Residency Interview Research Articles

Impact of the Virtual Format on Plastic Surgery Residency and Fellowship Interviews: A National Cross-Sectional Study.

Impact of the Virtual Format on Plastic Surgery Residency and Fellowship Interviews: A National Cross-Sectional Study.

Local Culture and Community Through a Digital Lens: Viewpoint on Designing and Implementing a Virtual Second Look Event for Residency Applicants.

The COVID-19 pandemic altered how residency interviews occur. Despite 2 years of web-based interviews, these are still perceived as inferior to in-person experiences. Showcasing a program and location is critical for recruitment; however, it is difficult to highlight the program's location and community digitally. This article presents the authors' viewpoints on designing and implementing a virtual second look for residency applicants. Our objective was to host a web-based event to feature the benefits of living in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for residency applicants, enhance recruitment efforts, and ensure a successful residency match. The goal was to cover topics that interested all applicants, highlight how Winston-Salem is a special place to live, involve current residents, and engage community members. Three programs-child neurology, neurology, and family medicine were chosen for a pilot virtual second look. All residency program directors' were asked to recommend community contacts and help identify residents and faculty who may serve as content experts on one of the topics in the panel discussions. A total of 24 community leaders from restaurants, venues, schools, and businesses were contacted, and 18 agreed to participate. The panel discussions included living in and raising a family in Winston-Salem, experiencing Winston-Salem arts and music, where to eat and drink like a local, and enjoying sports and outdoors in the area. The 2-hour event was hosted on Zoom. Postevent feedback assessments were automatically sent to each registrant through Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). This study was deemed exempt from Wake Forest University Health Sciences institutional review board review (IRB00088703). There were 51 registrants for the event, and 28 of 48 registrants provided postevent feedback, which was positive. The authors found in the MATCH residency results that 2 of 2 child neurology positions, 4 of 6 adult neurology positions, and 1 of 10 family medicine positions attended our second look event. One adult neurology resident who did not participate was an internal candidate. All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the session was valuable, well organized, and met their expectations or goals. Furthermore, all respondents gained new information during this web-based event not obtained during their interview day. The virtual second look event for residency attendees featured the benefits of living in Winston-Salem, and the perspectives of current residents. Feedback from the session was overall positive; however, a top desire would be devoting more time for the applicants to ask questions directly to the community leaders and our resident trainees. This program could be reproducible by other institutions. It could be broadened to a graduate medical education-wide virtual second look event where all medical and surgical programs could opt to participate, facilitating an equitable opportunity for prospective applicants.

Does "Hoarding" Impact Interview Distribution Among Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applicants? A Modeling Study Based on a Large Database.

