Residency Application Process Research Articles

The indelible marks on dermatology: Impacts of COVID-19 on dermatology residency Match using the Texas STAR database.

With changes to interview format and away rotations, the COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped the residency application process. In this retrospective cohort study of data from the nationwide Texas Seeking Transparency in Applications to Residency (STAR) survey, we sought to understand how the pandemic has affected applicants in the 2021 dermatology Match. We compared applicants in the post-COVID-19 Match year (2021) with those in pre-COVID-19 Match years (2018-2020) regarding match rates, interview costs, residency geographic connections, and number of interviews attended. A total of 439 dermatology applicants who completed the Texas STAR survey were included. There was no difference in percentage of applicants with a geographic connection to their matched program (43.88% vs 47.20%). Compared with prior cycles, applicants in the 2021 Match had a higher percentage of interview offers (96% vs 90%, P < .0001), and more applicants attended 16 or more interviews (P=.0489). Applicants in the 2021 Match reported an average savings of $5,000 compared with prior cycles. Virtual interviews offer savings for applicants but may encourage interview hoarding. Though applicants did not perform away rotations, there was no increase in geographic connection for matched applicants. Stakeholders should consider these data when evaluating the pros and cons of virtual interviewing postpandemic.

Modeling the Urology Residency Application and Match Process: A Mathematical Argument for Application and Interview Caps

ObjectiveTo develop a mathematical model to predict the effects of an application and interview cap on the urology match success rate. Materials and MethodsUsing 2020-2021 AUA data, we created a mathematical model in MATLAB that simulated 481 applicants applying to a total of 357 training positions distributed across 143 urology residency programs. Applicants were divided into top (16%), middle (68%), and bottom (16%) strata based on a normal distribution. Programs were divided into 3 equally sized strata (1/3, 1/3, 1/3) based on Doximity rankings. Outcomes include results of a simulated AUA Match: percentage of training positions filled, percentage of interview spots filled, percentage of applicants matching from each stratum, applicant preference distribution (the percentage breakdown of applicants matching at their first, second, third, fourth, or >fourth choice), and cost/time savings of a capped application process. ResultsBased on the results of our simulated model, match parameters were optimized with caps of 50 applications and 20 interviews per applicant. Programs filled all training positions and nearly all interview spots. Top applicants matched more frequently than middle applicants who matched more frequently than bottom applicants. Applicant preference distribution remained stable with these caps compared to the true match results. ConclusionApplication and interview caps of 50 and 20, respectively, would reduce average applications by at least 39% from the 2021-2022 cycle. This would lead to over 17,000 fewer applications, $832 saved per applicant, and over 4400 hours of time saved across all Urology programs.

Evaluating the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use and impact of social media in the urology residency match: A review of the literature

Social media (SoMe) use within healthcare has changed significantly since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This project highlights recent changes in SoMe use within the field of urology and summarizes how they have impacted the urology residency application and match process. A literature review of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases was performed on March 19th, 2022 for relevant studies regarding the use of SoMe in the American urology residency application and match process. Articles not published in English, published prior to 2019, or focusing on residency matches outside of the United States were excluded. The initial search yielded 202 unique results, of which, after independent review, a total of nine texts were deemed appropriate for analysis. Of the nine sources, six were peer-reviewed articles, two were published conference abstracts which included data, and one was a research letter. These studies consistently found that both urology applicants and residency programs increased their SoMe use following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as the percentage of programs (26-50% to 51-75%) and percentage of applicants (44% to 80%) participating in SoMe for professional purposes increased from 2018-2019 to 2021. Notably, Twitter was the most popular SoMe platform used. Among urology applicants, 43-61% found SoMe to have the greatest utility in providing information about specific programs. There was also consistency between studies in finding that SoMe use played a minimal role in whether or not a student matched, as only 3-6% of program directors reviewed applicants’ SoMe during the application and match process, while as many as 80% reported that SoMe had no role in the assessment of applicants. With programs continuing to see SoMe as a method of reaching out to applicants, increases in usage will likely continue even after the COVID-19 pandemic ends. In turn, it will become increasingly important for students to be mindful of how and what they post on SoMe. Continuing to analyze and reevaluate the benefits and drawbacks of these SoMe tools will remain important as virtual interactions become increasingly relevant to the field of urology.

