To Post or Not to Post: Does Applicants’ Social Media Affect Family Medicine Resident Recruitment?

Background and Objectives: Current literature on review of applicant social media (SoMe) content for resident recruitment is scarce. With the recent increase in the use of privacy settings, and the cost of the recruitment process, the aim of this study was to describe the practice and outcomes of review of applicant SoMe in resident recruitment and its association with program director or program characteristics. Methods: This study was part of the 2020 Council of Academic Family Medicine’s Educational Research Alliance (CERA) annual survey of family medicine residency program directors (PDs) in the United States. Results: The overall response rate for the survey was 39.8% (249/626). About 40% of PDs reported reviewing applicant SoMe content. The majority (88.9%) of programs did not inform applicants of their SoMe review practices. The most common findings of SoMe review were that the content raised no concerns (38/94; 40.4%) or was consistent with the application material (34/94; 36.2%). Forty PDs (17.0%) have ever moved an applicant up or down the rank list based on SoMe review. Review of applicant SoMe was not statistically associated with program size, program type, PD age, PD SoMe use, or program SoMe use. Conclusions: SoMe review has not become routine practice in family medicine resident recruitment. The outcome of SoMe review was mostly consistent with the applicant profile without any concerns and only very few changed the ranking order. This calls for more studies to explore the value of SoMe review for resident selection regarding its effect on future performance.

The Virtual Interview Experience for MATCH 2021: A Pilot Survey of General Surgery Residency Program Directors

Background Virtual interviews (VIs) for the 2020 residency application season were mandated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to determine the perspectives of general surgery (GS) program directors (PDs) on the benefits and drawbacks of VIs. Methods A 14-item survey was emailed to all GS PDs from programs identified on the American Council for Graduate Medical Education website. Program directors were asked about the cost-time benefit of VIs, its ability to assess candidates, and their thoughts on the future of VIs for evaluating residency applicants. Results 60 PDs responded corresponding to a response rate of 21%. While 93% agreed/strongly agreed that VIs were less expensive, only 35% found VIs to be less time-consuming. 75% and 67%, respectively, disagreed/strongly disagreed that VIs allowed for an easier assessment of an applicant’s fit, and personality and communication skills. Almost one-half of our survey respondents suggested that VIs made the selection committee rely more heavily on objective applicant data. Almost two-thirds of GS PDs suggested that they would adopt both VI and in-person interview formats for future application cycles. The median [interquartile range] cost saved through the implementation of VIs was US$ 4500 [1625 – 10 000]. Conclusion Remarkably, VIs have been swiftly imbibed by all residency programs and many aspects of the VI experience were positive. While MATCH 2021 has definitely proved to be one of its kind, the implementation of VIs has been met with overall broad success and a promising future awaits this novel modality of resident selection to GME programs in the United States.

Systems-Level Reforms to the US Resident Selection Process: A Scoping Review

ABSTRACT Background Calls to reform the US resident selection process are growing, given increasing competition and inefficiencies of the current system. Though numerous reforms have been proposed, they have not been comprehensively cataloged. Objective This scoping review was conducted to characterize and categorize literature proposing systems-level reforms to the resident selection process. Methods Following Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, searches of Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were performed for references published from January 2005 to February 2020. Articles were included if they proposed reforms that were applicable or generalizable to all applicants, medical schools, or residency programs. An inductive approach to qualitative content analysis was used to generate codes and higher-order categories. Results Of 10 407 unique references screened, 116 met our inclusion criteria. Qualitative analysis generated 34 codes that were grouped into 14 categories according to the broad stages of resident selection: application submission, application review, interviews, and the Match. The most commonly proposed reforms were implementation of an application cap (n = 28), creation of a standardized program database (n = 21), utilization of standardized letters of evaluation (n = 20), and pre-interview screening (n = 13). Conclusions This scoping review collated and categorized proposed reforms to the resident selection process, developing a common language and framework to facilitate national conversations and change.

Association Between Internal Medicine Residency Applicant Characteristics and Performance on ACGME Milestones During Intern Year

ABSTRACT Background Residency programs apply varying criteria to the resident selection process. However, it is unclear which applicant characteristics reflect preparedness for residency. Objective We determined the applicant characteristics associated with first-year performance in internal medicine residency as assessed by performance on Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones. Methods We examined the association between applicant characteristics and performance on ACGME Milestones during intern year for individuals entering Northwestern University's internal medicine residency between 2013 and 2018. We used bivariate analysis and a multivariable linear regression model to determine the association between individual factors and Milestone performance. Results Of 203 eligible residents, 198 (98%) were included in the final sample. One hundred fourteen residents (58%) were female, and 116 residents (59%) were White. Mean Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores were 245.5 (SD 12.0) and 258 (SD 10.8) respectively. Step 1 scores, Alpha Omega Alpha membership, medicine clerkship grades, and interview scores were not associated with Milestone performance in the bivariate analysis and were not included in the multivariable model. In the multivariable model, overall clerkship grades, ranking of the medical school, and year entering residency were significantly associated with Milestone performance (P ≤ .04). Conclusions Most traditional metrics used in residency selection were not associated with early performance on ACGME Milestones during internal medicine residency.