medical students, residents, fellows, and attendings.
Several research studies have been
conducted on feasibility of videoconferencing
as an option for interviews. From the perspective
of the applicant, virtual interviews
allowed for more interview opportunities and
reduced costs. In one study, 85% of applicants
believed videoconference interviews
gave them satisfactory understanding of
the fellowship and 81% felt comfortable
ranking the program after videoconference
interviews alone. When considering impact
on rank, Vadi et al. found that the choice of
interview (virtual or in person) did not aff ect
the rate of applicant admission to an anesthesiology
residency.
Virtual interviewing presents many potential
benefi ts to applicants and fellowship
programs. The most immediate of these is the
safety of those participating in the interviews.
Virtual recruiting allows applicants and
faculty to maintain social distance in their
homes and offi ces and eliminates the need
for travel. Another prominent benefi t is costs
saved by both applicants and programs. By
conducting a literature review of past costs
of fellowship interviews, Tseng determined
applicants saved approximately $6,000
in travel expenses. It has also been noted
that virtual recruiting eliminates the cost of
providing food and drink for the programs8.
Additionally, with the elimination of travel,
residents are required to take less time off
from their programs9. Applicants also noted
time saved as a signifi cant advantage to
virtual interviews. This is an especially important
consideration in a time when much is
required of medical professionals.
In this survey, faculty and applicants felt the
virtual interview day was easy to schedule.
A concern in the virtual format has been
whether a connection is made between the
interviewer and the applicant, and this has
proven to be possible even though they are
not in person.
In this survey, the majority of faculty and
applicants felt they were able to connect
with one another. Additionally, the majority
of faculty respondents did not fi nd it diffi cult
to make eye contact in the virtual interview.
Most applicants to this institution were able
to gain enough information to rank the program,
which is the ultimate goal of interviews.
In another survey by Vining et al., the vast
majority of applicants to a surgical fellowship
(93%) were comfortable asking questions
during the virtual interview10. Additionally, all
of the applicants affi rmed having a “good” or
“very good” knowledge of the program after
virtual interview day10. Similarly, faculty of this
institution felt they were still able to appropriately
rank the applicants interviewed in the
virtual setting.
While virtual recruiting has proven to be
possible, there are some aspects of in-person
interviewing that cannot be replaced.
Most importantly, applicants report missing
the observations of live interactions.
The respondents to Vining et al. reported
that they lacked an understanding of how
faculty interact with each other, fellows,
and other staff 10. Applicants in this survey
commented that the level of personalization
in live interviews could not be achieved
in virtual interviews. It
was specifi cally noted
the virtual format felt
overly formalized and
cannot exactly replace
an in-person conversation.
Perhaps the
most prevalent defi cit
of virtual recruiting is
the inability for applicants
to experience
a program’s hospitals
and location. This was
noted by applicants to
this institution as well
as in the research10.
Molina et al. noted fellows
at that institution
attempted to navigate this hurdle by creating
a video tour of the program’s hospitals.
However, it was also noted that attrition rates
may increase if these virtual experiences do
not match the live experience of the training
program8. While the time saved in virtual interviewing
16 | DALLAS MEDICAL JOURNAL • March 2022
greatly benefi ts applicants, Tseng
notes that the preparation for virtual interviews
may require a greater time investment
for programs. Programs may spend greater
amounts of time troubleshooting and training
faculty on the virtual platform9. Similarly, faculty
response to this survey noted a concern
that they lacked profi ciency in the virtual
interview platform and the eff ect this may
have had on the interviews. Though these
defi cits do not appear to aff ect the effi cacy
of virtual interviewing, the response to this
survey indicates most applicants and faculty
prefer in-person interviews or a combination
of both styles.
There are several strengths to this study. At
the time this study was performed, there were
no studies on applicants’ and programs’ preferences
for virtual interviews for PEM fellowship.
The survey was conducted anonymously
at the end of recruitment season, but before
Match Results, to increase response rate from
both applicants and faculty members and
decrease bias.
There are several limitations to this study.
The data collected is only from 1 institution’s
applicants and faculty, which may not be
generalizable to other programs. Surveys
were utilized to obtain information from
applicants and faculty members, which
also have several limitations – one being a
response bias, as those who had stronger
opinions were more likely to respond. Since
the surveys were sent at the end of recruitment
season, a recall bias was introduced
as participants needed to remember an
interview from a few months prior.