The Costliness of US Residency Applications: Moving Toward Preference Signaling and Caps.

The Costliness of US Residency Applications: Moving Toward Preference Signaling and Caps.

Dermatology Match Preference Signaling Tokens: Impact and Implications.

The dermatology residency application process implemented a new system of preference signaling tokens (PSTs) in the 2021-2022 cycle to allow applicants to express a higher level of interest in specific programs. Limited data are available on the utilization and impact of these tokens. To determine the impact of PSTs on the application process and where in the process PSTs had the greatest influence. A 14-question survey was sent to 62 ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs. Primary outcomes were PST impact on 2021-2022 applications. Variables were evaluated using open-ended questions, yes/no responses, and importance ratings from 0 to 100. An average of 7.1% of applicants were offered interviews, but 21.1% of applicants that submitted PSTs were interviewed versus 3.7% of nonsubmitters. 22.5% of ranked applicants and 19% of matched applicants submitted a PST to that program. Not all programs responded, and PST submission restrictions could not be assessed. The greatest PST impact was on the interview decision but had minimal subsequent impact. Given PSTs cannot be submitted to home programs or in-person away rotations, the actual impact was probably greater than found. Programs will continue to implement PSTs in future cycles.

The Virtual Interview Experience: Advantages, Disadvantages, and Trends in Applicant Behavior.

A survey was distributed to 302 applicants to a single plastic surgery residency program during the 2020 application cycle. Demographics, social media presence and utilization, and experience with the virtual application and interview process were analyzed. A 2018 survey from our institution was compared with a subset of questions for longitudinal analysis. Seventy-six respondents (25.2%) completed the survey. Most applicants (88.2%) spent less than $1000 during the interview and application cycle. Over half (56.6%) did not receive letters of recommendation from outside their home program. A significant minority (27.6%) of applicants attended more than one interview in a single day. Compared to 2018, applicants in 2021 were significantly more likely to access alternative digital resources (forums/discussion boards, social media, and podcasts) when learning about programs. Average number of interviews remains in the range of pre-COVID studies, but the percentage of interviews attended increased. Applicants spent substantially less money on interviews and relied on alternative digital sources to learn about residency programs. This study objectively quantifies the advantages of virtual interviews. Disadvantages include inability to assess "fit" and lack of nonverbal communication.

Rejecting Reforms, Yet Calling for Change: A Qualitative Analysis of Proposed Reforms to the Residency Application Process.

Annual increases in the number of residency applications burden students and challenge programs. Several reforms to the application process have been proposed; however, stakeholder input is often overlooked. The authors examined key stakeholders' opinions about several proposed reforms to the residency application process and identified important factors to guide future reforms. Using semistructured interviews, the authors asked educational administrators and trainees to consider 5 commonly proposed reforms to the residency application process: Match to obtain residency interviews, preference signaling, application limits, geographic preference disclosure, and abolishing the Match. The authors conducted a modified content analysis of interview transcripts using qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques. Frequency analysis regarding the acceptability of the 5 proposed reforms and thematic analysis of important factors to guide reform were performed. Fifteen-minute interviews were conducted between July and October 2019, with data analysis completed during a 6-month period in 2020 and 2021. Participants included 30 stakeholders from 9 medical specialties and 15 institutions. Most participants wanted to keep the Match process intact; however, they noted several important flaws in the system that disadvantage students and warrant change. Participants did not broadly support any of the 5 proposed reforms. Two themes were identified: principles to guide reform (fairness, transparency, equity, reducing costs to students, reducing total applications, reducing work for program directors, and avoiding unintended consequences) and unpopular reform proposals (concern that application limits threaten less competitive students and signaling adds bias to the system). Key stakeholders in the residency application process believe the system has important flaws that demand reform. Despite this, the most commonly proposed reforms are unacceptable to these stakeholders because they threaten fairness to students and program workload. These findings call for a larger investigation of proposed reforms with a more nationally representative stakeholder cohort.

