Videoconference Interviewing: Tips for Success

Abstract

T he National Resident Matching Program (the ‘‘Match’’) was established in 1952 by medical students with the intent of establishing a predetermined date on which positions are made available to a pool of applicants. In 2014, nearly 30 000 first and second postgraduate year positions were made available through the Match. For US medical school seniors, geographic location was the top-ranking factor (93%) in selecting a program. The residency interview process that precedes the completion of the Match ranking list is an expensive and elaborate endeavor. Application fees and travel and accommodation costs can add up quickly, and they usually are not covered by financial aid. In addition, residency programs have their own recruiting costs and spend considerable time in preparation, requiring faculty to spend time away from clinical duties. The use of videoconference interviews for residency and fellowship programs (in various medical or surgical disciplines) has been associated with positive feedback from candidates, cost savings for candidates, and increased time efficiency. All of these support the incorporation of video technology into the interview process. The internal medicine residency program directors at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona decided to follow in the footsteps of these pioneering programs and pilot our own videoconference interviews for the 2014 Match. Although videoconference interviewing is common in other settings, such as the business world, staff in these residency programs did not have any prior expertise. Based only on our experience with such programs as Skype (Microsoft Corp), we implemented a video interview process and quickly learned that attention to small, seemingly simple, details made a marked difference in the quality of the interview. We offered videoconference interviews to 12 candidates, and 8 accepted. Candidates were selected for the videoconference interview if (1) their application met our criteria for an in-person interview, and (2) they were unable to attend (typically due to scheduling constraints). During an in-person interview, a candidate meets individually with 2 faculty members for 30 minutes each and the program director for 15 minutes. For our videoconference interviews, each candidate was interviewed by a panel (the program director, the associate program director, and 2 chief residents) for a total of 30 minutes. An option was given for scheduling interviews on 1 of 3 half-days, which included at least 1 morning and 1 afternoon option to accommodate time zone differences. Ultimately, 2 to 3 candidates were interviewed on each half-day. The panel remained in the room for the entire 30-minute videoconference. Before the videoconference, interviewers compiled a list of preferred questions. These draft questions were reviewed and consolidated to avoid duplication and ensure that the highest-impact questions were asked. Each interviewer on a panel asked 1 to 2 questions and 1 standardized question. This standardized question was part of our interview process for all candidates, including those who interviewed in person. In the more successful interviews, candidates were dressed in attire appropriate for an on-site interview and positioned the camera directly at eye level. They appeared to maintain eye contact and seemed completely engaged throughout the interview. These candidates also appeared to have reviewed the online program information and were prepared with questions. In contrast, in a less successful interview, the applicant positioned the camera such that he was looking downward and swiveled nervously in a wheeled chair. The clear benefit of video interviewing for a residency or fellowship program is the ability to engage and interview candidates who are not able to participate in an on-site interview due to time or resource constraints. We assured every candidate who participated in a videoconference interview that they would be considered equally in the ranking process. We met some excellent candidates in the process of video interviewing, and we ranked 2 of the 8 in a DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-14-00507.1