"Interview hoarding" is commonly used to refer to the concentration of interview offers among a small number of high-performing residency applicants. Theoretically, if the same applicants interview at every program, fewer rank lists will be submitted than open residency positions, leading to a "match crisis" with unfilled positions after the match. There are no published studies we are aware of that describe the observed distribution of residency interview offers among orthopaedic surgery applicants or the potential impact of "hoarding" on that distribution. We examined the distribution of interview invitations extended to orthopaedic surgery residency applicants in the 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022 application cycles. The change in the shape of the interview invitation distribution was the primary outcome for two central questions: (1) Does the interview offer distribution curve among orthopaedic surgery applicants change meaningfully from baseline with implementation of an interview cap (Model 1)? (2) What is the impact on the distribution of invitations with a reduction in the number of applicants in the field (Model 2)? This was a retrospective study of orthopaedic surgery interview invitations extended to applicants via the Thalamus interview management program during the 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022 residency application cycles. The Thalamus database was chosen because it contains data on interview invitations for orthopaedic surgery residency positions and has the largest market share in orthopaedics compared with similar databases. Thalamus data represent 1565 applicants and 53 residency programs (90% and 25% of the national total, respectively) in 2021 to 2022 and 993 applicants and 46 programs (77% and 23%, respectively) in 2020 to 2021. It has been shown to contain a representative sample of orthopaedic residency programs. An interview cap (Model 1) was simulated by removing excess interviews held by applicants above the 75th and 95th percentiles, which were chosen to represent a formal cap and an informal cap, respectively. A reduction in the size of the applicant pool was similarly modeled by randomly removing 5% and 25% of applicants, chosen to simulate informal and formal application requirements, respectively. In both models, the excess interviews were redistributed among the remaining applicants. Applicants received a mean of 1.8 ± 2.2 Thalamus interview invitations in 2020 to 2021 and 1.7 ± 2.4 invitations in 2021 to 2022, with no change to the overall distribution curve. A total of 39% (606 of 1565) of applicants received no Thalamus interview invitations in 2021 to 2022, 75% (1176 of 1565) received two or fewer, and < 1% (14 of 1565) of applicants received 10 or more invitations. Redistributing excess interviews held by the top 5% of applicants resulted in 2% (61 of 2651) of interviews being redistributed (Model 1). Removing 5% of the total applicant pool resulted in a redistribution of 3% (87 of 2651) of the interview invitations (Model 2). Orthopaedic surgery interview data demonstrated an expected uneven distribution of interview invitations, with a small proportion of highly competitive applicants receiving a higher number of interview offers as well as a large group of applicants receiving no interview invitations in Thalamus. Concerns that "hoarding" would lead to a crisis resulting in many unmatched residency positions seemed unfounded, given the excess of applicants relative to positions and the minimal change in the distribution of interviews in the cap model. Medical students applying to orthopaedic residency should seek individual advising to improve their individual odds of matching, while understanding that interview hoarding does not seem to alter the distribution of interviews. Program directors and medical students' advisors should be cognizant that a small proportion of applicants are broadly interviewed and may benefit from steps taken to ensure applicants have genuine interest in the program.

Key factors for residency interview selection from the National Resident Matching Program: analysis of residency Program Director surveys, 2016-2020.

As the number of medical school graduates continues to outpace the available residency training positions, applying for residency in the United States has become a highly competitive process, often associated with a low rate of selection and invitation for interview. The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Program Director survey provides data assessing factors considered by Program Directors (PD) in selecting and inviting candidates for interview. Assessing the evolution of these factors over time is efficacious to inform and guide prospective applicants toward improving preparation for residency application. We aim to synthesize NRMP data showing factors that PDs reported and rated as important in their decision to select and invite applicants for interview. Data from residency PD surveys from 2008 to 2021were accessed, but after applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, only the data from 2016 to 2020 were reviewed and analyzed. The NRMP survey reports provided two metrics that characterized PDs' evaluation of the residency factors for interview, namely, "percent citing factor" and "average rating" on a 0 to 5 Likert-type scale. These two metrics were combined into an aggregate measure of importance (AI), and another measure of relative importance (RI) was constructed from normalizing the AI of each individual factor to the sum of the AI within each survey year. The top ranked factors were United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1/Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Level 1, Letter of Recommendation (LOR) in the specialty, Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter), and USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK)/COMLEX Level 2 Cognitive Exam (CE) score, any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX, and perceived commitment to specialty. Factors rising in importance were Audition Elective/Rotation Within Your Department, Personal Statement (PS), Perceived Commitment to Specialty, Perceived Interest in Program, LOR in the Specialty, Other Life Experience, and Personal Prior Knowledge of the Applicant. Factors with declining importance were Interest in Academic Career, Awards or Special Honors in Basic Sciences, Graduate of Highly Regarded US Medical School, Awards or Special Honors in Clinical Clerkships, Lack of Gaps in Medical Education, Awards or Special Honors in Clerkship in Desired Specialty, and Consistency of Grades. Compared to the 2021PD survey, our findings show continued predictive consistency, particularly related to specialty and program commitment. The factors identified for the selection of medical school graduates for interview into a residency program reveal that PDs move toward a more integrated approach. Specifically, PDs are placing increasing emphasis on factors that border on subjective qualities more so than the more traditional, quantitative, and objective metrics. Medical students and educators need to continually apprise themselves of the NRMP data to inform students' preparation endeavors throughout medical school to strengthen their application portfolios and enhance their competitiveness for the matching process.

