Impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the 2020 pediatric anesthesiology fellowship application cycle: A survey of program directors.

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic created a situation with an urgent need to produce a virtual system for the 2019–2020 pediatric anesthesiology fellowship cycle. With fellowship interviews beginning in April 2020, there was minimal time for programs to adapt. Each program rapidly developed its own platform, expectations, materials, and process for interviews—all while under the stress of managing the unfolding patient care, financial, and leadership crises of the unfolding pandemic. Aims: The aim of this survey‐based study was to help identify changes compared with previous traditional cycles, obstacles encountered, and program director attitudes toward this, and possible future, virtual application cycles. We separately report the results of an applicant‐based survey about the 2020 virtual interview cycle. Methods: A 50‐question survey was developed utilizing Qualtrics. An anonymous survey link was sent to all pediatric anesthesiology program directors with an invitation for one program leader (either the program director or assistant/associate program director but not both) from each program to complete the voluntary survey. Result: Thirty respondents completed the survey, for a response rate of 50% based on the 60 ACGME‐approved pediatric anesthesiology fellowships. Compared to previous traditional cycles, almost half of respondents (14/29, 48.3%) reported no increase in the number of applications received, and a majority of respondents (16/29, 55.2%) reported that they offered the same number of interview spots for the year. The virtual interview process appears to have gone smoothly, as a majority of programs reported they never or rarely had technical problems across a number of different domains. Importantly, the majority of respondents were either somewhat satisfied or extremely satisfied (21/28, 75%) with the overall virtual interview process. Given the choice of preferred interview format going forward, half of the respondents (14/28) would offer a combination of traditional and virtual interviews. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that virtual interviews are a viable alternative to traditional interviews and can be completed without many technological complications. PDs were overall satisfied with virtual interviews, despite not having appropriate time to plan and coordinate, and would be interested in continuing this option into the future. There are areas where improvements can be made and with appropriate planning could look to mitigate some of the areas where virtual interviews fall short of traditional interviews. In combination with our previously published survey of applicants (Paediatr Anaesth. 2021;31(9):968–976), these data form a more complete picture of virtual interview best practices going forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]