Interviews During the Pandemic: A Thoracic Education Cooperative Group and Surgery Residents Project

Abstract

BackgroundThe 2020 interview cycle for cardiothoracic fellowships was affected by the coronavirus-19 pandemic. Many programs shifted from in-person to virtual interviews. We evaluated applicant perceptions of the various formats. MethodsAll 2019-2020 cardiothoracic fellowship applicants received an electronic survey after completion of the match process. The survey assessed number of in-person/virtual interviews completed, perception of efficacy, and likelihood of ranking a program based on format, and strengths/inadequacies of virtual interviews. ResultsResponse rate was 36% (48 of 133). Seventy-three percent of respondents (35 of 48) interviewed with more than 10 programs. Fifty-two percent of respondents (25 of 48) were able to schedule additional interviews once virtual formats were available. A slight majority (56%, 27 of 48) ranked a program at which they had an in-person interview as their first choice. Interviewing at more than 10 programs was associated with an increased likelihood of successfully matching at a program (P = .02). Overwhelmingly, respondents favored an in-person component to the interview process (96%, 46 of 48). Few respondents (29%, 14 of 48) thought they could adequately evaluate a program virtually. The factors that had the highest percentages of adequate portrayal during virtual interviews were the didactic schedule/curriculum (81%, 39 of 48) and case number/autonomy (58%, 28 of 48). The factors with the lowest percentages were culture/personality (19%, 9 of 48) and city/lifestyle (15%, 7 of 48). ConclusionsApplicants strongly favored an in-person component to interviews, highlighting potential deficiencies in the virtual interview process. Programs should consider the addition of virtual tours of their hospitals, narrations from staff, and vignettes from current fellows about lifestyle and well-being.