ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives: As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, interviews during the 2021 US residency match were conducted virtually, a practice again recommended and repeated by many programs in 2022. The impact of virtual interviews on recruitment and match outcomes has recently been of interest, with results showing the virtual format to be mostly well received by applicants due to cost, travel, and scheduling benefits. Few studies have looked at pre/posttransition comparisons of applicant geographic and demographic data. We compared objective match outcomes between in-person and virtual interviews across three residency programs. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of National Residency Matching Program data between 2015-2022 across three family medicine residency programs. Primary outcomes were fill rate, average rank position, distance from program, and percentage of underrepresented in medicine demographic status for matched applicants. We compared aggregate in-person data (2015-2019) to aggregate virtual data (2020-2022) for each program using χ2, Fisher Exact test, or 2-tailed t tests to 95% confidence. Results: Saint Joseph Hospital in Reading, Pennsylvania, a 3-year community-based university affiliated program, had significantly more unfilled positions during virtual recruitment (P=.0058). Mount Nittany Medical Center in State College, Pennsylvania, a 3-year community based university-affiliated program, had a significant difference in distance of matched residents' current address (P=.048). Virtual interviews were not associated with significant differences in average position on rank list, average distance from permanent address zip code, or percentage of underrepresented in medicine (URiM) demographic status for matched applicants. Conclusions: The impact of virtual interviewing on unfilled positions and geographic data is likely site specific and generally small, as some programs had significant structural changes. Further research is needed to confirm the generalizability of these results and explore future comparisons of demographic and geographic characteristics of matched applicants pre/posttransition to the virtual format.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: With the transition of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 exam to pass-fail, residency directors are exploring alternative objective approaches when selecting candidates for interviews. The Medical Student Performance Evaluations (MSPE) portion of the application may be an area where objectivity could be provided. This study explored program directors' (PDs) perspectives on the utility of the MSPE as a discriminating factor for residency candidate selection. Methods: We invited PDs of primary care residencies listed in the American Medical Association FRIEDA database to participate in a mixed-methods study assessing opinions on the MSPE, and the importance of student skills and application components when considering a candidate for interview. We obtained summary statistics for Likert-scale responses. We used inductive thematic analysis to generate themes from open-ended comments. Results: Two hundred forty-nine PDs completed the survey (response rate=15.9%). Patient communication (83.6%) and teamwork (81.9%) were rated as very/extremely important skills, and being a graduate of a US medical school in the past 3 years (73.1%), no failures on board exams (58.2%), and MSPEs (54.8%) were rated as very/extremely important application components. Six hundred seventy-eight open-ended comments yielded themes related to desire for more transparency and standardization, importance of student attributes and activities, and other important components of applications. Conclusion: PDs place a high value on the MSPE but find it limited by concerns over validity, objectivity, and lack of standardization. The quality of MSPEs may be improved by using a common language of skill attainment such as the Association of American Medical Colleges' Entrustable Professional Activities and using the document to discuss students' other attributes and contributions.
