Mentorship of Junior Surgical Faculty Across Academic Programs in Surgery.

Importance: Because mentorship is critical for professional development and career advancement, it is essential to examine the status of mentorship and identify challenges that junior surgical faculty (assistant and associate professors) face obtaining effective mentorship. Objective: To evaluate the mentorship experience for junior surgical faculty and highlight areas for improvement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study including an anonymous survey on mentorship followed by semistructured interviews to expand on survey findings. Junior surgical faculty from 18 US academic surgery programs were included in the anonymous survey and interviews. Survey responses between "formal" (assigned by the department) vs "informal" (sought out by the faculty) mentors and male vs female junior faculty were compared using χ2 tests. Interview responses were analyzed for themes until thematic saturation was achieved. Survey responses were collected from November 2022 to August 2023, and interviews conducted from July to December 2023. Exposure: Mentorship from formal and/or informal mentors. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey gauged the availability and satisfaction with formal and informal mentorship; interviews assessed broad themes regarding mentorship. Results: Of 825 survey recipients, 333 (40.4%) responded; 155 (51.7%) were male and 134 (44.6%) female. Nearly all respondents (319 [95.8%]) agreed or strongly agreed that mentorship is important to their surgical career, especially for professional networking (309 respondents [92.8%]), career advancement (301 [90.4%]), and research (294 [88.3%]). However, only 58 respondents (18.3%) had a formal mentor. More female than male faculty had informal mentors (123 [91.8%] vs 123 [79.4%]; P = .003). Overall satisfaction was higher with informal mentorship than formal mentorship (221 [85.0%] vs 40 [69.0%]; P = .01). Most male and female faculty reported no preferences in gender or race and ethnicity for their mentors. When asked if they had good mentor options if they wanted to change mentors, 141 (47.8%) responded no. From the interviews (n = 20), 6 themes were identified, including absence of mentorship infrastructure, preferred mentor characteristics, and optimizing mentorship. Conclusions and Relevance: Academic junior surgical faculty agree mentorship is vital to their careers. However, this study found that few had formal mentors and almost half need more satisfactory options if they want to change mentors. Academic surgical programs should adopt a framework for facilitating mentorship and optimize mentor-mentee relationships through alignment of mentor-mentee goals and needs.

Virtual Interviews: Assessing How Expectations Meet Reality.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the post-matriculation perceptions of interns and faculty who participated in the 2020-2021 virtual interview process and how their expectations of the program and the applicants, respectively, aligned with reality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Published surveys on virtual interviewing were reviewed and modified to design two surveys, for interns and for faculty who interviewed. Interns and faculty members from the Departments of Surgery and Medicine at one institution who participated in the 2020-2021 virtual interview process completed the surveys four to six months after the start of the academic year. Following survey completion, surgical interns from the same application cycle participated in one in-person focus group nine months after the start of the academic year to clarify points raised in the surveys. RESULTS: Forty-six interns and faculty members responded to the survey (subgroup response rates ranging from 13-30%) and ten interns participated in the focus group (participation rate 100%). Most faculty and intern participants found that expectations formed during virtual interviews were accurate. However, our respondents noted limitations to virtual interviews that reduced their usefulness, including challenges with unnatural social interactions, understanding city fit, and getting a sense of resident and program culture. Participants provided possible solutions to address these challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this mixed-methods study at a single institution found that perceptions from virtual interviews were generally accurate but with some limitations. We describe several opportunities to improve the virtual interview process and optimize the application experience.

Designing successful virtual residency interviews: a survey-based needs assessment of applicants across medical specialties.

Background: Residency selection in the United States relied on in-person interviews for many decades. The COVID-19 pandemic and recommendations from the Coalition for Physician Accountability (COPA) required programs to implement virtual interviews for the 2020-2021 residency selection cycle. Although virtual interviews may become the norm in the future, there is scant data at the institutional level to inform how to best approach this process. Objective: To describe the perceptions of applicants to several residency programs at one institution on the importance of virtual recruitment features and assess the impact on their overall ranking decisions. Methods: Applicants who interviewed for 12 medical and surgical residency programs during the 2020-2021 cycle at the University of California San Francisco were invited to participate in an anonymous survey in March 2021, after all interviews were completed. A survey consisting of 26 questions was administered to applicants on features that are important during interviews and the impact on their ranking decisions scored on a 5-point Likert scale. Results: Of the 1422 participating applicants, 303 (21%) completed the survey. The most important feature for applicants during the interview day was getting a feel of the program (92%). Conversations with residents (91%) and faculty (79%) were also highly rated. Respondents reported morale and happiness of residents (71%) as an extremely important factor in their overall ranking decision. Conclusion: Programs should consider prioritizing features that aid in alignment with getting to know residents and faculty and provide a sense of morale over emphasis on the institutional and location features. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44186-022-00004-5.