Allam J Shirine, Burkart Kristin M, Çoruh Başak, Lee May, Hinkle Laura, Kreider Maryl, Tatem Geneva, Witt Chad, Ashton Rendell W, Huie Tristan, Moulton Bart, Awerbuch Elizabeth, Bosslet Gabriel T
Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta Georgia.
Department of Medicine, Columbia University, New York, New York.
ATS Sch. 2022 Jan 6;3(1):76-86. doi: 10.34197/ats-scholar.2021-0076OC. eCollection 2022 Mar.
Because of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, graduate medical education programs adopted virtual interviews (VIs) as the default modality for the 2020 recruitment season. It is unknown whether VIs allowed applicants to effectively evaluate programs, and the best interview format for the future is unclear.
To ) assess pulmonary and critical care applicants' perceived ability to evaluate programs using VIs, ) determine the attitudes of applicants toward the components of VIs, and ) identify applicants' preferences for the future fellowship interview format.
After the National Residency Matching Program medical subspecialty match, an electronic survey was sent to 1,067 applicants to pulmonary and critical care medicine programs asking them to compare their fellowship VI experience with their residency in-person interview (IPI) experience.
Three hundred six (29%) applicants responded to the survey, and 289 completed it (27%). There were 117 (40%) women and 146 (51%) White individuals. Most respondents believed that VIs hindered their ability to evaluate programs' culture, faculty-fellow relationships, location, facilities, and their own fit within the program. They believed they were able to evaluate the clinical experience, curriculum, and potential for academic development equally well compared with IPIs. The most helpful elements of VIs were the interview with the program director, meetings with the fellows, and interviews with faculty members. Less helpful elements included conference access, prerecorded program director presentations, virtual hospital and city tours, and video testimonials. One hundred twenty-three respondents (43%) chose VIs with an optional visit as their preferred future interview format, 85 (29%) chose IPIs, 54 (19%) wanted a choice between VIs and IPIs, and 27 (9%) chose VIs only.
Most pulmonary and critical care medicine applicants preferred future interviews to include both VIs and the option of an in-person visit or interview. This study can assist programs in designing their future interview formats in a trainee-centric fashion.
由于冠状病毒病（COVID-19）大流行，毕业后医学教育项目在2020年招聘季将虚拟面试（VI）作为默认方式。目前尚不清楚虚拟面试是否能让申请者有效评估项目，且未来最佳面试形式也不明确。
1）评估肺科和重症医学申请者对使用虚拟面试评估项目的感知能力；2）确定申请者对虚拟面试各组成部分的态度；3）明确申请者对未来专科 fellowship 面试形式的偏好。
在全国住院医师匹配项目医学亚专科匹配结束后，向1067名申请肺科和重症医学项目的申请者发送了电子调查问卷，要求他们将专科 fellowship 虚拟面试经历与住院医师现场面试（IPI）经历进行比较。
306名（29%）申请者回复了调查，289名（27%）完成了调查。其中有117名（40%）女性和146名（51%）白人。大多数受访者认为虚拟面试妨碍了他们评估项目文化、师生关系、地点、设施以及自身与项目契合度的能力。他们认为与现场面试相比，自己能够同样有效地评估临床经验、课程设置和学术发展潜力。虚拟面试最有帮助的部分是与项目主任的面试、与专科住院医师的会面以及与教员的面试。帮助较小的部分包括会议参与机会、项目主任的预录制演示、虚拟医院和城市游览以及视频推荐。123名受访者（43%）选择带有可选实地参观的虚拟面试作为他们未来首选的面试形式，85名（29%）选择现场面试，54名（19%）希望可以在虚拟面试和现场面试之间进行选择，27名（9%）仅选择虚拟面试。
大多数肺科和重症医学申请者希望未来的面试同时包括虚拟面试以及现场参观或面试的选项。本研究可帮助项目以学员为中心设计未来的面试形式。
