Nicole M Chandler1, Cristen N Litz2, Henry L Chang2, Paul D Danielson2. 1. Division of Pediatric Surgery, Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, Saint Petersburg, Florida. Electronic address: Nicole.Chandler@jhmi.edu. 2. Division of Pediatric Surgery, Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, Saint Petersburg, Florida.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The pediatric surgery match is highly competitive with the interview process requiring significant resources. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of videoconference interviewing (VI) as a screening tool in the pediatric surgery match process. METHODS: During the 2017 interview season, applicants participated in VI prior to on-site interviews. Applicants and faculty completed 15 and 8-question surveys, respectively, regarding their experiences. RESULTS: Both faculty and applicants agreed VI was easily workable and allowed them to accurately represent themselves. Faculty agreed VI would change how they rank candidates and that it is a helpful screening tool. Most disagreed VI could substitute for on-site interviews. Most applicants reported the cost and time required for on-site interviews was a hardship. Overall, applicants moved an average of 5.5 ± 2.9 (median 3) positions from the pre-VI to post-VI rank list. Thirty-seven percent of applicants moved out of the top ten rank list following VI. Of the lowest 5 applicants on the post-VI rank list, only 20% matched successfully. CONCLUSION: The pediatric surgery match requires a significant investment of time and money that creates a hardship for most applicants. VI may be an effective screening tool that could potentially reduce on-site interviews and alleviate the burden on applicants and general surgery training programs.
PURPOSE: The pediatric surgery match is highly competitive with the interview process requiring significant resources. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of videoconference interviewing (VI) as a screening tool in the pediatric surgery match process. METHODS: During the 2017 interview season, applicants participated in VI prior to on-site interviews. Applicants and faculty completed 15 and 8-question surveys, respectively, regarding their experiences. RESULTS: Both faculty and applicants agreed VI was easily workable and allowed them to accurately represent themselves. Faculty agreed VI would change how they rank candidates and that it is a helpful screening tool. Most disagreed VI could substitute for on-site interviews. Most applicants reported the cost and time required for on-site interviews was a hardship. Overall, applicants moved an average of 5.5 ± 2.9 (median 3) positions from the pre-VI to post-VI rank list. Thirty-seven percent of applicants moved out of the top ten rank list following VI. Of the lowest 5 applicants on the post-VI rank list, only 20% matched successfully. CONCLUSION: The pediatric surgery match requires a significant investment of time and money that creates a hardship for most applicants. VI may be an effective screening tool that could potentially reduce on-site interviews and alleviate the burden on applicants and general surgery training programs.
Keywords:
Interpersonal and Communication Skills; Professionalism; Systems-Based Practice; interview burden; match application; pediatric surgery fellowship; pediatric surgery match; video interview
Authors: Charles C Vining; Oliver S Eng; Melissa E Hogg; Darryl Schuitevoerder; Rebecca S Silverman; Katharine A Yao; David J Winchester; Kevin K Roggin; Mark S Talamonti; Mitchell C Posner; Kiran K Turaga; Jennifer Tseng Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Roi Anteby; Robert D Sinyard; Kristen M Jogerst; Sophia K McKinley; Taylor M Coe; Emil Petrusa; Roy Phitayakorn; Daniel J Scott; L Michael Brunt; Denise W Gee Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Benjamin A Sarac; Abra H Shen; Amer H Nassar; Amy M Maselli; Eric Shiah; Samuel J Lin; Jeffrey E Janis Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2021-07-27
Authors: Ta Chen Chang; Elizabeth A Hodapp; Richard K Parrish; Alana L Grajewski; Steven J Gedde; Richard K Lee; Sarah R Wellik; Anna K Junk; Luis Vazquez; Swarup S Swaminathan; Elena Bitrian; Adam L Rothman; Elizabeth A Vanner Journal: Res Sq Date: 2021-04-23
Authors: Jared W Feinman; Monique L Roberts; Lourdes Al-Ghofaily; Adam Adenwala; John G Augoustides Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 2.628