New Insights Into the Dermatology Residency Application Process Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 11/03/2020 - 13:48

Residency application is an arduous experience for many medical students. The National Resident Matching Program reported that US medical school seniors who matched into dermatology applied to a median of 90 programs and attended 9 interviews in 2019.1 High application and interview travel costs are a disadvantage for applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. We propose that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic should serve as a call to action for dermatology to update and promote a more equitable, time-effective, and cost-efficient residency interview process.

In light of COVID-19, dermatology residency program directors have recommended a holistic application review process, taking into consideration “disparities in strength of applications due to lack of opportunity for students with smaller home programs or in areas more affected by this crisis.”2 However, in a 2018 survey of 180 dermatology faculty members, 80% stated that time spent reviewing residency applications was already excessive.3 The Association of American Medical Colleges reported that for medical student applicants with US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores lower than 237 or higher than 251, the value added by submitting one additional application beyond means of 43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 34-53) and 34 (95% CI, 28-41), respectively, is reduced relative to the value added by each application before reaching the point of diminishing returns.4 Therefore, we suggest limiting the number of applications per applicant to the upper bounds of the CI for the lower US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score (53), facilitating a more detailed review of fewer applications by each program and limiting student expenses.

On May 7, 2020, the Association of American Medical Colleges made a statement strongly encouraging medical school and teaching hospital faculty to conduct interviews through videoconferencing.5 Videoconferencing interviews (VCIs) minimize travel-associated health risks, providing a more equitable structure for applicants and programs in areas disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. In the 2018 survey of dermatology faculty members, only 11% believed that applicants interviewing virtually received equal consideration to those interviewing in person; a solution to this problem would be to mandate that all applicants use VCIs during the COVID-19 pandemic.3 This coming year, residency programs may elect to replace in-person interviews with VCIs, or they may utilize VCIs as screening tools to narrow down the applicant pool and for students to rank their preferred programs prior to an in-person interview. By inviting fewer applicants for in-person interviews, travel-associated health risks, financial costs, and missed educational activities would be minimized. Given that many medical students have had academic activities cancelled or postponed due to COVID-19, student opportunities for live clinical experiences should be maximized.

As programs plan for future application cycles beyond COVID-19, they must work to balance competing interests. Videoconferencing interviews allow for improved access to interviewing for applicants of lower socioeconomic classes, improved geographic mobility of applicants, and increased flexibility in accommodating faculty schedules with reduced time away from patient care and research; however, with VCIs one may lose the personal element that comes from the in-person interview, including interactions among applicants, faculty, current residents, and staff on the day of interview, as well as the departmental tour. Additionally, the quality of VCIs may be diminished by technical difficulties and the possibility of distractions, making standardization of the interview experience for applicants challenging.



The COVID-19 pandemic will surely leave its mark on the residency application cycle. We must take time now to collaborate and brainstorm creative solutions to maximize the equity and efficiency of the application process for both residency programs and students. We welcome reader feedback on these ideas and other possible solutions in the form of Letters to the Editor.

References
  1. National Resident Matching Program. Results of the 2019 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program; 2019. https://mk0nrmp3oyqui6wqfm.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Applicant-Survey-Report-2019.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2020.
  2. Association of American Medical Colleges. Specialty response to COVID-19: dermatology residency program director consensus statement on 2020-21 application cycle. https://aamc-orange.global.ssl.fastly.net/production/media/filer_
    public/0f/7b/0f7b547e-65b5-4d93-8247-951206e7f726/updated_dermatology_program_director_
    statement_on_2020-21_application_cycle_.pdf. Updated June 1, 2020. Accessed June 24, 2020.
  3. Rojek NW, Shinkai K, Fett N. Dermatology faculty and residents’ perspectives on the dermatology residency application process: a nationwide survey. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79:157-159.
  4. Association of American Medical Colleges. Apply smart: data to consider when applying to residency. https://www.students-residents.aamc.org/applying-residency/filteredresult/apply-smart-data-consider-when-applying-residency/. Accessed June 22, 2020.
  5. Association of American Medical Colleges. Conducting interviews during the coronavirus pandemic. https://www.aamc.org/what-we-do/mission-areas/medical-education/conducting-interviews-during-coronavirus-pandemic/. Published May 7, 2020. Accessed June 22, 2020.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, 1305 York Ave, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10021 (shl9032@med.cornell.edu).

Issue
Cutis - 106(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
35-36
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, 1305 York Ave, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10021 (shl9032@med.cornell.edu).

Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, 1305 York Ave, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10021 (shl9032@med.cornell.edu).

Article PDF
Article PDF

Residency application is an arduous experience for many medical students. The National Resident Matching Program reported that US medical school seniors who matched into dermatology applied to a median of 90 programs and attended 9 interviews in 2019.1 High application and interview travel costs are a disadvantage for applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. We propose that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic should serve as a call to action for dermatology to update and promote a more equitable, time-effective, and cost-efficient residency interview process.

In light of COVID-19, dermatology residency program directors have recommended a holistic application review process, taking into consideration “disparities in strength of applications due to lack of opportunity for students with smaller home programs or in areas more affected by this crisis.”2 However, in a 2018 survey of 180 dermatology faculty members, 80% stated that time spent reviewing residency applications was already excessive.3 The Association of American Medical Colleges reported that for medical student applicants with US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores lower than 237 or higher than 251, the value added by submitting one additional application beyond means of 43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 34-53) and 34 (95% CI, 28-41), respectively, is reduced relative to the value added by each application before reaching the point of diminishing returns.4 Therefore, we suggest limiting the number of applications per applicant to the upper bounds of the CI for the lower US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score (53), facilitating a more detailed review of fewer applications by each program and limiting student expenses.

On May 7, 2020, the Association of American Medical Colleges made a statement strongly encouraging medical school and teaching hospital faculty to conduct interviews through videoconferencing.5 Videoconferencing interviews (VCIs) minimize travel-associated health risks, providing a more equitable structure for applicants and programs in areas disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. In the 2018 survey of dermatology faculty members, only 11% believed that applicants interviewing virtually received equal consideration to those interviewing in person; a solution to this problem would be to mandate that all applicants use VCIs during the COVID-19 pandemic.3 This coming year, residency programs may elect to replace in-person interviews with VCIs, or they may utilize VCIs as screening tools to narrow down the applicant pool and for students to rank their preferred programs prior to an in-person interview. By inviting fewer applicants for in-person interviews, travel-associated health risks, financial costs, and missed educational activities would be minimized. Given that many medical students have had academic activities cancelled or postponed due to COVID-19, student opportunities for live clinical experiences should be maximized.

As programs plan for future application cycles beyond COVID-19, they must work to balance competing interests. Videoconferencing interviews allow for improved access to interviewing for applicants of lower socioeconomic classes, improved geographic mobility of applicants, and increased flexibility in accommodating faculty schedules with reduced time away from patient care and research; however, with VCIs one may lose the personal element that comes from the in-person interview, including interactions among applicants, faculty, current residents, and staff on the day of interview, as well as the departmental tour. Additionally, the quality of VCIs may be diminished by technical difficulties and the possibility of distractions, making standardization of the interview experience for applicants challenging.



The COVID-19 pandemic will surely leave its mark on the residency application cycle. We must take time now to collaborate and brainstorm creative solutions to maximize the equity and efficiency of the application process for both residency programs and students. We welcome reader feedback on these ideas and other possible solutions in the form of Letters to the Editor.

Residency application is an arduous experience for many medical students. The National Resident Matching Program reported that US medical school seniors who matched into dermatology applied to a median of 90 programs and attended 9 interviews in 2019.1 High application and interview travel costs are a disadvantage for applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. We propose that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic should serve as a call to action for dermatology to update and promote a more equitable, time-effective, and cost-efficient residency interview process.

In light of COVID-19, dermatology residency program directors have recommended a holistic application review process, taking into consideration “disparities in strength of applications due to lack of opportunity for students with smaller home programs or in areas more affected by this crisis.”2 However, in a 2018 survey of 180 dermatology faculty members, 80% stated that time spent reviewing residency applications was already excessive.3 The Association of American Medical Colleges reported that for medical student applicants with US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores lower than 237 or higher than 251, the value added by submitting one additional application beyond means of 43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 34-53) and 34 (95% CI, 28-41), respectively, is reduced relative to the value added by each application before reaching the point of diminishing returns.4 Therefore, we suggest limiting the number of applications per applicant to the upper bounds of the CI for the lower US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score (53), facilitating a more detailed review of fewer applications by each program and limiting student expenses.

