No abstract

No abstract

Importance In-person interviews have traditionally been considered a crucial component of the residency application process. Virtual interviews (VIs) became the standard format for the 2020 to 2021 application cycle due to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. VIs offer a new perspective and challenge to this process which warrants unique considerations and further understanding of effects on applicants. Objective This study aimed to assess the perceived efficacy of a VI preparedness exercise for ophthalmology residency applicants in the 2021 residency application cycle. Design, Setting, and Participants A cross-sectional survey was distributed online. All participants in a mock VI exercise conducted via video-telecommunication technology were invited to complete the survey. Data collection occurred from October 12, 2020, to November 2, 2020. A follow-up survey after a match results released was distributed to all participants and data collection occurred from February 18, 2021, to February 25, 2021. Main Outcome and Measures Applicant demographics, comfort, and attitudes toward VIs and VI practice were the primary measurements of this study. Results Responses to the initial survey were received from all 35 participants (100%) in the VI mock interviews. There was a statistically significant difference between the pre- and postinterview responses for “How prepared do you feel for virtual interviews with residency programs?” (p = 0.0003) and “How likely are you to practice virtual interviews with someone you know?” (p = 0.0023). Participants reported feeling more prepared for VIs with residency programs after the mock interview (p = 0.002). A greater proportion of participants responded with “Very Likely” after the mock interview in comparison to before the interview to the questions “How likely are you to practice interviews with someone you know?” (p = 0.039) and “How likely are you to practice virtual interviews in the same room/area as you will during the official interview season?” (p = 0.021). Of the 35 original participants, 20 completed the follow-up survey. There were an equal number of participants who responded either “Helped Somewhat” (n = 9) or “Helped Greatly” (n = 9) to “How much did the VI mock exercise help you for the actual interview season?” in the follow-up survey. The majority of follow-up survey respondents (17/20) reported that they had additional practice in the virtual environment for interviews after the VI mock exercise. There was no significant difference in perceived helpfulness of the VI mock exercise during the actual interview season between matched and unmatched participants. Conclusion and Relevance As residency applicants prepare for future VIs, practice and adequate preparation will be essential. In this study, implementation of a VI preparedness exercise had a positive impact on applicants' perception of their preparedness and intention to practice the format in the future.

Background Medical students are applying to dramatically more ophthalmology residency programs than in the past, causing an increased administrative burden for programs and financial harm to students. This study considers the background of this situation and looks at how a lack of transparency surrounding potential residency match filters contributes. Furthermore, this study raises several potential solutions to this lack of transparency that may increase the functionality of the ophthalmology residency match. Objective The purpose of this study was to determine the availability and consistency of potential ophthalmology residency match filters through training program websites and the American Medical Association’s (AMA) Residency & Fellowship Database (FREIDA). Methods This study was a cross-sectional observational study of ophthalmology residency program websites and AMA's FREIDA database entries. For 119 ophthalmology residency programs, five potential filters were evaluated for both availability and consistency on individual residency websites and FREIDA. These filters were: (1) whether a program required a minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score; (2) minimum number of letters of recommendation required; 3) whether a minimum USMLE Step 2 score was required; (4) if the program accepts the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) sequence in lieu of the USMLE; and (5) ability of the residency to sponsor a visa (J-1, H-1B, or F-1). Each program's website and FREIDA entry were independently evaluated by two authors to increase validity, with a third author brought in to break the tie in case of a disagreement. Results Only two ophthalmology residency programs had information about all five filters both available and consistent on their website and FREIDA. Inter-reviewer reliability was 92.5%. Conclusions Information about potential filters used in the ophthalmology residency match is neither publicly available nor consistent. This lack of transparency may contribute to the phenomenon of medical students applying to dramatically more ophthalmology residency programs. A standardized database of these filters is needed to increase transparency to applicants, which may reduce the expenses of medical students and the workload of program directors.