Urology Residency Applications in the COVID-19 Era

被引:47
作者
Kenigsberg, Alexander P. [1 ]
Khouri, Roger K., Jr. [1 ]
Kuprasertkul, Amy [1 ]
Wong, Daniel [1 ]
Ganesan, Vishnu [1 ]
Lemack, Gary E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Southwestern Med Ctr Dallas, Dept Urol, Dallas, TX 75390 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.urology.2020.05.072
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE To evaluate urology applicants' opinions about the interview process during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS An anonymous survey was emailed to applicants to our institution from the 2019 and 2020 urology matches prior to issuance of professional organization guidelines. The survey inquired about attitudes toward the residency interview process in the era of COVID-19 and which interview elements could be replicated virtually. Descriptive statistics were utilized. RESULTS Eighty percent of urology applicants from the 2019 and 2020 matches received our survey. One hundred fifty-six people (24% of recipients) responded. Thirty-four percent preferred virtual interviews, while 41% in-person interviews at each program, and 25% regional/centralized interviews. Sixty-four percent said that interactions with residents (pre/postinterview social and informal time) were the most important interview day component and 81% said it could not be replicated virtually. Conversely, 81% believed faculty interviews could be replicated virtually. Eighty-seven percent believed that city visits could not be accomplished virtually. A plurality felt that away rotations and second-looks should be allowed (both 45%). COMMENT Applicants feel that faculty interviews can be replicated virtually, while resident interactions can-not. Steps such as a low-stakes second looks after programs submit rank lists (potentially extending this window) and small virtual encounters with residents could ease applicant concerns. CONCLUSION Applicants have concerns about changes to the match processes. Programs can adopt virtual best practices to address these issues. (c) 2020 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:55 / 61
页数:7
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]   The Role of Geography in the AUA Residency Match [J].
Anwar, Taha ;
Wakefield, Mark ;
Murray, Katie S. .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 203 (06) :1070-1071
[2]  
Association AU, UR RES MATCH STAT
[3]  
Association of American Medical Colleges, COR VLSO PROGR
[4]  
Association of American Medical Colleges, 2020, COND INT COR PAND
[5]  
Electronic Residency Application Service, 2020, ERAS 2021 RES TIM
[6]   Applicants' Perspectives of the Urology Residency Match Process [J].
Khouri, Roger K., Jr. ;
Joyner, Byron D. ;
Lemack, Gary E. .
UROLOGY PRACTICE, 2019, 6 (03) :185-189
[7]   The Urology Applicant: An Analysis of Contemporary Urology Residency Candidates [J].
Lebastchi, Amir H. ;
Khouri, Roger K., Jr. ;
McLaren, Ian D. ;
Faerber, Gary J. ;
Kraft, Kate H. ;
Hafez, Khaled S. ;
Dauw, Casey A. ;
Bird, Vincent G. ;
Stringer, Thomas F. ;
Singla, Jay K. ;
Sorensen, Mathew D. ;
Wessells, Hunter ;
Ambani, Sapan N. .
UROLOGY, 2018, 115 :51-58
[8]   The influence of quality-of-life, academic, and workplace factors on residency program selection [J].
Nuthalapaty, FS ;
Jackson, JR ;
Owen, J .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2004, 79 (05) :417-425
[9]  
Pagano Matthew J, 2016, Urol Pract, V3, P296, DOI 10.1016/j.urpr.2015.07.009
[10]  
Society of Academic Urologists, ISS ADDR APPL TRAIN