Search

Introduction: Virtual interviews (VI) are now a permanent part of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) recruitment, especially given the cost and equity advantages. Yet inability to visit programs in person can impact decision-making, leading applicants to apply to more programs. Moreover, the cost advantages of VI may encourage applicants to apply to programs farther away than they might otherwise have been willing or able to travel. This could create unnecessary strain on programs. We conducted this study to determine whether PEM fellowship applicants would apply to a larger number of programs and in different geographic patterns with VI (2020 and 2021) as compared to in-person interviews (2018 and 2019). Methods: We conducted an anonymous national survey of all PEM fellows comparing two cohorts: current fellows who interviewed inperson (applied in 2018/2019) and fellows who underwent VIs in 2020/ 2021 (current fellows and those recently matched in 2021). The study took place in March–April 2022. Questions focused on geographic considerations during interviews and the match. We used descriptive statistics, chi-square and t-tests for analysis. Results: Overall response rate was 42% (231/550); 32% (n = 74) interviewed in person and 68% (n = 157) virtually. Fellows applied to a median of 4/6 geographic regions (interquartile range 2, 5). Most applied for fellowship both in the same region as residency (216, 93%) and outside (192, 83%). Only the Pacific region saw a statistically significant increase in applicants during VI (59.9% vs 43.2%, P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in the number of programs applied to during in-person vs VI (mean difference (95% confidence interval 0.72, −2.8 – 4.2). A majority matched in their preferred state both during VI (60.4%) and in-person interviews (65.7%). The difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.45). Conclusion: While more PEM fellowship applicants applied outside the geographic area where their residency was and to the Pacific region, there was no overall increase in the number of programs or geographic areas PEM applicants applied to during VI as compared to in-person interview seasons. As this was the first two years of VI, ongoing data collection will further identify trends and the impactof VI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To describe differences in agentic (achievement) and communal (relationship) terms in letters of recommendation (LORs) for pediatric residency candidates by applicant and letter writer demographics and to examine if LOR language is associated with interview status. METHODS: A random sample of applicant profiles and LORs submitted to one institution were analyzed from the 2020--21 Match. Letters of recommendation text was inputted into a customized natural language processing application which determined the frequency of agentic and communal words in each LOR. Neutral LORs were defined as having < 5% surplus of agentic or communal terms. RESULTS: We analyzed 2094 LORs from 573 applicants: 78% were women, 24% were under-represented in medicine (URiM), and 39% were invited to interview. Most letter writers were women (55%) and of senior academic rank (49%). Overall, 53% of LORs were agency biased, 25% communal biased, and 23% neutral. There was no difference in agency and communally biased LORs by an applicant's gender (men 53% agentic vs women 53% agentic, P = .424), race or ethnicity (non-URiM 53% agentic vs URiM 51% agentic, P = .631). Male letter writers used significantly more agentic terms (8.5%) compared to women (6.7% agentic) or writers of both genders (3.1% communal) (P = .008). Applicants invited to interview were more likely to have a neutral LOR; however, no significant association existed between language and interview status. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in language were found by applicant gender or race among pediatric residency candidates. Identifying potential biases within pediatric residency selection processes is important in creating an equitable approach to application review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine the composition and processes of Clinical Competency Committees (CCCs) assigning entrustable professional activity (EPA) levels of supervision for pediatric subspecialty fellows and to examine fellowship program director (FPD) perspectives about using EPAs to determine fellows' graduation readiness. A qualitative study was performed using one-on-one interviews with a purposeful sample of pediatric subspecialty FPDs to yield a thematic analysis. Semi-structured interview guides were used for participants who self-identified as EPA users or non-users. Inductive analysis and coding were performed on transcripts until theoretical sufficiency was attained. Twenty-eight FPDs were interviewed. There was significant variability in the composition and processes of CCCs across subspecialties. FPDs felt that CCCs intuitively understand what entrustment means, allowing for ease of application of level of supervision (LOS) scales and consensus. FPDs perceived that EPAs provided a global assessment of fellows and are one tool to determine graduation readiness. Although there was variability in the makeup and processes of CCCs across subspecialties, FPDs believe EPAs are intuitive and relatively easy to implement. Consensus can be reached easily using EPA-specific LOS scales focusing on entrustment. FPDs desire a better understanding of how EPAs should be used for graduation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Components of trainee applications may introduce bias based on race or gender. Behavior-based interviews (BBIs) rely on structured questions to elicit applicants' past experiences to predict future behavior. Our objective was to implement BBIs in one fellowship program and compare applicant assessment by race and gender when using a standardized assessment tool versus a BB1-based tool. METHODS: In 2019 and 2020, we developed BBIs and BBI-specific assessments; 6 of 15 faculty were trained in this interview method. Applicants completed 6 interviews with either a BBI or unstructured format. All faculty completed a standardized assessment on applicants. BBI faculty also completed a BBI-specific assessment. Normalized average scores were cal-culated and used to rank applicants into quartiles. Race was categorized into White, underrepresented minorities (URMs: Black and Hispanics), and non-URMs (all others). Faculty and applicants were surveyed about BBIs. RESULTS: Seventy-five applicants were interviewed. Significant differences were found in standardized assessment scores (White 1.01 +/- 0.09, non-URM 1.02 +/- 0.08, URM .94 +/-0.07; P = .02) and quartiles by race (P = .05), but not for BBI scores (White 0.98 +/- 0.09, non-URM 1.03 +/- 0.09, URM 1.02 +/- 0.1; P = .18) or quartiles by race (P = .17). There were no significant differences in score or quartile by gender for either tool. The majority of faculty and applicant survey respondents commented positively about BBIs. CONCLUSION: BBIS were successfully implemented and generally reviewed positively by faculty and applicants. BBIs reduced racial differences in applicant assessments. Applicant assessment may benefit from structured tools to mitigate potential biases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]