Medical student advising during virtual residency recruitment: results of a national survey of internal medicine clerkship and sub-internship directors

ABSTRACT Introduction The residency application process is a critical time for medical students. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted changes to the residency recruitment procedures with the conversion of interviews to a virtual format. For medical school advisors guiding students on an all-virtual residency application process brought uncertainty to their advising practices. Thus, this study aimed to identify advising practices during the 2021 virtual application cycle. Methods We administered an IRB-exempt national survey through the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine to 186 internal medicine core/co-/associate/assistant clerkship directors and sub-internship directors representing 140 Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited U.S./U.S.-territory-based medical schools in spring 2021. The 23-question survey was designed and pilot-tested by faculty-educators and leaders with expertise in undergraduate medical education. Data analysis included paired t- and z-tests and thematic analysis of open-ended questions. Results The institutional response rate was 67% (93/140) and individual rate 55% (103/186). Half of the respondents felt prepared/very prepared (40% and 13% respectively) for their advising roles. Compared to pre-pandemic cycles, respondents advised a typical student in the middle-third of their class at their institution to apply to more residency programs (mean 24 programs vs 20, p < 0.001) and accept more interviews (mean 14 interviews vs 12, p < 0.001). Sixty-three percent (64/101) of respondents spent more time on student advising; 51% (51/101) reported more students asked them for informal advice. Fifty-nine percent (60/101) of respondents reported their advisees were able to assess a residency program ‘somewhat well;’ 31% (31/101) expressed that residency recruitment should remain entirely virtual in the future. Conclusion The transition to virtual residency recruitment due to COVID-19 prompted advising practices that may have contributed to application inflation and increased advising workload. Future studies should explore longitudinal outcomes of virtual interviews on student success to guide best practices in how to advise students during residency recruitment.

Preference-Signaling During the Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Application Process.

The orthopaedic surgery residency selection process has grown more competitive over recent years, with programs receiving an unprecedented number of applications. As an effort to target applications to programs of interest, the American Orthopaedic Association has announced the introduction of a formal preference-signaling program into the 2022 to 2023 orthopaedic surgery residency selection cycle. This system will allow applicants to assign "signals" to a total of 30 programs. The purpose of this article was to (1) discuss implications of the new preference-signaling program, (2) introduce the framework of the "strategic signaling spear" for applicants to conceptualize the power of all methods of preference-signaling to improve their odds of matching, and (3) describe the role of strong mentorship at all stages of the residency application process.

Initiation of the Virtual Interview: A 5-Y Evaluation of General Surgery Residency Match Results

IntroductionThe virtual residency application season posed numerous challenges for the 2021 residency match process. Many residency programs are exploring relationships between this novel format and the match process. The purpose of this study was to compare one of the largest general surgery residency program's applications and match data from preCOVID years to the 2021 virtual cycle. Materials and methodsA retrospective review was performed of applicants to a single general surgery residency program from 2017 to 2021. The primary outcome was the number of locally matched applicants. The secondary outcomes were the total number of applications, change in applicant demographics, and variability of the geographic spread during this study period. Chi-square tests of independence, Fisher's exact tests, and negative binomial regression were performed. Results6819 applicants were included in the study. In 2021, an increase in applications was observed. The distribution of 2021 applications was statistically different from previous years regarding gender and race (P < 0.0001). The 2021 application cycle had a greater proportion of applicants from the United States (P < 0.0001) and southern US medical schools (P = 0.008). While the 2021 cycle had significantly more interviews (P = 0.013), there were no significant differences in the demographic composition of interviewees. During the 2021 application year, all 11 matches were from southern medical schools and there was a trend to more matched female applicants compared to previous years. ConclusionsDuring the 2021 COVID-19 virtual match cycle, an increase in both the number of applications and number of interviews for general surgery residency was identified. The characteristics of applicants who interviewed and matched were not different when compared to previous years. As virtual interviews may become more commonplace, it is important to assess all factors that may be involved in the dynamic residency application process.

