Initial Experiences With a 2-Stage Residency Interview Process

Background A drawback to interviews having largely become virtual is candidates' difficulty sensing a program's fit. Programs have offered nonevaluative second looks to address this. There is concern that in-person contact with candidates would still indirectly contribute to a candidate's evaluation. Objective We describe implementing an alternative interview structure to incorporate the benefits of virtual and in-person interviews, and describe preliminary feasibility and acceptability data. Methods Our general surgery program selection process for the 2022-2023 application cycle included a first phase of holistic review and a second phase of interviews. The second phase had a first round of virtual interviews, then a second round of in-person interviews (with a virtual option). Only scores from the second interview were used in ranking. Prior to the Match, applicants and faculty were surveyed about the process. Results All 1175 applications to the program were reviewed. Of those, 190 (16.2%) were invited to interview virtually; 188 of 190 (98.9%) completed the virtual interview. Eighty-two of 188 (43.6%) were invited for a second interview; 69 of 82 (84.1%) chose to interview in-person, and 13 of 82 (15.9%) interviewed virtually. Sixty-eight of 188 (36.2%) applicants responded to the survey. Sixty-three of 68 (92.6%) agreed the 2-stage interview process was fair, and 51 of 68 (75%) felt that nonevaluative second looks were not truly nonevaluative. Fifteen faculty spent 3 hours over 6 weeks in holistic review. Twenty-four faculty completed 6 days of interviews, each spending 2.5 to 3 hours per day. Twelve of 24 faculty (50%) responded to their survey, with all 12 stating they would participate again. Conclusions A process of first-round virtual and second-round in-person interviews was feasible and perceived by applicants to be fair and beneficial.