Applicants' perception of fit to residency programmes in the video-interview era: A large multidisciplinary survey.

INTRODUCTION: 'Fit' refers to an applicants' perceived compatibility to a residency programme. A variety of structural, identity-related and relational factors contribute to self-assessments of fit. The 2021 residency recruitment cycle in the USA was performed virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about how video-interviewing may affect residency applicants' ability to gauge fit. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, anonymous survey was distributed to applicants at a large academic institution between rank order list (ROL) certification deadline and Match Day 2021. Using Likert-type scales, applicants rated factors for importance to 'fit' and their ease of assessment through video-interviewing. Applicants also self-assigned fit scores to the top-ranked programme in their ROL using Likert-type scales with pairs of anchoring statements. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-three applicants responded to the survey (25.7% response rate). The three most important factors to applicants for assessment of fit (how much the programme seemed to care, how satisfied residents seem with their programme and how well the residents get along) were also the factors with the greatest discrepancy between importance and ease of assessment through video-interviewing. Diversity-related factors were more important to female applicants compared with males and to non-White applicants compared with White applicants. Furthermore, White male applicants self-assigned higher fit scores compared with other demographic groups. CONCLUSION: There is a marked discrepancy between the most important factors to applicants for fit and their ability to assess those factors virtually. Minoritised trainees self-assigned lower fit scores to their top-ranked programme, which should raise concern amongst medical educators and highlights the importance of expanding current diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in academic medicine.

Is it gossip or feedback? Surgical attendings' perceptions of gossip within residency.

OBJECTIVE: Gossip-evaluative talk about an absent third party-exists in surgical residency programs. Attending surgeons may engage in gossip to provide residents with feedback on performance, which may contribute to bias. Nevertheless, the perspectives of attending surgeons on gossip has not been studied. DESIGN: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews about gossip in surgical training were conducted with attending surgeons. We performed a reflexive thematic analysis of transcripts with a grounded theory approach to describe attendings' perceptions of their role in gossip within surgical residency. SETTING: Interviews were conducted from September 23, 2023, to November 27, 2023 via Zoom™. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen surgery attendings associated with 7 surgical training programs were interviewed. RESULTS: Six themes were developed: 1) Attendings typically view gossip with a negative lens; thus, well-intended conversations about resident performance that meet the academic definition of gossip are not perceived as gossip; 2) Gossip can damage attendings' reputations as surgeons and educators; 3) Mitigating the negative impacts of gossip by maintaining accurate and objective standards of honest communication is hard; 4) Attendings express concerns about hearing other attendings' impressions of residents prior to formulating their own opinion; 5) The surgical hierarchy restricts the volume and content of gossip that reaches attendings, which may limit their knowledge of program culture; and 6) It is very difficult to mitigate gossip at the program level. Ultimately, attendings utilize gossip (e.g. triangulating their experience) with the goal of providing residents feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Defining important conversations about resident performance as gossip should not discourage these critically important conversations but rather underscore the importance of combating harmful gossip through 3 behaviors: 1) committing to objective communication; 2) limiting or reframing information about resident performance that is shared with attendings who have yet to formulate their own opinions; and 3) regulating gossip in particular high-stakes microenvironments (e.g. the operating room).