Current Communication Practices Between Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Applicants and Program Directors

In order to equitably improve the residency application process, it is essential to understand the problems we need to address. To determine how obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) applicants and faculty communicate applicants' interest to residency programs, and how program directors report being influenced by these communications. This survey study was conducted with email surveys of OBGYN application stakeholders in 2022. Included participants were OBGYN applicants, clerkship directors, and residency program directors in medical education associations' email listservs. Surveys sent by the American Association of Medical Colleges, Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Whether applicants themselves, or faculty on their behalf, communicated to residency programs, and the influence program directors reported placing on these communications for their decision-making. Descriptive statistics and χ2 tests were used to analyze differences. A total 726 of 2781 applicants (26.1%) responded to the survey and were included in analysis (79 of 249 [31.7%] clerkship directors; 200 of 280 [71.4%] program directors). The self-reported racial and ethnic demographics of the 726 applicant respondents were 86 Asian (11.8%), 54 Black (7.4%), 41 Latinx (5.6%), 1 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (0.1%), 369 White (52.2%), 45 with multiple racial identities (6.2%), and 91 (21.5%) preferring not to answer. The majority of applicants (590 [82.9%]) sent communications at some point in the application process. Applicants who identified as White (336 [88.7%]) or Asian (75 [87.2%]) were more likely than those who identified as Black (40 [74.1%]) or Latinx (33 [80.5%]) to reach out to programs (P = .02). There were also differences in type of medical school, with 377 of 427 MD applicants (88.3%), 109 of 125 DO applicants (87.2%), and 67 of 87 International Medical Graduate applicants (77.7%) reporting sending communications (P = .02). Approximately one-third (254 applicants [35.7%]) had faculty reach out to programs on their behalf. White (152 [40.1%]) and Asian (37 [43.0%]) applicants were more likely to have faculty reach out compared with Black (6 [11.1%]) and Latinx (12 [29.3%]) applicants (P = .01). Program directors reported that preinterview communications from faculty they knew (64 [32.2%]) and other program directors (25 [12.6%]) strongly influenced their decisions, and otherwise rarely reported that communications strongly influenced their decisions. The current state of communications may increase inequities in residency application processes; differences between faculty communications for applicants from different racial and ethnic backgrounds are particularly concerning given that program directors are more likely to weigh communications from faculty in their decision-making. A centralized, equitable means for applicants to signal their interest to programs is urgently needed.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Experiences of Female, Underrepresented-in-Medicine Surgical Applicants During the 2020-2021 Residency Match

INTRODUCTION: Persons from backgrounds underrepresented-in-medicine (UiM) face disparities in the residency application process, manifested as leading to a lower likelihood of invitations to interview for and therefore match into surgical residency programs. Given the unique challenges imposed by the global pandemic during the 2020−2021 application cycle, we aimed to describe the impact of COVID-19, transition to virtual interviews, and simultaneous social unrest surrounding UiM identities among UiM applicants. METHODS: An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to applicants who responded to a surgical society’s emails/social-media posts between October and December 2020. Differences between self-identified female UiM and non-UiM respondents were compared using descriptive-statistics (quantitative-questions) and grounded-theory determination of emergent-themes (qualitative-questions). RESULTS:N = 238 applicants responded; 45.8% (n = 109) identified as UiM. Compared to non-UiM applicants, UiM applicants reported greater concern about: delayed board examinations (44.0% vs 29.5%, p = 0.042), missed mentorship (38.5% vs 19.4%, p = 0.001), and lack of research experiences (27.5% vs 14.0%, p = 0.020). They focused on the importance of a “holistic” review of applications, concern for interview monopolization, detrimental effects on mental health due to social and political events, and prioritization of diversity/equity/inclusion initiatives when selecting residency programs. CONCLUSION: UiM applicants faced important challenges in their surgical residency applications during 2020-2021. Medical education governing bodies, program directors, and resident selection committees should be vigilant about mitigating these challenges in post-pandemic years. Strategies to increase recruitment of UiM applicants include: transparency/adaptation of holistic application review practices, strategic distribution of interview invitations with discouragement of interview hoarding, and formalization of program’s diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

The US Residency Match at 70: What Was, What Is, and What Could Be.

The US Residency Match at 70: What Was, What Is, and What Could Be.

