Hi everyone!

Hello Everyone!

any host has the power!

Hi Kathy! Long time no see!

yes

Will the chat string be available on the recording and how will we access the recording after this meeting?

Recording can be accessed at: https://www.appd.org/home/virtual_cafe.cfm

The chat will be saved

Hi all- due to some issues with sending out the link to log on, many of you have logged on under my (Debra Boyer)’s link. So you are showing up as me. If you click on your picture you can rename yourself as you

I was wondering why there were so many Debra Boyers....

Same to the other “Jill Fussell”’s showing up on here :)

Was wondering about that!! A bunch of Debra's showing up!

On that site, there are all of the Virtual Café recordings, chats, minutes, etc....https://www.appd.org/home/virtual_cafe.cfm

you can change to your name

Yes, click on the three dots on the right hand side of your picture and then hit rename

just move the cursor, look at the options to change

If IM changes their fellowship recruitment season, will that change the time of their match?

The IM program directors are developing their response now - their input was part of the consideration leading to a one month delay in fellowship timing versus some longer periods that had been proposed

Many residency programs are not allowing their residents to travel.

We are planning virtual interviews

yes

I think virtual interviews should be the standard with the exception of applicants are in the same institution

I'm concerned more about when the closure of interviews happen than that we might start too soon. More time overall would be helpful to conduct interviews.

I think there needs to be consistency in how candidates are interviewed with-in a specialty, but not necessarily between specialties.

for smaller or new programs, in person is vital to impart the culture and feel of the program. If moving to all virtual, tools to share the vibe of a program will be essential

We are video recording for Virtual NICU tours to show the applicants during the virtual interview. showing them the units, rounding and some chats from current fellows and faculty

Though our recruitment season is shorter than Gen Peds, the NRMP deadline has been pushed back by a month over the past few years, so we now have 4 solid month

interviews will be virtual unless the candidates are in the same program

Our institution will likely not let us bring anyone in for interviews.

Each of my fellows will record a short message to the applicants

I think switching to virtual only may be the right thing to do for equity this year, but don’t want to set a precedent for future years. Agree with limits on applications such that we don’t get a flood of more applicants who are not serious about our program .

There needs to be consistency within each specialty regarding mode of interviewing.

given travel issues (present and potential) we need to adopt a 'virtual interview' only policy for candidates outside of a program with option for personal interview within an institution - only far approach for the trainees

My fellowship is a surgical subspecialty and our ERAS starts Dec 1 but about 18 MONTHS before the start date so my replies may skew yours - just to keep in mind. Also we did mixed virtual and in person interviews this year and the virtual ones went very well. Some of our fellowships use virtual as a screen and the invite fewer applicants in person.

Given the unknown and changing landscape, i dont think that changing the timing is going to help our decision making in a big way

I would argue that it should be for the residents within the institution as well. That way it is fair for all applicants

Would anyone have a virtual tour of their hospital or clinics?

One thing to consider about pushing ERAS/NRMP may be problematic for California Medical License since we need to begin as soon they match in mid-December.

Would we be able to delay the deadline for the fellowship applications to be submitted on the part of the resident? That way, residents will have more time to work on their applications.

What are the advantages to delaying ERAS opening?

Is anyone soliciting the perspectives of the residents who will be applying and interviewing?

I agree that we should offer both but it should be something discussed between applicant and program. Some places may not allow travel and we should accommodate that

I think the biggest question about interviewing environments is related to equity

Seems like the interview process should be consistent across applicants (including internal applicants) so that if we go virtual, should be all virtual. Doing a personal interview for interview for internal applicants might give them an unfair advantage.

.

One piece to consider is that a move to virtual interviews is likely to increase the number of interviews each trainee does (since cost is not an option). So if we push application to Aug 15 and keep the match date that compresses our timeline while potentially screening/interviewing many more applicants

Not sure pushing the ERAS date will make a difference

I agree that whatever is decided should be uniform within a specialty and for internal and external applicants.

if we are doing virtual interviews, we have plenty of time. I would not favor pushing back the match date beyond mid-december

people need time to get state licenses, so would not want to shift match too much later

I think that virtual interviews are necessary, though agree with the concern that it may become difficult to gauge and applicant's seriousness about the program/can no longer use willingness to travel as an indication of their interest

I don’t have a clear sense of what the pros/cons of changing the ERAS release date is.