Conclusions
In conclusion, virtual interviews are a viable
and eff ective option for PEM fellow
interviews, but not preferred by applicants or
faculty. Most faculty and students reported
they were able to form a connection with the
other person and left informed enough to
comfortably rank the program or interviewee,
respectively. To support viability, it is also
important to note Vadi et al.’s fi nding that
interview type did not appear to aff ect the
likelihood of acceptance7. Virtual interviews
were also largely viewed as more convenient
for both parties due to savings of time and
money. The overall theme of the criticism
of virtual interviewing is that an in-person
experience is diffi cult to replicate and, when
possible, in-person interactions are integral
to interviewing. From the perspective of the
applicants, it is most important to note that,
while virtual tours are helpful, they cannot
adequately replicate the experience and
atmosphere of a program. Being able to observe
the interactions among faculty, fellows,
and their environment is lost in the virtual setting.
Within the interviews themselves, there
is a valuable closeness or personalization to
in-person interactions that is not achieved
virtually, setting in-person interviewing apart
from its alternative. DMJ
Author Affi liations: Lyndsey van der Laan, MD, MPH, Fellow,
Pediatric Emergency Medicine Fellowship Program, Department
of Pediatrics, UT Southwestern Medical Center/Children’s
Medical Center, 1935 Medical District Drive, Dallas, TX 75235;
Hailee Browne, BS, Medical Student, UT Southwestern Medical
Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75390; Kenneth
Yen, MD, MS, Associate Professor, Division of Pediatric Emergency
Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, UT Southwestern Medical
Center/ Children’s Medical Center, 1935 Medical District Drive,
Dallas, TX 75235; Sing-Yi Feng, MD, Associate Professor, Division
of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics,
UT Southwestern Medical Center/Children’s Medical Center,
1935 Medical District Drive, Dallas, TX 75235; Jo-Ann O. Nesiama,
MD, MS, Associate Professor, Division of Pediatric Emergency
Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, UT Southwestern Medical
Center/Children’s Medical Center, 1935 Medical District Drive,
Dallas, TX 75235
References:
NRMP Results and Data Specialties Matching. 2020; https:/
mk0nrmp3oyqui6wqfm.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/
uploads/2020/02/Results-and-Data-SMS-2020.pdf. Accessed
May 21, 2020.
Results of the 2016 NRMP Program Director Survey Specialties
Matching Service. 2016; https:/mk0nrmp3oyqui6wqfm.
kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2016-PD-Survey-
Report-SMS.pdf. Accessed May 21, 2020.
Daram SR, Wu R, Tang SJ. Interview from anywhere: feasibility
and utility of web-based videoconference interviews in
the gastroenterology fellowship selection process. Am J
Gastroenterol. Feb 2014;109(2):155-9. doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.278
Allen M, Sargeant J, MacDougall E, Proctor-Simms M.
Videoconferencing for continuing medical education: from
pilot project to sustained programme. J Telemed Telecare.
2002;8(3):131-137.
Pasadhika S, Altenbernd T, Ober RR, Harvey EM, Miller JM.
Residency interview video conferencing. Ophthalmology. Feb
2012;119(2):426-426 e425.
Williams K, Kling JM, Labonte HR, Blair JE. Videoconference
Interviewing: Tips for Success. J Grad Med Educ. Sep
2015;7(3):331-3. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-14-00507.1
Vadi MG, Malkin MR, Lenart J, Stier GR, Gatling JW, Applegate
RL, 2nd. Comparison of web-based and face-to-face interviews
for application to an anesthesiology training program: a
pilot study. Int J Med Educ. Apr 3 2016;7:102-8. doi:10.5116/
ijme.56e5.491a
Molina G, Mehtsun WT, Qadan M, Hause KC, Raut CP,
Fairweather M. Virtual Interviews for the Complex General
Surgical Oncology Fellowship: The Dana-Farber/Partners
Experience. Ann Surg Oncol. Sep 2020;27(9):3103-3106.
doi:10.1245/s10434-020-08778-y
Tseng J. How Has COVID-19 Aff ected the Costs of the
Surgical Fellowship Interview Process? J Surg Educ. Sep-Oct
2020;77(5):999-1004. doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.05.018
Vining CC, Eng OS, Hogg ME, et al. Virtual Surgical Fellowship
Recruitment During COVID-19 and Its Implications for Resident/
Fellow Recruitment in the Future. Ann Surg Oncol. Dec
2020;27(Suppl 3):911-915. doi:10.1245/s10434-020-08623-2