On May 7, 2020, the Association of American Medical Colleges made a statement strongly encouraging medical school and teaching hospital faculty to conduct interviews through videoconferencing.5 Videoconferencing interviews (VCIs) minimize travel-associated health risks, providing a more equitable structure for applicants and programs in areas disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. In the 2018 survey of dermatology faculty members, only 11% believed that applicants interviewing virtually received equal consideration to those interviewing in person; a solution to this problem would be to mandate that all applicants use VCIs during the COVID-19 pandemic.3 This coming year, residency programs may elect to replace in-person interviews with VCIs, or they may utilize VCIs as screening tools to narrow down the applicant pool and for students to rank their preferred programs prior to an in-person interview. By inviting fewer applicants for in-person interviews, travel-associated health risks, financial costs, and missed educational activities would be minimized. Given that many medical students have had academic activities cancelled or postponed due to COVID-19, student opportunities for live clinical experiences should be maximized.

As programs plan for future application cycles beyond COVID-19, they must work to balance competing interests. Videoconferencing interviews allow for improved access to interviewing for applicants of lower socioeconomic classes, improved geographic mobility of applicants, and increased flexibility in accommodating faculty schedules with reduced time away from patient care and research; however, with VCIs one may lose the personal element that comes from the in-person interview, including interactions among applicants, faculty, current residents, and staff on the day of interview, as well as the departmental tour. Additionally, the quality of VCIs may be diminished by technical difficulties and the possibility of distractions, making standardization of the interview experience for applicants challenging.



The COVID-19 pandemic will surely leave its mark on the residency application cycle. We must take time now to collaborate and brainstorm creative solutions to maximize the equity and efficiency of the application process for both residency programs and students. We welcome reader feedback on these ideas and other possible solutions in the form of Letters to the Editor.

References
  1. National Resident Matching Program. Results of the 2019 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program; 2019. https://mk0nrmp3oyqui6wqfm.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Applicant-Survey-Report-2019.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2020.
  2. Association of American Medical Colleges. Specialty response to COVID-19: dermatology residency program director consensus statement on 2020-21 application cycle. https://aamc-orange.global.ssl.fastly.net/production/media/filer_
    public/0f/7b/0f7b547e-65b5-4d93-8247-951206e7f726/updated_dermatology_program_director_
    statement_on_2020-21_application_cycle_.pdf. Updated June 1, 2020. Accessed June 24, 2020.
  3. Rojek NW, Shinkai K, Fett N. Dermatology faculty and residents’ perspectives on the dermatology residency application process: a nationwide survey. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79:157-159.
  4. Association of American Medical Colleges. Apply smart: data to consider when applying to residency. https://www.students-residents.aamc.org/applying-residency/filteredresult/apply-smart-data-consider-when-applying-residency/. Accessed June 22, 2020.
  5. Association of American Medical Colleges. Conducting interviews during the coronavirus pandemic. https://www.aamc.org/what-we-do/mission-areas/medical-education/conducting-interviews-during-coronavirus-pandemic/. Published May 7, 2020. Accessed June 22, 2020.
References
  1. National Resident Matching Program. Results of the 2019 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program; 2019. https://mk0nrmp3oyqui6wqfm.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Applicant-Survey-Report-2019.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2020.
  2. Association of American Medical Colleges. Specialty response to COVID-19: dermatology residency program director consensus statement on 2020-21 application cycle. https://aamc-orange.global.ssl.fastly.net/production/media/filer_
    public/0f/7b/0f7b547e-65b5-4d93-8247-951206e7f726/updated_dermatology_program_director_
    statement_on_2020-21_application_cycle_.pdf. Updated June 1, 2020. Accessed June 24, 2020.
  3. Rojek NW, Shinkai K, Fett N. Dermatology faculty and residents’ perspectives on the dermatology residency application process: a nationwide survey. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79:157-159.
  4. Association of American Medical Colleges. Apply smart: data to consider when applying to residency. https://www.students-residents.aamc.org/applying-residency/filteredresult/apply-smart-data-consider-when-applying-residency/. Accessed June 22, 2020.
  5. Association of American Medical Colleges. Conducting interviews during the coronavirus pandemic. https://www.aamc.org/what-we-do/mission-areas/medical-education/conducting-interviews-during-coronavirus-pandemic/. Published May 7, 2020. Accessed June 22, 2020.
Issue
Cutis - 106(1)
Issue
Cutis - 106(1)
Page Number
35-36
Page Number
35-36
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Inside the Article

Practice Points

  • We propose that the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic should serve as a call to action for dermatology to update and promote a more equitable, time-effective, and cost-efficient residency interview process.
  • A limitation on the number of applications per candidate may lower expenses and allow for a more holistic review process by residency programs.
  • The benefits and challenges of videoconferencing interviews must be weighed as residency programs decide on their continued use beyond this application cycle.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Article PDF Media