I think this problem might get better this summer or early fall only to get worse again .I would not change dates based on assuming cases will not re-spike.

I think for equity it should be an all or nothing process.

If no changes to MATCH date, would suggest not changing application date due so that interviews (even if virtual) can be spaced out more.

the issue about pushing the eras release is to give trainees more time to get their application together and to let letter writers get their letters done

institutional assistance with a video tour of the institution would be helpful

Currently we have meetings between office neighbors even virtually so we can have masks off during the meetings. So much better to be able to see each other.

There is always a difference in internal applicants as we usually know them, so there is a bias that is inherent and I do not think that making them do a virtual visit will make any difference.

We recently interviewed a candidate for an internal program who lives in Seattle and did all the interviews virtually

to clarify - applicant was for a dual training program

But local applicants should not be counted as "internal"

agree with Christine

THE debra boyer!

I agree. I think residents would feel it was unfair

If ERAS opens to programs July 15th and ROL is due late November, isn't 4 mos sufficient for a regular application and equitable virtual interview process?

do we record these interviews via zoom or skype - if not we need to disclose that to all interviwees

I saw that people are worried about too many applications...we are worried about that too (both for residency and fellowship)….I should note that we asked ERAS to do tiered applications (release 15, then another 15), but they are unable to do this this season.

If IM wants to push back, it is likely because their residents might be overwhelmed by clinical COVID concerns, which may not be the same for peds

we did a virtual interview recently for an unfilled fellowship position. It worked ok and we actually got the candidate, which was great. Would appreciate some tools/best practices to make it better

I can share some thoughts after Andy

Are the 3rd year residents being surveyed about ERAS application open dates?

i’m very concerned about the number of applicants the we will need to screen if people don’t have to consider the costs of travel for interviewing

ERAS opening timely and being available for a longer period of time- should be better.

Given the well-advertised privacy concerns with Zoom, is there a better platform for conducting these interviews?

Would advocate to open ERAS in similar timeframe for programs to begin reviewing/screening

I would also be a proponent of keeping the ERAS schedule the same to avoid confusion and also agree it is difficult to know what the impact of a COVID “second wave” would be

I think delaying the application time is a mistake. Compressing the interviewing time would be more of a burden than too many applications.

Given our relatively low volumes right now, I think residents are working actively on their applications BUT faculty may be slow to write letters and research and clinical experiences have been delayed/cancelled

I think Michael Baca makes a good point - do we have any insight from our residents about the application dates?

Interestingly...residency PDs voted 50% for 2 week delay and 50% for 2 weeks delay.

I agree that I would advocate for not shifting ERAS

What would be the disadvantage to keeping the ERAS release date the same as it is currently? If the MATCH dates does not change, I’m not sure that I understand the advantage of delaying release of the information to PDs.

GREAT point.

I agree with keeping dates as scheduled - July 15

clarification -- Residency PDs voted for 50% 2 week delay and 50% 4 week delay

Peds GI - Children’s Colorado. I agree with keeping same timeline for ERAs schedule.

I agree completely about the difference between Peds and IM

I think that is harder for residents. would keep same

I agree with keeping dates the same

Definitely coming from my perspective as combined Med-Peds, but the medicine program, and our role there, is currently consumed with Covid, and RI is not as hard hit as our near-neighbor states, NY and MA, so the program directors are challenged to support residents with letters before July 1...an added 30 days and saying it doesn't hurt residents who upload towards the latter part of that window would be appreciated.

I don't know that it is necessary to have a change of opening date. We have always received applications into August from those that applied late. We have reviewed them just as we did those that had their full applications in on July 15th.

Although not as widespread, some pediatric residents have been redeployed to the adult side, or are taking on more responsibilities on the pediatric side due to colleagues out with symptoms/quarantine

i would vote to keep dates the same

better all things considered that we are on same page as IM - especially for programs with M-P residents and looking for M-P applicants

Reasonable trade off would be to keep timeline the same but plan to be patient to receive outstanding LORs

I also am concerned that using virtual interviews, while I believe that is the way to go, but that we will have many more applicants applying for our fellowships - i.e., applicants will apply to places to which they may not have traveled.

I agree with being flexible with letters etc

Avoid accepting meetings from organizers using Zoom Basic. Do not install the Zoom client, use the Zoom web client instead. If the content is particularly sensitive, consider rescheduling with another teleconferencing tool."

I agree with Joe; keep it as is, but allow leeway for delayed LORs.

