reported increased ability to interview URM and female gender applicants respectively. Overall, in-person interviews were reported to be preferred by 42%, and 51% of PDs desired VIs to be included in future years. CONCLUSIONS: PDs opinion and role of the VIs into the future is variable. Despite uniform agreement of cost savings and belief that VI platform improves access for all, only half of PDs expressed interest of the VI format being continued in some form. PDs note limitation of VI in the ability to comprehensively assess applicants as well as the in-person format. Many programs have begun to incorporate vital training in the areas of diversity equity and inclusion bias, and illegal questions. There is a role for continued development and research on ways to optimize virtual interviews.

Preference Signaling and Virtual Interviews: The New Urology Residency Match.

OBJECTIVE: To define applicant response to the preference signaling program and continuing virtual aspects of the 2022 Urology Residency Match to guide future decisions surrounding this process. METHODS: We emailed an anonymous, de-identified 20-question, multiple choice survey to all applicants to our institution for the 2022 Urology Residency Match (RedCap). Where appropriate, comparisons were made to already published data collected in an identical manner from applicants to our institution for the 2021 Urology Residency Match. RESULTS: Of the 418 survey recipients, 155 (37%) responded to our survey. A majority of applicants (83%) thought that preference signaling should remain in future years, and 66% of applicants matched to a program to which they had signaled or where they completed a subinternship. Geographic location of programs was ranked to have the highest impact on choice of programs for preference signaling. Fifty-two percent of 2022 applicants thought that interviews should remain virtual compared with 39% of 2021 applicants (P = .03). Twenty-one percent of 2022 applicants agreed that pre/post-interview socials were well-replicated virtually compared with 10% of 2021 applicants (P = .04). CONCLUSION: A majority of urology applicants were satisfied with the preference signaling program, suggesting that preference signaling should remain in future matches. A majority of urology applicants now favor the virtual interview platform. While it is gaining greater acceptance among applicants, the virtual platform generally still carries deficiencies. Further research of the urology match process is necessary for continued optimization of the program for all stakeholders.

Urology Residency Applications in the COVID-19 Era.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate urology applicants' opinions about the interview process during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An anonymous survey was emailed to applicants to our institution from the 2019 and 2020 urology matches prior to issuance of professional organization guidelines. The survey inquired about attitudes toward the residency interview process in the era of COVID-19 and which interview elements could be replicated virtually. Descriptive statistics were utilized. RESULTS: Eighty percent of urology applicants from the 2019 and 2020 matches received our survey. One hundred fifty-six people (24% of recipients) responded. Thirty-four percent preferred virtual interviews, while 41% in-person interviews at each program, and 25% regional/centralized interviews. Sixty-four percent said that interactions with residents (pre/postinterview social and informal time) were the most important interview day component and 81% said it could not be replicated virtually. Conversely, 81% believed faculty interviews could be replicated virtually. Eighty-seven percent believed that city visits could not be accomplished virtually. A plurality felt that away rotations and second-looks should be allowed (both 45%). COMMENT: Applicants feel that faculty interviews can be replicated virtually, while resident interactions cannot. Steps such as a low-stakes second looks after programs submit rank lists (potentially extending this window) and small virtual encounters with residents could ease applicant concerns. CONCLUSION: Applicants have concerns about changes to the match processes. Programs can adopt virtual best practices to address these issues.

Twitter and Instagram Use in the Urology Residency Application Process.

OBJECTIVE: To define urology applicant attitudes and usage trends of social media (SM) during the 2021 urology match cycle. METHODS: We emailed an anonymous, de-identified 22-question, multiple choice survey to all applicants to our institution for the 2021 Urology Residency Match. We asked participants about use of SM and which aspects they found useful in the application process. Univariate descriptive analyses were conducted based on survey responses. Chi-square analyses were performed to define significant differences in use of social media and resultant match outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 528 students who registered for the 2021 AUA Match, 398 received our survey (75%), and 144 responded (27% of applicants nationwide). Of survey participants, 49% made a new account on Twitter while 30% had a preexisting account. Most participants (71%) had a preexisting Instagram account, while only 3% made a new account. Most participants agreed Twitter was used as a source to gather information about programs (84%) and learn about events (89%). Participants found SM most helpful for announcing event dates (71%) and highlighting resident social life (59%). Applicants did not match more highly on their rank lists if they used Twitter (P = .427) or Instagram (P = .166) and were not more likely to get more interviews if they used Twitter (P = .246) or Instagram (P = .114) CONCLUSION: Applicants found Twitter to be an important source of information through the virtual interview process. Despite the use of SM by most applicants, published content did not impact rank list decisions nor did SM engagement predict match outcomes.

The Virtual Urology Residency Match Process: Moving Beyond the Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To define applicant response to the 2021 Urology Residency Match Process in the COVID-19 Pandemic and to extrapolate lessons to optimize the urology resident selection process after the pandemic. METHODS: We emailed an anonymous, de-identified 22-question, multiple choice survey to all applicants to our institution for the 2021 Urology Residency Match, including a summary of the study with a survey link (RedCap). RESULTS: Of the 398 survey recipients, 144 responded (36%). Even if the match process were not limited by COVID-19, 39% of applicants thought interviews should remain in virtual format, 23% said "no," and 30% said "not sure." Nearly all applicants (97%) thought all interview offers should be released on the same day. Regarding the early match, 84% thought this should remain. When asked what factors had the most impact on rank lists, faculty and resident interviews were overwhelmingly favored. Open houses and resident "happy hours" were less important. Most applicants agreed that the faculty and resident interviews and informational talks were adequately replicated on the virtual platform. A majority of applicants (65%) spent under $2000 for the application cycle. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically changed the urology match process. The faculty and resident interviews remained the most important factors in program ranking, and most applicants agreed those were adequately replicated in the virtual format. A plurality of applicants felt that the interview process should remain virtual in a post-COVID-19 environment. The virtual application cycle reduced the cost of applying to residency.