Cargando…

Finding the Next Resident Physicians in the COVID-19 Global Pandemic: An Applicant Survey on the 2020 Virtual Urology Residency Match

OBJECTIVE: To assess interviewing applicant perceptions of a virtual urology residency interview in the setting of changes mandated by COVID-19 and to determine applicant preference for virtual or in person interviews. Applicant perceptions of multiple interview components were queried to identify p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Spencer, Evan, Ambinder, David, Christiano, Cindy, Phillips, John, Choudhury, Muhammad, Matthews, Gerald, Fullerton, Sean, Dyer, Lori, Zelkovic, Paul, Eshghi, Majid, Wong, Nathan C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8971806/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34284010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.05.079
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To assess interviewing applicant perceptions of a virtual urology residency interview in the setting of changes mandated by COVID-19 and to determine applicant preference for virtual or in person interviews. Applicant perceptions of multiple interview components were queried to identify program specific and interview modality specific strengths or weaknesses in the 2020 to 2021 Urology Match. METHODS: A 12 question multiple choice and free text survey was emailed to 66 virtually interviewed applicants for open residency positions at a metropolitan training program after conclusion of interviews. Items of interest included interview type preference, overall interview impression, and recommendations for improvement. RESULTS: A total of 50 of 66 (76%) applicants completed the survey corresponding to approximately 11% of the 2020 national urology applicant pool. A total of 49 of 50 (96%) respondents assessed faculty interaction and the virtual platform positively. A total of 38 of 50 (76%) was satisfied with their resident interaction and 32 of 50 (64%) applicants stated they were able to satisfactorily evaluate the site and program. Ultimately, 39 of 50 (78%) respondents would have preferred an in person interview to our virtual interview. Respondents cited challenges in assessing program culture and program physical site virtually. CONCLUSION: The majority of survey respondents indicated a preference for in person interviews. A smaller proportion of applicants preferred virtual interviews citing their convenience and lower cost. Efforts to improve the virtual interview experience may focus on improving applicant-resident interaction and remote site assessment.