I was a new coordinator last year and it was my first interview season...having to do virtual interviews and make videos etc to send out to applicants could make for a lot of work between now and then...when we aren’t allowed in hospital a lot. This is on top of bringing fellows on board July 7.

WebADS are due on August 31st. If applications are released during August, this would be an INSANE month unless WebADS pushes back its due date as well!

How long of a delay for LORs, though?

The interview/application process is so varied among the different subspecialties in terms of number or applicants, number of spots, number of interviews offered, match percentage that perhaps each subspeciatly should decide as group to go virtually.

I think if we do all virtual interviews, we will need to interview a much larger pool of candidates - wonder if there's a way to help us better identify those with higher true interest (vs just clicking the allowable number of programs per fee)

Is there a downfall to having both in person and virtual interviews?

I think having more flexibility and looking at holistic application makes more sense

If you have both in person and virtual, there is pressure for applicants to show up if they want to be seen as a serious applicant

Needs to be tied with strong recommendations to limit applications as we did Peds residency

Some programs have a travel ban for their residents. Plus a quarantine when coming back. Additionally residents may have limited funds even if they could travel

I think the APPD and COMSEP did a wonderful job outlining the process and recommendations for the 2020-2021 residency application season.

In the letter related to the peds residency, there were guidelines related to number of applications based on USMLE scores. Is there something similar that can be developed for fellowships?

I agree with Val Brown, I think we need to be careful about discouraging people from applying to programs for programs that are less popular (like endocrinology)

We have 70-80 applicants per year already, no decreases, many more would be overwhelming for us. Each program will be different

That’s a really good point! People are overwhelmed right now.

I think that’s important to point out that exclusively virtual may be an advantage for less competitive fellowship specialties (ID, kidney, etc) vs. high competitive specialties

It's really a question of when ERAS closes rather than when it opens.

we already get 75-90 applications for 2 spots. I don’t think we could handle 2-3X that volume without somewhat arbitrary filters.

Can/should we advertise that we will internally limit the number of applicants our program will accept for our internal “first round” review?

i think limiting # of programs makes a lot of sense, but it shouldn’t be too restrictive

or supplemental application materials outside of ERAS - a short essay of “why this program?” - is that allowable?

I agree as well… we get triple digit applicants already. Often times we know who is serious by who accepts the invitation to travel.

Do we have data on the number of programs applicants ahve applied?

From ERAS

can each program set the limit?

Important to remember that using metrics such as test score cutoffs has historically reduced diversity in medical school classes and training programs

I agree - in critical care, we have been getting increased numbers of applications,; could consider a "second stage", requiring additional information that is specific to the program

this informed recommendation for optimal # of programs to apply to is exactly what the peds residency program directors have done - we just need to do it for each sub...…….

It seems a limit would disadvantage less sought after programs/geographic areas

Agree. Optimal number per subspecialty is the way to go. As a recommendation

we are Peds HemOnc and evening though we maintained our applications from prior years we would not want a restriction.

Yes Becky!

It is a good point that applicants may only apply to the same programs, which could also be problematic

We are Peds Endocrine and we would not want restrictions either

I think recommendations based on data would be helpful to both residents and programs for each subspecialty

Even for the specialties that get a lot of applicants there are significant regional differences. Depending on your location and program size etc you may get a lot of applicants but for most of them you are the back-up plan because you aren’t one of the big city programs. It would be nice if there was a way to know who was actually serious about your program.

We are a critical care fellowship at a lesser known program so we would worry about limiting the number of applications.

and the recommended # should also emphasize that some diversity of programs (i.e., not all highly competitive programs) is advisable

What if there is variability within the sub? In my specialty (pulm) my program gets a decent number of applications but other programs are yearning for that number of applications.

Good idea to have recs, applicants may feel like they need a Recommendation, and may have fears about not applying “everywhere"

The number of places people apply to also depends on both the fellowship, and the perceived competitiveness of the program within their specialty. Applicants that are focusing on very competitive programs may/should apply to more programs.

Advising for applicants is really important, just like it is for medical students. Mix of levels of competitiveness

Agree - we have to consider applicant characteristics and specialty and competitiveness of programs and specialty.

as important as number

I think there is far too much variability among and within a subspecialty in order to have a recommended “limit” to the number of programs applied. If we put a time limit of “we’ll only interview the first #x” of applicants, then it puts at a disadvantage those residents who will have challenges getting their applications completed.

