The Impact of Virtual Interviews on the Resident Candidate: A Before-and-After Comparison.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on family medicine residency recruitment has been a requested transition to virtual interviewing by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the academic family medicine community. This has led to creative and adaptive approaches to virtual interviewing with little previous knowledge, experience, or processes. This work describes the impact of transitioning to virtual recruitment on applicants' reported experiences and factors influencing decision-making with family medicine at a large research university. METHODS: We made a comparison of 2 years of in-person interview day surveys with 2 years of virtual interview surveys following transition to virtual recruitment. We tested differences between in-person and virtual interviews for significance using χ2 tests. RESULTS: There were significant differences in factors influencing a candidate's decision to apply. Candidates who participated in virtual interviews were more interested in urban training settings, a community setting, and obstetrical training compared with the in-person interview cohort. Nearly 50% of virtual candidates reported preferring virtual interviews in the future. There were no significant differences in how candidates rated their experience of the interview process and they indicated adequate contact with resident personnel despite a transition to virtual interviews. CONCLUSIONS: The transition to virtual recruitment has been well received by candidates, as indicated by the high positive ratings of the cohorts. The transition has not resulted in a negative impact on the recruitment experience or the ability to meet with resident leadership.

Focus on Systems to Improve Morbidity and Mortality Conference Relevance.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Morbidity and mortality conference (MMC) is educationally important. However, resident physicians rate it less positively than faculty, citing focus on assigning blame rather than targeting change. Additionally, many MMC presentations are selected for clinical novelty instead of avoidable outcome. Despite significant time and resources routinely committed to MMC, its educational and clinical impact is generally limited. This warrants shifting focus toward quality improvement and systems-based care. METHODS: From July to December 2017, within a large, public academic center and medical school, the family medicine MMC became a quality conference (QC) focusing on thematically-linked, system-based errors. After case presentations, the audience split into small groups for targeted discussion then reconvened to identify specific interventions. We collected attitudinal data from faculty and resident physicians in attendance using real-time audience text polling, targeting case relevance and change impact. RESULTS: Compared to MMC, QC case relevance improved by 0.39 (P<.01) on a 5-point scale. Compared to MMC, QC cumulatively approached but did not meet statistical significance regarding changing clinical practice. Qualitative statements commented on increased multilevel engagement, dedicated follow up, and decreased didactic presentations. CONCLUSIONS: QC demonstrated statistically significant increased relevance compared to MMC, reflecting the benefit of systems-based, thematically-linked cases.