The mitigated carbon emissions of transitioning to virtual medical school and residency interviews: A survey-based study.

Prior to COVID, thousands of medical school and residency applicants traversed their countries for in-person interviews each year. However, data on the greenhouse gas emissions from in-person interviews is limited. This study estimated greenhouse gas emissions associated with in-person medical school and residency interviews and explored applicant interview structure preferences. From March to June 2022, we developed and distributed a nine-question, website-based survey to collect information on applicant virtual interview schedule, demographics and preference for future interview format. We calculated theoretical emissions for all interviews requiring air travel and performed a content analysis of interview preference explanations. We received responses from 258 first-year and 253 fourth-year medical students at 26 allopathic US medical schools who interviewed virtually in 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, respectively. Residency applicants participating in the study were interviewed at a mean of 15.3 programs (SD 5.4) and had mean theoretical emissions of 4.31 tons CO2 eq. Medical school applicants participating in the study were interviewed at a mean of 6.9 programs and had mean theoretical emissions of 2.19 tons CO2 eq. Ninety percent of medical school applicants and 91% of residency applicants participating in the study expressed a preference for hybrid or virtual interviews going forward. In-person medical training interviews have significant greenhouse gas emissions. Virtual and hybrid alternatives have a high degree of acceptability among applicants.

Intern Experience Reflects Information Gathered During the Virtual Interview Process

The onset of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought many changes to the residency application process including transitioning to a virtual interview platform, which continues today. The transition brought many concerns from general surgery applicants about their ability to obtain adequate information about a program virtually. We sought to characterize how information presented by programs during the first ever virtual interview cycle matched the experience of general surgery interns after training at a program for 1 year. In May of 2022, a survey was distributed to 243 program directors who were asked to forward it to their general surgery categorical interns who matched during the 2021 virtual match cycle. Demographics, resources used to determine an impression of a program, and correlations between information presented virtually and what was subsequently experienced as an intern were collected. Forty-six program directors confirmed forwarding the survey to their categorical interns. A total of 102 general surgery interns completed the survey. Most interns (88.2%) agreed that their experience matched expectations based on information received through the virtual interview process and 98% of interns were satisfied with their experience at their training program. Interviews with faculty (40.0%), residents (68.0%) and the program web site (29.0%) were the top 3 resources used to create the most accurate impression of a program. Interns felt they were well informed during the virtual interview experience about support from fellow residents (84.3%), culture (73.0%), surgical volume (72.5%), and intern operative experience (71.6%). In addition, 65.7% of participants thought they were able to obtain a good understanding of the program's culture from the virtual process. However, 16.7% thought that their program unintentionally misrepresented aspects of the training program. The faculty and residency interviews were the most important factors in program ranking and most participants agreed that their virtual interview experience matched their expectations during their intern year. Most interns felt they were able to obtain a good understanding of the program's culture from the virtual process. In addition, a majority of interns felt well informed during the interview on aspects ranging from surgical volume, autonomy, and work hours to support from faculty and residents. If virtual interviews are to continue, residents can be satisfied that information gathered virtually will match the reality of their training. Programs should continue to make every effort to present their program realistically.

Home-based oral health program for adults with intellectual disabilities: An intervention study

BackgroundPoor oral health is common in adults with intellectual disabilities leading to risk of mouth and lung infections. Yet, little is known about the benefits of preventative oral health programs. Objective/hypothesisThis prospective longitudinal experimental mixed methods study evaluated the efficacy of an oral health program aimed at improving knowledge and behaviours in adults with intellectual disabilities living in supported housing. MethodsA 90-min training session was provided to residents and their staff at 12 houses (56 residents; 67 staff). Follow-up training sessions (at 1 week, 1,2,3 months) were tailored to the learning abilities, behavioural/physical challenges, and independence of residents. Outcome measures were collected pre, 1, 2 and 3 months (n = 36): dental exam, plaque index, gingival signs, tongue coating index and behavioural rating scale. At 3 months, support workers (n = 10) and residents (n = 19) were interviewed. Residents’ interviews were supported by Talking Mats®. ResultsMost residents (94%) required support for oral cares; with 63% fully dependant on their support workers. 24 (63%) residents had significantly improved plaque scores at 3 months (p < .001). Resident interviews were restricted by communication competency but supported interviews indicated positive responses to 3-sided toothbrush 91%, interdental brush/flosser 60%, and mouthwash 100%. Support worker interviews revealed perceived health and social benefits including fresher breath and benefits of routines. ConclusionsOral health programs for adults with intellectual disabilities living in supported housing are well received by staff and residents, leading to changes in oral care routines and measurable changes in oral health.