Very much agree. There are so many variables.

but the gen peds PDs will need help from the sub PDs about historical trends since most peds PDs are not able to be highly informed on this topic

I think applicants should be strongly encouraged to carefully/fairly discern which programs are super attractive to them, so that they are not over-burdening programs with an onslaught of applications.

We have fellows on the Fellowship Recruitment Action Team to help provide the learner perspective.

is anyone worried about applicants accepting a virtual interview and then canceling later in the interview season?

recommendation - not a regulation is what is called for - ultimately the FPD will define how many interviews to grant...….

should we develop an approach to canceling interviews? is that even reasonable?

agree with John

We have always had a set number of interviews we do (no matter how many applications). We have been open to 'adding' one or two should the candidate be strong. We then have always had a wait list to fill in those that did not get an initial offer to interview. We would plan on doing something similar, even with virtual only interviews.

agree with John

Yes...agreed with guidelines to the residents of how late they are allowed to cancel (2 weeks? longer?)

how do you enforce a guideline for how late they are allowed to cancel?

How about allowing programs the option of setting a cap to the number of applications?

I think that 2 weeks would be good. At the same time, should it be due to sudden illness/emergency, I would be more open to a shorter time...

We have to think about the burden that is being placed on faculty asked to review applicants as well. For programs that may have several hundred fellow applicants, it is a large burden to ask over-burdened faculty to review

I think "the process" needs to make sure graduating residents have really good advising to help them look at the reality of their options.

I also worry about the ease of accepting/cancellation of virtual interviews. Also what do we do if applicants want informal/formal visits to inform their decision making.

we also don’t know what fellow funding is going to be for programs. So there may be less spots for applicants to apply to in some specialties.

If we wait until after the application deadline to decide/announce that interviews will be universally virtual, then we may not need to worry about the issue of too many applicants

Not sure if you can really have a rule of when a virtual interview can be cancelled. The program should decide if they want to reschedule if they cancel one

I think that still doesn't decrease the massive amount of applications that PDs and APDs will have to review to decide who to interview

Agree with not limiting the number of applicants. The program can decide which ones to interview

I think that we also need to consider that some people’s choices in career and willingness to move may be very different now than it was before covid. We need to anticipate that the traditional numbers of applicants may be very different this year.

Sounds like it would be worthwhile to share best practices in making the screening process more efficient. That sounds like a major barrier for those who get lots of applicants

what about a virtual first round of abbreviated interviews maybe with fewer screener faculty members and then a second round of extended interviews with more faculty etc if the applicant is selected for that.

I would not put a deadline on applicants cancelling an interview. My thought would be that if an applicant wants to cancel, than I don’t really want to spend time interviewing them anyway.

It’s a good point. Especially at end of the season, when an applicant doesn’t have “skin in the game” of a flight ticket, hotel, etc. late cancellations could become a huge issue

yes

The Action Team is working on "best practices" for residents.

we have had similar issue about cancellations. sometimes just a day or so before. i think with the virtual we would need to set an expectation so we could fill the slot with an alternate

in the best practices - just a reminder to the fellows that it is a small community and late cancel of interviews puts them off a bad start with some of their new colleagues

keep in mind the question asked “the latest ERAS should be delayed” not whether ERAS should be delayed

It is difficult, as there are no repurcussions for bad behavior

I think a subspecialty-specific set of "good practices" for both programs and applicants would be really helpful - that might improve some transparency of expectations, even if there may be some variability between programs because of specific circumstances

No matter how many programs an applicant applies to, there is a limit to the number of interview they can physically complete in the COVID or traditional era. Is there a thought that pediatric programs limit the number of days that applicants can be away to interview?

click ‘Polling’ at bottom of screen

Virtual interviews might be easier to fill from the wait list if there are last minute cancellations

what would be delayed in ERAS?

Agree with Adrian. Should there be question about agreement with delay?

Andrew- the date that FPDs can see the applications

Agree with Adrian’s point - that would be the *latest*

agree

I don’t see the need to delay the initial date

I don’t think applicants should be limited to only virtual interviews. I would have concerns about there not being an on site option should the applicant desire and if the institution can accommodate.

I would not delay the date either.

I absolutely would not want the materials delayed, doing virtual interviews may take LONGER for us to do and we will need more weeks to get it done.

