MP66-20 THE VIRTUAL UROLOGY RESIDENCY INTERVIEW PROCESS: A SURVEY OF APPLICANTS TO A SINGLE INSTITUTION

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP66-20 THE VIRTUAL UROLOGY RESIDENCY INTERVIEW PROCESS: A SURVEY OF APPLICANTS TO A SINGLE INSTITUTION Ellen Cahill, Rachel Passarelli, Alain Kaldany, Arnav Srivastava, Sammy Elsamra, Thomas Jang, and Ji Hae Park Ellen CahillEllen Cahill More articles by this author , Rachel PassarelliRachel Passarelli More articles by this author , Alain KaldanyAlain Kaldany More articles by this author , Arnav SrivastavaArnav Srivastava More articles by this author , Sammy ElsamraSammy Elsamra More articles by this author , Thomas JangThomas Jang More articles by this author , and Ji Hae ParkJi Hae Park More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003329.20AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Though virtual residency interviews have decreased interview-related costs, they have led to challenges for applicants in making informed decisions about residency programs. We conducted a survey-based study to clarify this trade off and assess applicant understanding of residency programs. METHODS: An anonymous, web-based survey was sent to applicants of the 2022 Urology Residency Match who submitted an application to our institution (283/601). RESULTS: Of 283 applicants receiving the survey, 102 (36%) responded. On average, respondents applied to 87.4 (SD: 23) programs, received 14.6 (SD: 7) interviews and ranked 13.2 (SD: 6) programs. 82% of survey respondents matched, with a median match of program number 2 (IQR: 1-5) on their rank list. Participants chose goodness of fit within the program (38%), program location (28%), or resident happiness (23%) as the single most important factor when making their rank lists. Participants felt faculty interviews and resident happiness were well-replicated virtually, but program location was not. 44% of participants found virtual resident question and answer sessions and pre/post-interview socials helpful in assessing resident happiness. Applicant feedback included adding virtual tours, interactive maps, and “day in the life” social media posts. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived resident happiness and program location are key variables for applicants evaluating urology residency programs. Applicants found virtual events helpful in assessing resident happiness, but not program location. With the prospect of continuing virtual residency interviews going forward, urology programs should utilize social media, pre-recorded videos, and live virtual events to enhance the interview experience. Source of Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e941 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Ellen Cahill More articles by this author Rachel Passarelli More articles by this author Alain Kaldany More articles by this author Arnav Srivastava More articles by this author Sammy Elsamra More articles by this author Thomas Jang More articles by this author Ji Hae Park More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...