Residents' experiences of paternalism in nursing homes.

Interest in strengthening residents' autonomy in nursing homes is intensifying and professional caregivers' experience ethical dilemmas when the principles of beneficence and autonomy conflict. This increased focus requires expanded knowledge of how residents experience decision-making in nursing homes and how being subject to paternalism affects residents' dignity. This study explored how residents experience paternalism in nursing homes. This study involved a qualitative interpretive design with participant observations and semi-structured interviews. The interpretations were informed by Gadamer's hermeneutics. Eleven residents were interviewed after a period of participant observation in two nursing homes. The study was performed in accordance with the Helsinki declaration. The Regional Ethics Committee (REK) permitted the researcher to perform participant observation in the nursing homes. The use of audio recordings of interviews was registered and supervised by Sikt - Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research. The resident's consent was assessed continuously. Three interviews were terminated for ethical reasons. The resident interviews revealed that residents found it obvious for caregivers to possess the decision-making authority in nursing homes. When residents explained their views, three main themes emerged: (1) To be included even though caregivers make the decisions, (2) Surrender to dependency, and (3) Adherence to nursing home norms. Residents submit to their caregivers and give caregivers the responsibility and function as leaders. Paternalism was experienced as dignifying in situations where it contributed to residents being able to live according to second order desires and values, and when it implied respect and appraisal of residents' capabilities. Paternalism was experienced as debasing when residents felt left out, and when residents felt that their capabilities were underestimated. This also included their capability to withstand paternalistic influence.

What Can We Really Learn From a Profile Picture? Eliminate Profile Pictures From Residency Interview Selection.

What Can We Really Learn From a Profile Picture? Eliminate Profile Pictures From Residency Interview Selection.

Implementation of a Holistic Review Process of US Allopathic Medical Students Eliminates Non-Comparable Metrics and Bias in General Surgery Residency Interview Invitations

Use of traditional scoring metrics for residency recruitment creates racial and gender bias. In addition, widespread use of pass/fail grading has led to noncomparable data. To adjust to these challenges, we developed a holistic review (HR) rubric for scoring residency applicants for interview selection. Single-center observational study comparing the proportion of underrepresented in medicine (URM) students and their United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) scores who were invited for interview before (2015-2020) and after (2022) implementation of a holistic review process. General surgery residency program at a tertiary academic center. US allopathic medical students applying for general surgery residency. After initial screening, a total of 1514 allopathic applicants were narrowed down to 586 (38.7%) for HR. A total of 52% were female and 17% identified as URM. Based on HR score, 20% (118/586) of applicants were invited for an interview. The median HR score was 11 (range 4-19). There was a fourfold higher coefficient of variation of HR scores (22.3; 95% CI 21.0-23.7) compared to USMLE scores (5.1; 95% Cl 4.8-5.3), resulting in greater spread and distinction among applicants. There were no significant differences in HR scores between genders (p = 0.60) or URM vs non-URM (p = 0.08). There were no significant differences in Step 1 (p = 0.60) and 2CK (p = 0.30) scores between those who were invited to interview or not. On multivariable analysis, USMLE scores (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98-1.03), URM status (OR 1.71 95% CI 0.98-2.92), and gender (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.60-1.45) did not predict interview selection (all p > 0.05). There was a meaningful increase in the percentage of URM interviewed after HR implementation (12.9% vs 23.1%, p = 0.016). The holistic review process is feasible and eliminates the use of noncomparable metrics for surgical applicant interview invitations and increases the percentage of URM applicants invited to interview.

