PD24-07 IMPACT OF THE VIRTUAL INTERVIEW FORMAT ON UROLOGY RESIDENCY INTERVIEWS: A SURVEY OF PROGRAM DIRECTORS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research IV (PD24)1 Sep 2021PD24-07 IMPACT OF THE VIRTUAL INTERVIEW FORMAT ON UROLOGY RESIDENCY INTERVIEWS: A SURVEY OF PROGRAM DIRECTORS Andrew Ferry, Malke Asaad, Rami Elmorsi, Aashish Rajesh, and Renata Maricevich Andrew FerryAndrew Ferry More articles by this author , Malke AsaadMalke Asaad More articles by this author , Rami ElmorsiRami Elmorsi More articles by this author , Aashish RajeshAashish Rajesh More articles by this author , and Renata MaricevichRenata Maricevich More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002017.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly changed the 2020-2021 residency application cycle, with the introduction of the virtual interview (VI) format being among the most significant of implemented changes. While employed by all urology residencies this past application cycle, no studies have investigated how VIs have impacted the interview process from programs' perspective. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of VIs to serve as a guide for programs when determining their interview procedures in future residency application cycles. METHODS: Web-based surveys with questions regarding the VI format's impact on varying aspects of the residency interview process were sent out to program directors (PDs) of ACGME-accredited urology residency programs. Elements of the residency interview process covered in the questions included costs, time commitment, candidate evaluation, technical difficulties, and overall thoughts about the VI format. RESULTS: A total of 38 PDs responded to our survey. All responding PDs agreed or strongly agreed that VIs were less expensive than in-person interviews with an average cost reduction of $3,244 per program. Despite switching to a VI format, only 34% of PDs reported that interviews were less time-consuming than in-person interviews. Regarding the evaluation of candidates, the majority of PDs stated that VIs were detrimental for the assessment of candidates' fit with a program (74%), their personality and communication skills (74%), and their commitment to the specialty as well as their ability to function as a urology resident (68%). Consequentially, 53% of urology residencies relied more heavily on candidates' objective metrics when developing their rank list. Technical difficulties that interfered with interviewing candidates occurred in 5% of interviews. Overall, the majority of programs (53%) stated that VIs were inferior to in-person interviews. Despite their decreased satisfaction with the VI format, 61% of programs were open to hosting virtual and in-person interviews. At the same time, 34% and 5% of the PDs reported that they would prefer to exclusively host in-person or virtual interviews in the 2021-2022 application cycle, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their associated reduction in interview-related costs, VIs are not as reliable as in-person interviews to assess residency candidates for urology residency positions. Despite this, VIs exhibit significant potential upon further refinement of the format. More studies are needed to determine their impact in future application cycles. Source of Funding: Internal Funding only © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e428-e428 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Andrew Ferry More articles by this author Malke Asaad More articles by this author Rami Elmorsi More articles by this author Aashish Rajesh More articles by this author Renata Maricevich More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...