Virtual Social Events: An Integral Component of Recruitment in the New Era of Graduate Medical Education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the inaugural virtual interview season of 2020–2021, residency and fellowship applicants were charged with evaluating the educational opportunities and quality of life at training programs without ever having visited them. Trainees quickly recognized how in-person social events, particularly the pre-interview dinner, played a role in evaluating how well they might fit in with a program.1–7 In previous years, such opportunities offered applicants and program representatives a chance to unwind and enjoy meaningful communion in a semi-structured environment.With little time to prepare, most residency programs replaced their in-person social events with virtual events hosted on video conferencing platforms.1,3,4,7–11 While virtual social events were unable to fully recreate the in-person experience, it appears virtual interviewing will largely continue in 2021–2022, as 10 medical specialties and 14 individual programs have already made commitments to do so at the time of this manuscript submission.12 Thus, optimizing virtual social events will be vital to improving the interview process going forward.The graduate medical education (GME) community has yet to see published outcomes data or written best practices regarding the creation of virtual social events. The intent of this article is to share the firsthand experiences and insights of the coauthors, both of whom were applicants in the 2020–2021 virtual interview season. The viewpoints expressed within this article have been echoed by applicant colleagues matched to a diverse collection of specialties, including pediatrics, radiology, plastic surgery, internal medicine–pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, general surgery, and psychiatry, as well as by mentors in program leadership from pediatrics and radiology.Finding creative alternatives to pre-interview dinners during a pandemic was challenging.13–16 An engaging virtual social event required a higher degree of planning than the traditional in-person social event. In the end, structure was the key ingredient for us in creating virtual social events that were worthwhile for applicants.Online social gatherings require definitive endpoints. We advocate for an ideal length of 30 to 60 minutes based on our own experience and recommendations from the business literature, which were informed by the limits of adult attention spans.17,18 A virtual social event longer than an hour can become tedious, while any less than 30 minutes may jeopardize the opportunity for meaningful interactions.Due to time constraints, a strategic agenda is necessary. Disclosing it to applicants ahead of time frames the session and creates purpose. For example, trainees and applicants can simulate working with one another through virtual scavenger hunts or group icebreakers.9 These tools provide goal-oriented methods of becoming acquainted that are otherwise not achievable with videoconferencing.In the virtual space, question and answer (Q&A) sessions represent an invaluable tool but should be used with care.4 When an “applicant social” morphs into a full hour of Q&A, the session can become diluted with specific personal questions and content that may overlap during the interview day itself. Moreover, it's not very social. With extended Q&A, applicants don't get a chance to see the personalities of residents within the program as they might with one-on-one conversations. Rather, program leadership should engage attendees with Q&A during the latter portion of the meeting, allowing sufficient time for prospective trainees to participate interactively.During the 2020–2021 virtual interview season, medical students were often invited to attend virtual social events voluntarily.19 Yet many applicants can feel obligated to treat such “optional” activities as required. The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) does not have rules pertaining to virtual events (Ally Anderson, MA, written correspondence, April 12, 2021). And while the Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) does not manage social events that occur throughout the Canadian residency recruitment season (Mary Gerges, written correspondence, April 9, 2021), they have instructed programs not to use “applicant attendance as a surrogate measure of program interest.”20During the 2020–2021 season, some programs emphasized their intentions by offering statements such as, “Your attendance will not be recorded, nor will it affect your ranking.” We suggest that programs pledge their transparency along these lines by clearly conveying the purpose, agenda, and optional nature of all virtual social events.One of the benefits of social events is that current trainees get to know the applicants and vice versa.8,9 To gain valuable insight about the applicants themselves, we recommend programs reserve these sessions for social interactions only, rather than for didactic information regarding the program. Hearing applicants' personal stories allows the program to show interest in their individuality and gives voice to applicants of all backgrounds. Often, dialogue is more fluid in an intimate environment, similar to speed dating or small group breakout rooms.1 These afford an opportunity for applicants to show their personal sides while allowing programs to champion applicant inclusivity by giving voice to students of all backgrounds. Finally, current trainees can be powerful marketing agents for their programs and have the potential to play key roles during virtual social events. As near peers, they are often effective at connecting with applicants to explain the challenges and opportunities at their home institutions.4,21Recruitment in GME experienced a revolutionary paradigm shift in 2020 due to downstream effects of a global pandemic.22 Operating in a virtual space, programs were forced to innovate new strategies to optimize recruitment, including the creation of virtual social events. We believe virtual social events represent one facet of the new paradigm which could still be substantially improved, mostly by structuring the time with planned small group activities so that applicants and trainees can become better acquainted.Other potential changes could improve equity in the virtual social event experience, although they would require systemic changes by governing bodies. First, the NRMP could add to its Match Communication Code of Conduct a mandate that programs disclose the implications of applicant attendance at virtual social events. Such transparency is necessary to prevent misunderstanding and inequity of opportunity. In addition, the NRMP might consider asking programs to verify individual applicant acknowledgement of such transparency statements when scheduling their attendance at virtual social events.In response to the large volume of virtual social events in the 2020–2021 season, leadership within the Association of Pediatric Program Directors recommended that pediatric residency programs limit themselves to 2 virtual social events in the upcoming season to be more impactful, sustainable, and equitable.23 We suggest that other program director associations consider adopting similar practices.Virtual social events offer programs and applicants unique opportunities not afforded by the formal interview day. One such opportunity is to showcase departmental diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and policies with applicants. Virtual social events also contribute to a more equitable application experience, allowing applicants to connect with programs without the financial burden of travel. These events establish longitudinal communication between the applicant and program, representing a point of contact outside of the interview day. Finally, a more relaxed and intimate small group setting with trainees may make it easier for applicants to ask difficult questions or steer the discussion to topics of interest to them.As an optional component to the virtual interview season, we feel that virtual social events can be leveraged to achieve benefits greater than or equal to those derived from in-person social events. Additionally, the transition to virtual social events represents an opportunity to improve the transparency of optional events by mandating program disclosure regarding the implications of attendance. Finally, we feel these events are well-suited for programs to demonstrate to applicants their commitments to the vital domains of trainee equity, inclusion, and wellness.The authors would like to thank Darel Heitkamp, MD (@DarelHeitkamp) for his editorial assistance.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».