Away Rotations in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Survey of Program Directors

To evaluate residency program director views on the purpose and value of an away rotation for students applying to a residency application in Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN). The Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology administered a 28-question survey to current U.S. program directors in OBGYN in 2022. Program directors were asked if they offered away rotations to visiting medical students and if so, what the purpose the rotation played in their application process and whether rotating students were automatically offered a residency interview. Program characteristics such as program size, geographic location, and program type (university, community, or military based) were ascertained. A test of proportions was utilized to understand the relationship between program description and survey responses. Seventy-nine percent (224/285) of OBGYN PDs responded to the survey and consented to participation. Programs were representative of the types of training program, size of programs, and geographic location. Of respondents, 77.2% (173/224) of PDs indicated that away rotations were offered at their institution, but only 26.6% (46/173) of residency PDs assessed prospective candidates for away electives. The opportunity to provide students an audition for a residency position was the most common reason to offer an elective. Only 34.7% (60/173) of OBGYN PDs guaranteed an interview to students who completed away electives at their institution. The majority (118/173, 68.2%) of PDs indicated less than 25% of their current residents had completed an away rotation with their program. Many residency programs offered away electives to prospective applicants, but the majority did not personally assess applicants for competitiveness or guarantee interviews to students completing electives. To increase transparency in the application process, programs should publicize the purpose of away rotations and provide information on the number of interviews granted to students who complete away rotations.

Virtual interviews for resident and fellow recruitment

Since 2020, all general surgery residency interviews have been mandatorily virtual, elevating the importance of social media and online reputation management for applicants and residency programs. This article highlights how virtual interviews changed the way programs and applicants engage each other online, including some pros and cons of these new interactions.

Diversity and prevalence of nuisance arthropods detected by sticky traps in apartments in New Jersey.

Many nuisance arthropods occur in homes. In this study, nuisance arthropods are defined as any arthropod other than cockroaches and bed bugs. We examined nuisance arthropods found on sticky traps in 1,581 low-income apartments in four cities in New Jersey during 2018-2019 as part of a study for monitoring cockroach infestations. Four sticky traps (three in the kitchen, one in the bathroom) were placed in each apartment for approximately two weeks. Forty two percent of the apartments had nuisance arthropods on sticky traps. The relative abundance of different groups of arthropods were flies-36%, beetles-23%, spiders-14%, ants-10%, booklice-5%, and others-12%. The flies were further grouped into the following subgroups and their relative abundance were fungus gnats-42%, phorid flies-18%, moth flies-17%, fruit flies-10%, midges-8%, and others-5%. Among the beetles, 82% were stored product beetles (including spider beetles). Summer months (May-July) had a much higher frequency of nuisance arthropods occurrence than winter months (November-January). In addition to installing sticky traps, we also conducted interviews with 1,020 residents. Only 13% of the interviewed residents indicated sightings of nuisance arthropods. Resident interviews revealed a much higher relative frequency of sightings for flies (58%), much lower frequency for beetles (4%), and much higher frequency for mosquitoes compared to those captured on sticky traps. We conclude that sticky traps provide much more accurate information on indoor nuisance arthropod abundance and diversity than resident interviews and are a valuable tool for monitoring indoor nuisance arthropods.

Optimal hand surgery fellowship interview format.

The ideal format for residency and fellowship interviews has been consistently debated. Secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic, many institutions, including all hand surgery fellowship programs, transitioned interviews to an all-virtual format. In the past year, with ease of travel restrictions, some programs have transitioned back to in-person interviews, while others remain solely virtual. Hand surgery fellowship programs are continually assessing what are the best means for conducting these interviews, with little perspective regarding the applicant's preferences. The purpose of this study was to examine hand surgery fellowship applicants' perspectives regarding in-person and virtual interviews. It was hypothesized that applicants would value interpersonal relationships between faculty when deciding upon their ideal hand surgery fellowship, which would be easier to appreciate in-person. All hand fellowship interviewees at a single institution were given a voluntary, electronic survey. The survey consisted of questions examining different aspects of the program's interview day and supplemental resources. Responses were recorded after the in-person interview for the years 2018-2020. Questions were altered for the virtual 2021 and 2022 interviews. Questions were scored on a Likert scale. For the in-person interview cycles, there were 60/86 respondents (69.8 %). For the virtual interview cycles, there were 45/73 respondents (61.6 %). During the in-person interview cycles, applicants reported that the current fellows' perspective talk was the most helpful component. Many applicants commented that they enjoyed meeting their potential co-fellows. The virtual interviewees felt that they had the best understanding of the program's core values/culture and the worst understanding of faculty personalities and personal/family life. Twenty-nine (64.4 %) of virtual applicants would prefer an all in-person interview. Of the 16 respondents who did not advocate for a completely in-person interview, 56.3 % preferred the option for an in-person site visit. Hand surgery fellowship applicants desire interpersonal interactions to better understand prospective fellowship programs, which can be difficult to convey with an all-virtual interview. The results of this survey can help guide fellowship programs as they continue to optimize in-person, virtual, and hybrid interview formats and refine recruitment resources.

Mapping Public-Planner Conflicts in SUDS Implementation Using Cultural Dimensions—A Case Study

The timely implementation of climate adaptation measures for the urban environment is essential to the creation of robust cities. Within Norway, these adaptation measures are undertaken at the municipal level. Unfortunately, the implementation of adaptation measures has lagged behind expectations, partially due to public resistance to local projects. City planners seek tools to provide insight into the priorities of residents to build consensus and public support. This study follows up on two previous case studies of Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) implementation in Trondheim, Norway, where the prioritization of urban space is often a source of conflict. The Hofstede Cultural Compass is a tool that maps six cultural dimensions used in research and practice to inform users about cultural norms and cross-cultural divergences. This study seeks to test and verify this tool for use in building public consensus and support. Municipal managers responsible for project implementation took the Cultural Compass survey, and the results were collectively mapped and compared to the public at large. The Cultural Compass found notable divergences between the municipality and the Norwegian public within the areas of “Long-term Orientation”, “Uncertainty Avoidance”, and “Masculinity vs. Femininity”. These findings were cross-referenced with thematically analyzed interviews of residents regarding their perceptions of a municipal SUDS project. Together, these case studies give greater insight into the issues of diverging priorities and perspectives experienced in the implementation of SUDS. Recommendations are presented to aid the understanding of intercultural divergences between planning offices and public priorities in an effort to better engage the public and build consensus.

Prevalence of Prohibited Questions during Plastic Surgery Residency Interviews.

An anonymous 16-question REDCap survey was distributed to 2022 cycle applicants of a single PRS program. The applicants were queried about demographic information, interview experience, and questions deemed illegal by the AAMC/NRMP guidelines. One hundred survey responses were attained for a 33.1% response rate. The majority of respondents were aged 26-30 (76%), women (53%), and white (53%); 33% received 15+ interviews for the application cycle. Seventy-eight percent of respondents reported being asked a prohibited question during at least one interview, with the most common "illegal" question categories being number/ranking of interviews (42%), marital status (33%), career balance (25%), and race/ethnicity (22%). Only 25.6% of applicants considered the subject matter inappropriate, whereas 42.3% were unsure. Although no applicant took action to report the potentially illegal scenarios, 30% said that their experiences influenced their rank list. Our survey study revealed that prohibited interview questions in PRS residency interviews are common. Permissible lines of questioning and discussion between programs and applicants during residency interviews have been defined by AAMC. Institutions should provide guidance and training to all participants. Applicants should be made aware of and empowered to utilize available anonymous reporting tools.

Reply to comment on “Evaluation of pharmacy residency recruitment and interview processes during the COVID‐19 pandemic”

JACCP: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACYVolume 6, Issue 6 p. 655-656 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Reply to comment on “Evaluation of pharmacy residency recruitment and interview processes during the COVID-19 pandemic” Kayla R. Stover Pharm.D., FCCP, Corresponding Author Kayla R. Stover Pharm.D., FCCP [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-8635-0137 University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, Jackson, Mississippi, USA Correspondence Kayla R. Stover, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, 2500 North State Street, Jackson, MS 39216, USA. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorDavid A. Cretella Pharm.D., David A. Cretella Pharm.D. University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USASearch for more papers by this authorKatie E. Barber Pharm.D., Katie E. Barber Pharm.D. University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, Jackson, Mississippi, USASearch for more papers by this authorJamie L. Wagner Pharm.D., Jamie L. Wagner Pharm.D. orcid.org/0000-0002-6006-7894 University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, Jackson, Mississippi, USASearch for more papers by this authorMary Joyce B. Wingler Pharm.D., Mary Joyce B. Wingler Pharm.D. University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USASearch for more papers by this author Kayla R. Stover Pharm.D., FCCP, Corresponding Author Kayla R. Stover Pharm.D., FCCP [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-8635-0137 University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, Jackson, Mississippi, USA Correspondence Kayla R. Stover, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, 2500 North State Street, Jackson, MS 39216, USA. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorDavid A. Cretella Pharm.D., David A. Cretella Pharm.D. University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USASearch for more papers by this authorKatie E. Barber Pharm.D., Katie E. Barber Pharm.D. University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, Jackson, Mississippi, USASearch for more papers by this authorJamie L. Wagner Pharm.D., Jamie L. Wagner Pharm.D. orcid.org/0000-0002-6006-7894 University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, Jackson, Mississippi, USASearch for more papers by this authorMary Joyce B. Wingler Pharm.D., Mary Joyce B. Wingler Pharm.D. University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 07 June 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/jac5.1824Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. REFERENCES 1Kulawiak J, Hovey S, Ohler K. Comment on “Evaluation of pharmacy residency recruitment and interview processes during the COVID-19 pandemic”. J Am Coll Clin Pharm. 2023; 6: 654. 2Wingler MJB, Cretella DA, Wagner JL, Barber KE, Bookstaver PB, Freeman L, et al. Evaluation of pharmacy residency recruitment and interview processes during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021 application cycle). J Am Coll Clin Pharm. 2023; 6(3): 241– 51. https://doi.org/10.1002/jac5.1684 3Beechinor RJ, Eche IM, Edmonds N, Mordino J, Serafin H, Roller L, et al. Perceptions of a virtual interview process for pharmacy residents during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multisite survey of residency candidates, preceptors, and residency program directors. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2022; 79(16): 1385– 92. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxac130 4Hovey SW, Arif SA, Khan AM, Hyderi AF, Varughese C, Peksa GD, et al. More than a buzz word: building diversity, equity, and inclusion into pharmacy residency recruitment. J Am Coll Clin Pharm. 2023; 6: 154– 64. https://doi.org/10.1002/jac.5.1716 5Grace AJ, Teigen K, Buck K, Clark MS, Seavey A, Brennan J, et al. Evaluating changes in family medicine applicant characteristics following the onset of virtual interviewing. Fam Med. 2022; 54(10): 791– 7. https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2022.625652 6Alexandraki I, Ismail N, Lai CJ, Duca NS, Ratcliffe T, Kisielewski M, et al. Medical student advising during virtual residency recruitment: results of a national survey of internal medicine clerkship and sub-internship directors. Med Educ Online. 2023; 28(1):2143926. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2143926 7Carmody JB, Rosman IS, Carlson JC. Application fever: reviewing the causes, costs, and cures for residency application inflation. Cureus. 2021; 13(3):e13804. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.13804 8Stewart DW, Neumeister JR. What we learned in the pandemic about graduate teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2021 Available from: https://www.chronicle.com/article/what-we-learned-in-the-pandemic-about-graduate-training 9 ASHP Match Statistics. ASHP Match. 2023 Available from: https://natmatch.com/ashprmp/stats.html Volume6, Issue6June 2023Pages 655-656 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Comment on “Evaluation of pharmacy residency recruitment and interview processes during the COVID‐19 pandemic”