188 “I’d Rather See Action": Application and Recruitment Experiences of Underrepresented in Emergency Medicine Trainees

The emergency physician workforce is largely comprised of white males. Despite recruitment efforts over the last decade, there has not been a significant increase of trainees underrepresented in emergency medicine (URiEM). Prior studies have focused on institutional strategies to improve diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), yet studies have been limited in describing the perspective of URiEM trainees. We sought to assess URiEM perspectives on DEI in the residency application process, the recent surge in academic EM residencies’ efforts related to DEI, and suggestions on future directions.

The Impact of Virtual Interviewing During the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Residency Application Process: One Institution's Experience.

To assess the impact of virtual interviewing during the COVID-19 pandemic on the residency application process and to compare applicant costs and time spent interviewing during the 2020-2021 application cycle with prior years. Fourth-year medical students at the University of Kansas School of Medicine applying for first-year residency positions via the National Resident Matching Program Match completed an electronic 46-item survey after submitting their rank lists during each application cycle from 2015-2016 to 2020-2021. The authors used descriptive statistics and t tests to analyze and compare responses to demographics questions and questions regarding number of submitted applications, offered and completed interviews, ranked programs, costs, and time spent interviewing. They used thematic analysis to code respondents' narrative comments about the virtual interviewing experience. From 2015-2016 to 2020-2021, 994 (of 1,190; 83.5%) respondents completed the survey. From 2019-2020 to 2020-2021, the average total cost of applying to residency per applicant dropped by $3,566 (P &lt; .001) and the average time spent interviewing dropped by 13.3 days (P &lt; .001). At the same time, the average number of applications per applicant dropped by 3.4, and applicants completed the same number of interviews and ranked 2.3 fewer programs, none of which were statistically significant differences. Narrative comments from 113 (79%) respondents in 2020-2021 revealed 4 themes related to virtual interviewing: convenience of time and cost, positive aspects of the process, negative aspects of the process, and overall impressions of the program. Virtual interviewing during the 2020-2021 application cycle resulted in an approximately 80% reduction in cost for applicants and an approximately 50% decrease in time spent interviewing compared with previous years but was not associated with large increases in number of submitted applications, completed interviews, or ranked programs. Applicants generally perceived virtual interviewing as positive although they raised notable concerns.

Standardized Interview Scoring Methodology for Neurosurgical Residency Applicant Selection.

Interviews are critical to the neurosurgery resident application process. The COVID-19 pandemic forced residency interview activities are conducted virtually. To maintain a degree of control during a period of uncertainty, our department implemented a standardized survey for interviewers to evaluate the noncognitive attributes and program compatibility of applicants. Our objective was to assess the reliability and biases associated with our standardized interviewer survey implemented in neurosurgical residency interviews. A 5-question interviewer survey to assess applicant interview performance and program compatibility was implemented during the 2020 to 2021 interview season. After the application cycle, survey metrics were retrospectively reviewed. Multiple cohort analyses were performed by dividing interviewers into cohorts based on status (faculty or resident) and sex. Applicant scores were assessed within sex subgroups for each aforementioned interviewer cohort. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess survey reliability. Fifteen interviewers (8 faculty and 7 residents) and 35 applicants were included. Female applicants (17%) and interviewers (20%) comprised the minority. There were no differences between resident and faculty reviewer scores; however, female reviewers gave higher overall scores than male reviewers ( P = .003). There was no difference in total scores between female and male applicants when evaluating all reviewers or subgroups of faculty, residents, females, or males. ICC analysis demonstrated good (ICC 0.75-0.90) or excellent (ICC > 0.90) reliability for all questions and overall score. The standardized interviewer survey was a feasible and reliable method for evaluating noncognitive attributes during neurosurgery residency interviews. There was no perceptible evidence of sex bias in our single-program experience.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Expenses of Medical Students Applying to Otolaryngology Residency Programs.

