Do virtual interviews capture the informal aspects offered by in-person interviews?
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Click here to read the Cover Story, "Medical training programs modify interviews for virtual format."
Evaluate virtual interview options
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruption in the usual application process for fellowships and residencies.
National organizations and program directors are evaluating options for future interview processes, and several articles have been written identifying the impressions and opinions of applicants and program directors.
In general, faculty and applicants felt the virtual interviews were helpful in determining whether a candidate or program was a “good fit.” In a study of surgical critical care applicants, 57% of program directors and 67% of applicants liked the virtual interview format, but also felt that the in-person format allows a better assessment of culture. Applicants stated that advance information before the virtual interview would be helpful. Several publications found that virtual interviews lowered cost to applicants and programs, and decreased time away from residency training. Applicants saved about $800 per interview and, in total, an average of about $5,000 with virtual-only interviews. Program directors stated they saved about $2,500, as well. Applicants in remote parts of the country or with fewer resources may benefit from virtual interviews to level the playing field by allowing them to evaluate more programs with less financial strain. In spite of the advantages of decreased time and money expended, and an ability to interview with more programs, only 9% of applicants and 16% of program directors felt a purely virtual interview process was optimal.
Applicants and program directors feel that a hybrid process of allowing applicants to choose to interview via virtual or in-person would negatively impact the ranking of an applicant, while 78% of orthopedic trauma fellowship directors believe there is a role for virtual interviews in the fellowship match.
My opinion is one of two hybrid processes could be considered that address pros and cons expressed in the current literature:
1) Applicants could maintain their current uploading of documents that program directors screen and determine which applicants warrant an interview. These applicants could have one to two virtual interviews with program directors, other faculty or fellows. From this pool, a smaller number of applicants would be invited for an on-site interview. Since the number of fellows varies in orthopedic trauma sites from between one and five, and many centers have only one fellow, the number of on-site interviews would vary. Fellowship organizations could make recommendations or requirements that some ratio (ie, 5:1 or 10:1) of in-person interview applicant to positions available be utilized. For example, if a program has two fellowship positions, the program director might review 90 applications, do a virtual interview with 30 applicants and invite 10 to 20 of them to the campus for in-person interviews and in-depth evaluation. Fellowship programs are able to rank individuals who had virtual-only or an additional in-person interview, which could address the concern of programs and applicants of “not matching.”
2) Programs can screen initial applicants as before and invite all to an in-person or virtual interview day. Applicants can self-identify if they prefer a virtual interview due to finances, travel, health risk and local restrictions. There is a concern that virtual interviewees would not be considered as equal to in-person interviewees. Program directors who have selected fellows virtually for the last 2 years need to ask themselves if they were satisfied with their virtual selections.
The rapid development of online platforms and familiarity with virtual interviews assures that future processes are likely to be different. It is a good opportunity for organizations, program directors and applicants to critically evaluate the options to optimize an evolving process.
- References:
- Armstrong A, et al. Med Educ Online. 2022;doi:10.1080/10872981.2022.2068993.
- Clark SC, et al. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2022;doi:10.1016/j.asmr.2021.11.023.
- Yong TM, et al. OTA Int. 2021;doi:10.1097/OI9.0000000000000130.
- Zebley JA, et al. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2022;doi:10.1136/tsaco-2022-000898.
William T. Obremskey, MD, MPH, MMHC, is a professor of orthopedic surgery, director of orthopedic trauma fellowship and director of the division of orthopaedic trauma research at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.
No substitute for in-person interviews
Virtual interviews for residency and fellowships are convenient for applicants and faculty. With in-person interviews, all involved have many opportunities for informal conversations and observations that can ultimately be critical for the rank list of the applicants and programs. Unfortunately, despite attempts to create similar virtual scenarios for additional interactions (such as a pre-interview virtual dinner and drinks), there is no substitute for in-person interviews for applicants to interact with faculty and vice versa.
During the past 2 years, applicants to our fellowship have commented that they yearn for the ability to present their entire “package” as a person and a future hand surgeon outside of the formal interview, which cannot be conveyed with 10- to 15-minute virtual interviews. Additionally, they desire the ability to evaluate the faculty members to critically appraise us as future mentors, something they have not been able to do with virtual interviews.
Peter C. Rhee, DO, MS, is a hand and orthopedic surgeon and professor of orthopedics at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
Collapse
Read more about
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts