RESEARCH
PEDIATRIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE
FELLOWSHIP RECRUITMENT PROCESS
IS VIRTUAL INTERVIEWING THE FUTURE?
By Lyndsey Van der Laan, MPH, MD, Hailee Browne, BS,
Kenneth Yen, MD, MS, Sing-Yi Feng, MD, and Jo-Ann Nesiama, MD, MS
March 2022 • DALLAS MEDICAL JOURNAL | 15
Pediatric Emergency
Eedicine (PEM) fellowships
have become one
of the most competitive
pediatric subspecialties
over the recent years.
During the 2019-2020 interview
season, there were 81 fellowship
programs off ering 199 fellowship
positions in the match. Two hundred
and fi fty-three applicants
applied to fi ll these positions,
compared with only 200 in the
2016 match year. As part of the
selection process, programs off er
interviews to eligible applicants.
These have traditionally been
in-person interviews in which the
applicants are interviewed by
multiple faculty members, interact
with current fellows, and are
given a tour of the hospital.
Research has shown that
traditional in-person interviews
are limited by geographic,
fi nancial, and scheduling constraints.
Most research in the
past has used a combination
of in-person interviews/tours
and virtual interviews, but none
have converted to only virtual
interviews alone. In the setting
of a global pandemic with
COVID-19, PEM programs opted
to off er virtual interviews during
the 2020-2021 interview season
to protect their faculty and staff
and the applicants. However, it
was not well understood how to
conduct eff ective interviews for
both programs and applicants
to make their selections.
The goal of this study was to
provide insight into feasibility of
virtual interviews as well as faculty
and applicant preferences for
virtual interviews in the future.
Institution Virtual
Interview: Before the
Interview
Applicants were notifi ed by
email via Electronic Residency
Application Service (ERAS) about
their invitation to interview.
Interview acceptance was also
by email via ERAS. After interview
dates were confi rmed, applicants
received instructions on
how to arrive at the program
website for more information
about the program. The program
website provides information
about the hospitals associated
with the program, information
on the surrounding area, program
requirements, and unique
assets of the program. Sections
on the website also detailed the
rotations fellows would complete
during their training and
information on the stipend and
benefi ts provided. Finally, applicants
were able to view the
profi les of current fellows as well
as their testimonials about the
program. Faculty participating
in the interviews were provided
how-to guides for running the
virtual conferencing platform.
They were also able to set up
practice rounds to better learn
how to navigate the platform.
The Interview Day
The virtual interview day
started with video tours of the
institution as well as a program
overview given by the program
director (PD) and associate
program director (APD). Each
applicant met faculty members
in ZoomTM breakout rooms for
25 minutes each with 5 minutes
between sessions. There were 2
separate sessions with current
fellows: 1 in the morning for 30
minutes and a lunch meeting for
45 minutes. A wrap-up session
with the PDs occurred at the end
of each interview day.
Methods
PEM fellowship program leaders
as well as PEM fellows developed
the surveys sent to PEM
faculty and fellow applicants.
IRB approval must be obtained
from an institution before survey
distribution. At the conclusion
of interview season and after
rank list submission, surveys were
sent to the institution’s applicants
and PEM faculty members
through RedCap™. Information
collected in the faculty survey
included thoughts and feelings
about virtual interviews and any
obstacles encountered. The applicant
survey obtained information
on ease of virtual interviews
and whether the applicants felt
they obtained the needed information
from virtual interviews to
make a program selection.
Results
A total of 45 applicants were
sent surveys, with a response of
40%. Applicants reported participating
in a mean of approximately
10 interviews during the
2020-2021 season. About 50%
of applicants reported technical
diffi culties during the virtual
interview, with the most common
diffi culties being connectivity
(44%) and hearing/seeing the
presenter (45%). The majority
(72.2%) of respondents agreed or
strongly agreed that they were
able to form a connection
with the interviewer. Importantly,
77.8% agreed or strongly
agreed that they gained
enough insight to rank the
program. The majority (67%) of
applicants preferred in-person
or a combination of in-person
and virtual interviews (see
Chart 1).
A total of 12 faculty were
sent the survey, with a 58%
response rate. Faculty participated
in approximately 19
interviews during the 2020-
2021 interview season. Importantly,
71.4% of faculty agreed
or strongly agreed that they
were able to connect with the
applicants and the majority
felt they were able to make eye
contact with the applicants.
The faculty felt virtual interviews
provided adequate information
to rank applicants, with 85.7%
agreeing or strongly agreeing to
this statement. The majority of
faculty (57%) preferred a combination
of virtual and in-person
interviews. None of the faculty
preferred solely virtual interviews
(see Chart 2).
Discussion
Videoconferencing has been
used by multiple subspecialties
to provide distant education to