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to many changes in the residency application process. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of these changes on the cost of applying to otolaryngology residency programs. Materials and Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis was conducted using the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency (Texas STAR) Dashboard database to determine the differences in residency application costs from 2019 to 2022. Applicant information and cost data including application fees, interview expenses, away rotation expenses, total expenses, and geographic regions were collected. Median expenses and interquartile ranges were reported for each year and geographic region. Non-parametric comparisons were conducted.Results: Data from 499 otolaryngology applicants were collected from the Texas STAR database. The total expenses, interview expenses, and away rotation expenses of applicants from 2019 to 2022 were significantly decreased (p < 0.001) in all regions of the United States with the greatest decrease between 2020 and 2021. Application fees (p = 0.005) were not significantly different among regions of the United States throughout the time period studied.Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly decreased the total expenses of applying to otolaryngology residencies including away rotation and interview expenses.

Optimizing the residency application process: insights from neurological surgery during the pandemic virtual application cycle.

In this article, the authors describe the impact of the COVID-19 virtual match cycle and discuss approaches to optimize future cycles through applicant and neurosurgical education leadership insights. Anonymous surveys of neurosurgery program leaders (program directors and program chairs), program administrators (PAs), and 2020-2021 neurosurgery residency match applicants were distributed by the SNS, in conjunction with the Association of Resident Administrators in Neurological Surgery and AANS Young Neurosurgeons Committee. Responses were received from 77 (67.0%) of 115 PAs, 119 (51.7%) of 230 program leaders, and 124 (44.3%) of 280 applicants representing geographically diverse regions. During the virtual application cycle relative to the previous year, programs received more Electronic Residency Application Service applications (mean 314.8 vs 285.3, p < 0.0001) and conducted more applicant interviews (mean 45.2 vs 39.9, p = 0.0003). More than 50% of applicants applied to > 80 programs; 60.3% received ≤ 20 interview invitations, and 9% received > 40 invitations. Overall, 65% of applicants completed ≤ 20 interviews, whereas 34.7% completed > 20 interviews. Program leaders described one 4-week home subinternship (93.3%) and two 4-week external subinternships (68.9%) as optimal neurosurgical exposure; 62.8% of program leaders found the standardized letter of recommendation template to be somewhat (47.5%) or significantly (15.3%) helpful. Applicants, PAs, and program leaders all strongly preferred a hybrid model of in-person and virtual interview options for future application cycles over all in-person or all virtual options. Ninety-three percent of applicants reported matching within their top 10-ranked programs, and 52.9% of programs matched residents within the same decile ranking as in previous years. Optimizing a national strategy for the neurosurgery application process that prioritizes equity and reduces costs, while ensuring adequate exposure for applicants to gain educational opportunities and evaluate programs, is critical to maintain a successful training system.

Current perspectives of and potential reforms to the dermatology residency application process: A nationwide survey of program directors and applicants.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated discussions about reforms needed in the dermatology residency application process. We sought to evaluate the perspectives of dermatology program directors (PDs) and applicants regarding changes implemented during the 2020-2021 application cycle and measure support for potential reforms. Two online surveys were distributed to PDs and applicants who participated in the 2020-2021 dermatology residency match. Responses were collected from a total of 79 PDs (73.8% response rate, 83.5% complete responses) and 232 applicants (83.6% complete responses). The top 3 reforms supported by PDs were application caps (89.4% in favor), interview caps (86.4% in favor), and token preference signaling (81.8% in favor). The top 3 reforms supported by applicants were coordinated interview invite release (89.7% in favor), national webinars with PDs and/or faculty to discuss the application process (86.6% in favor), and formalized mentorship programs with PDs and/or faculty (78.4% in favor). This study was limited by the inability to capture responses from more dermatology applicants, possibly affecting the generalizability of the results. We identified broad support for multiple proposed reforms to the dermatology residency application process, particularly to improve the efficiency of application review and strengthen communication between programs and applicants.

Rethinking residency recruitment, application, and interview processes to benefit applicants and programs long-term

Pharmacy residency recruitment and interviews have been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many traditional recruitment events and interviews were transitioned from in-person to virtual, and new approaches to recruitment, such as virtual open houses, were developed. There are limited data on how these changes impacted pharmacy residency applicants and programs, and the future of virtual events is currently unknown. We highlight recommendations for virtual recruitment and interviews and provide suggestions for residency programs and national organizations to improve virtual processes in the future.