New Tools for Resident Recruiting Season: A CERA Survey of Family Medicine Residency Program Directors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As the family medicine community continues to adapt to interview season changes secondary to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, discussions are underway regarding new options to improve the overall success and satisfaction of resident recruiting. Tools such as preference signaling, interview capping, and supplementary applications are options that have been investigated, and in some cases implemented, by other specialties for their recruiting seasons. Family medicine as a specialty is now actively scrutinizing the benefits and drawbacks of these tools. METHODS: The fall 2021 CERA program directors' omnibus online cross-sectional survey invited family medicine program directors to provide their perceptions of these tools. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regressions were conducted. RESULTS: Two-thirds of the 262 program director respondents (42% response rate, n=184) supported policies for preference signaling and a national interview cap; however, support was mixed for the use of supplemental applications. CONCLUSIONS: Because the survey results indicated a high level of support for using these innovative new tools during recruitment season, family medicine should take action to implement these programs/policies.

Financial Considerations After a Fully-Virtual Interview Season: A CERA Study of Family Medicine Residency Program Directors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the institution of virtual interviewing for nearly all family medicine residency programs in 2020 and 2021. This paradigm shift challenged the perspectives of family medicine program directors across the United States, in part because of the financial impact on the operations of many residency programs. We sought to investigate program directors' opinions on the 2020-2021 interview season, as well whether future interview season planning would be influenced by the financial outcomes of this season. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey, as part of the fall 2021 CERA Program Director omnibus online survey. Family medicine program directors were invited by email to participate. We conducted multivariate logistic regression of the likelihood of supporting a fully-virtual interviewing model. RESULTS: The module survey response rate was 41.7% (263/631); 91.3% of programs reported conducting a fully-virtual 2020-2021 interview season. Program directors who reported that the cost savings recouped from virtual versus in-person interviewing could be used for other residency operating costs (32.4%) were almost four times more likely to support moving to a fully-virtual interviewing model (odds ratio: 3.94, confidence interval: 1.69-9.18). When compared to a residency program's benefit from meeting and assessing applicants in person, applicants benefitting from less financial burden during a fully-virtual interview season was not seen by responding program directors as a significant reason to remain virtual. CONCLUSIONS: While family medicine residency program directors who recouped interview expenses during fully-virtual recruiting seasons are more likely to support ongoing, fully-virtual models, financial incentivization did not overall impact support for virtual interviewing among program directors with statistical significance.