1. Revamping the interview season: Considerations and lessons learned
Charlotte Derr, MD, RDMS, FACEP
Associate Program Director
University of South Florida
Emergency Medicine Residency Program

2. Considerations and lessons learned
Interview invitation
Scoring system and Interview committee
Feedback

3. Interview invitation
Previously program coordinator sent out invitations and received phone calls to schedule interview dates
Interview broker self-scheduling

4. Scoring system Previously program used a letter grade system
A group (A+ , A, A-)
Even larger B group
Some C’s
Few D’s, F’s
DNR category

5. Scoring system Previously program evaluation method:
Knowledge-based question
Ethics question
General questions about applicant
Multiple faculty involved, program director interviewed all

6. Scoring system program used a letter grade system
Based on overall gut feeling, not terribly objective
Large number in each “grade” level with no great way to really organize them within that group
Compared after each interview date to place them in order of preference but memory of earlier applicants would fade

7. Scoring system A scoring tool to rank applicants – numeric value
Commonly used “metrics”
Attributes related to emergency medicine
Interview day observations

9. Scoring system Interview committee of the same individuals
4 faculty and 1 senior resident
Other faculty and residents: social, lunch
Scoring was completed at the end of each day and entered into ERAS
Rank list created by ERAS scoring system as each applicant was interviewed

11. Scroll down

12. Scroll down
to see more

13. Enter names of scoring criteria

14. To enter or see score in applicant’s file go to “score” tab

15. Scroll down to the bottom to enter numerical values

16. Enter numerical values in each category

18. Sort by composite score to see ranked candidates

19. You can export in Excel and create fields of comparison

21. Click on Bulk Print Requests and window will open
Select file to view in Excel

22. Sort by composite score to see ranked candidates
Excel document can be uploaded into your nrmp rank order list

23. Interview Feedback
Previously: a self-addressed stamped envelope given to all applicants (5 year lapse)
This year: survey monkey of new questions sent only to unmatched applicants

26. 36% response rate

27. Interview Feedback Reasons for not ranking us higher
felt more like I was being grilled on information
impersonal
interviewer read through my application for what seemed like the first time
difficult to connect with some of the interviews/had awkward interviews

28. Interview Feedback Reasons for not ranking us higher
Hours worked by residents
Resident satisfaction

29. Reasons for not ranking us higher
Interview Feedback
Reasons for not ranking us higher
Perceived weaknesses
Did not market too well on interview day
Rough hours (12s vs 8s)
department reputation among the hospital
Surgery runs most trauma except airway (Need more involvement in procedures/running the trauma)

30. Interview Feedback Suggestions for interview days
More time allocated to each interview
Have more residents available
Provide a pre-made folder for each participant
Give us a chance to get to know you more
This program is better than it is sold to applicants on interview day

31. How do you get the information you really want?
Hartman Value Profile in the Resident Selection Process – Michael Harrington, MD

32. Future Directions Reevaluate the interview scoring tool
Similar application “metrics”
Review criteria
Modifying or removing interview day questions

33. Future Directions Reevaluate the interview day
Program folder with faculty profiles
Fewer impersonal questions, be prepared
More resident involvement
Survey matched applicants starting in July
Marketing (suggestions?)

34. Future Directions Resident perception and wellness
Our most important voice
Evaluate shift hours
Internal survey to residents
Solicit feedback on interview process and ways for them to contribute