Maureen V Hill1, Eric A Ross2, Derrick Crawford2, Lily Lai3, Kiran Turaga4, Elizabeth G Grubbs5, John Mullen6, Sean Dineen7, Michael D'Angelica8, Sanjay Reddy2, Jeffrey M Farma2. 1. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: Maureen.Hill@fccc.edu. 2. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA. 4. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 8. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID crisis hit during the interview season for the Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellowship. With minimal time to adapt, all programs transitioned to virtual interviews. Here we describe the experience of both program directors (PDs) and candidates with virtual interviews, and provide guidelines for implementation based on the results. METHODS: Surveys regarding interview day specifics and perceptions were created for CGSO fellowship PDs and candidates. They were distributed at the conclusion of the season, prior to match. RESULTS: Thirty (94%) PDs and 64 (79%) candidates responded. Eighty-three% of PDs and 79% of candidates agreed or strongly agreed that they felt comfortable creating a rank list. If given the choice, 60% of PDs and 45% of candidates would choose virtual interviews over in-person interviews. The majority of candidates found PD overviews, fellows only sessions and pre-interview materials helpful. CONCLUSION: Overall, the majority of PDs and candidates felt comfortable creating a rank list; however, more PDs preferred virtual interviews for the future. Our results also confirm key components of a virtual interview day.
BACKGROUND: The COVID crisis hit during the interview season for the Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellowship. With minimal time to adapt, all programs transitioned to virtual interviews. Here we describe the experience of both program directors (PDs) and candidates with virtual interviews, and provide guidelines for implementation based on the results. METHODS: Surveys regarding interview day specifics and perceptions were created for CGSO fellowship PDs and candidates. They were distributed at the conclusion of the season, prior to match. RESULTS: Thirty (94%) PDs and 64 (79%) candidates responded. Eighty-three% of PDs and 79% of candidates agreed or strongly agreed that they felt comfortable creating a rank list. If given the choice, 60% of PDs and 45% of candidates would choose virtual interviews over in-person interviews. The majority of candidates found PD overviews, fellows only sessions and pre-interview materials helpful. CONCLUSION: Overall, the majority of PDs and candidates felt comfortable creating a rank list; however, more PDs preferred virtual interviews for the future. Our results also confirm key components of a virtual interview day.
Authors: C Snitkjær; K K Jensen; N A Henriksen; M P Werge; N Kimer; L L Gluud; M W Christoffersen Journal: Hernia Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 4.739
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: Danica Rockney; Constance A Benson; Brian G Blackburn; Lisa M Chirch; Victoria J L Konold; Vera P Luther; Raymund R Razonable; Sean Tackett; Michael T Melia Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Matthew DiGiusto; Maria Concetta Lupa; Marco Corridore; Erica L Sivak; Justin L Lockman Journal: Paediatr Anaesth Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 2.129