JACCP: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACYVolume 6, Issue 6 p. 654-654 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Comment on “Evaluation of pharmacy residency recruitment and interview processes during the COVID-19 pandemic” Jessica Kulawiak Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Jessica Kulawiak Pharm.D. [email protected] Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA Correspondence Jessica Kulawiak, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60612-3801, USA. Email: jessicakul[email protected]Search for more papers by this authorSara Hovey Pharm.D., Sara Hovey Pharm.D. orcid.org/0000-0002-1438-3247 University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USASearch for more papers by this authorKirsten Ohler Pharm.D., FCCP, Kirsten Ohler Pharm.D., FCCP orcid.org/0000-0002-9984-9754 University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USASearch for more papers by this author Jessica Kulawiak Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Jessica Kulawiak Pharm.D. [email protected] Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA Correspondence Jessica Kulawiak, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60612-3801, USA. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorSara Hovey Pharm.D., Sara Hovey Pharm.D. orcid.org/0000-0002-1438-3247 University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USASearch for more papers by this authorKirsten Ohler Pharm.D., FCCP, Kirsten Ohler Pharm.D., FCCP orcid.org/0000-0002-9984-9754 University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 07 June 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/jac5.1825Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. REFERENCES 1Wingler MJB, Cretella DA, Wagner JL, Barber KE, Bookstaver PB, Freeman L, et al. Evaluation of pharmacy residency recruitment and interview processes during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021 application cycle). J Am Coll Clin Pharm. 2023; 6(3): 241– 51. https://doi.org/10.1002/jac5.1684 2Beechinor RJ, Eche IM, Edmonds N, Mordino J, Serafin H, Roller L, et al. Perceptions of a virtual interview process for pharmacy residents during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multisite survey of residency candidates, preceptors, and residency program directors. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2022; 79(16): 1385– 92. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxac130 3Hovey SW, Arif SA, Khan AM, Hyderi AF, Varughese C, Peksa GD, et al. More than a buzz word: building diversity, equity, and inclusion into pharmacy residency recruitment. J Am Coll Clin Pharm. 2023; 6: 154– 64. https://doi.org/10.1002/jac.5.1716 4Fischetti BS, Ciaramella C, Kim EM, Papamanolis IC. Evaluation of the use of social media and virtual meeting platforms in the pursuit of pharmacy residency training. J Pharm Pract. 2022. [Online ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1177/08971900221088806 5Breitkopf D, Albold C, Barlow J, Bellamkonda V, Dorcent C, Sadosty A, et al. Virtual residency recruitment: future directions in the new era. Ann Med. 2022; 54(1): 3342– 8. https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2022.2148732 Volume6, Issue6June 2023Pages 654-654 ReferencesRelatedInformation

The Everlasting Effects of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Residency Match

The Everlasting Effects of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Residency Match

Successful virtual interviews for surgery residents

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted in surgical residency and fellowship interviews shifting to a virtual, web-based format. Although virtual interviews have important benefits, this change also brought about new challenges for applicants, including a new interview etiquette and potential difficulty in evaluating and discriminating between programs. The aim of this article is to provide applicants with guidance for every step of their interview process so that they can confidently put forth their strongest performance.Preparing for effective virtual interviewing begins long before the interview day and involves critical self-reflection, practice with mock interviews, optimizing the interview environment, and conducting a technology trial run. During the interview day, standard interview advice for face-to-face interviews remains true for virtual interviews. However, there are a few additional considerations, including minimizing distractions, muting oneself in a group setting, and turning off the camera when stepping away from the screen. After the interview, there are several ways for applicants to elicit more information about the “fit” of different programs of interest. We recommend leveraging personal relationships to ask additional questions and consider visiting select programs in person, if possible. Although our recommendations are not exhaustive, we hope that by following these virtual interview best practices, applicants will be more prepared to present themselves strongly and successfully navigate the virtual interview process.