I would prefer no delay in release

The surgical subspecialists have led the way with virtual interviews, and articles in past few years have some suggested best practices, such as material send in advance, checking computer interface before the interviews, other ideas.

If the decision is made for only virtual interviews, how should requests from applicants to come visit in person at a later date be handled?

Good point

agree Karen!

I agree

Please note Adolescent Med is on a different timeline - about 1 month earlier than other fall match subs (Match Day November 18)

Agree with not delaying release the application

Is there a way for us to see how many total programs an individual candidate has applied?

But programs could choose NOT to lock applications on July 15th

I have always had a comment on my program info on ERAS that appications after a certain date may not be considered for an interview. Most get them in by then, sometims I have to wait for LORs but that's not their fault. Also, for cancelling virtual interviuews, I would advertise that they should carefully consider accepting an interview, insinuating that if they cancel, it may look badly. It's not a perfect system, but these are not perfect times...

I would not delay release of applications.

Yes (and June is the worst for getting letters from faculty)

Certainly seems simpler to not lock out later applications on the programmatic level than to make a delay for ALL programs.

Joe, good question.

I think we need to realize things are different this year and should be encourage FPDs to look more often

We need to balance the extra demand on residents to complete their application (is it actually that time consuming to complete??) vs the compressed schedule faculty will have to review the applications.

We could agree in each subspecialty not to release interview dates until a certain point - doesn’t disadvantage programs from looking at data or disadvantage fellows using the extra week or two to submit

Is it possible to have ACGME postpone the due date for WebADS?

We can reach out to ACGME re: WebADS. They have been very flexible due to COVID.

If moving those deadlines, would the MATCH deadline change at that point?

You can use breakout rooms to hold multiple interviews on zoom

You can use breakout rooms I believe

Residency Interviews might overlap even more with fellowship interviews just to consider. It makes it hard to tap faculty.

there are breakout rooms to interview multiple people

Many programs begin interviewing in September and delaying release of applications would make it difficult to get interviews scheduled by then

Delaying the opening date but not the match date will compress everything and make it a mad rush to review all the applications and interview in a shorter time period. I do not see a downside to start the review process at the original time.

If we know that ERAS opening on Aug 15th, I will get WebADS done by August 15

Why could a program not interview more than 1 at a time with Zoom? The interviews could be set up in different rooms...

Enable breakout rooms

We need to keep in mind a potential fall surge and redeployments again

We’ve been building faculty schedules for the fall around set interview dates starting the day after Labor Day. Shifting interview dates due to delayed review of apps is going to have lots of downstream effects

But also, if we delay things this could push it further into fall/winter.

Combination of delayed ERAS date and increased applicants would really compress process for programs that get a lot of applications

Peds at Riley Hospitsl collects data quarterly and save it so all I will need to do is copy and past for WebADS...this is first year we did this and I expect it to cut the time to do WebADS in half.

I think the process we are considering may make things harder for us and our programs but moving the ERAS dates back by 2 or 4 weeks may be the most trainee-centered approach and this may be what we need given how much trainees are going through with the pandemic.

If ERAS dates moves, then the MATCH date should move also. There is no advantage in keeping the same MATCH date

Agree.. faculty will only get busier in cards subspecialty

adolescent medicine has an earlier match date (as of now) - so we will have less time to interview

Zoom offers the option to have "breakaway" groups that run off of one Zoom invitation/link but allows candidates to breakaway with different faculty for a duration of time.

Agree with not delaying the ERAS process at all, especially without moving the match. July 15 is 2.5 months from now; agree LoR delays should not be held against applicants (never should be)

I agree

Less time to screen applications is the only major issue. I'm guessing the bigger programs already batch interviews (we do up to 40 over 12 dates max)

also we need time to go through the applications - if we get a couple hundred applications and have to review them starting aug 15 and then start interviewing in sept

I agree its too short a timeline for fellowship PDs to do it all in a shorter amount of time

Agree with Lowell's point

you can set up zoom interviews just like in person interviews, you just sit in front of a screen instead of the person. You can do individual ones, you can do waiting rooms in which the applicants can congregate between interviews, you can do group interviews etc

How many programs start interviewing before September?

To answer that question - we started in August last year.

We typically start interviewing in August.

We have been known to interview the last week of August.

Peds Hem/Onc - we start interviews in August, usually

End of August

We start right after labor day. PCCM.

Right after labor day

We have interviewed in late August

We really need to anticipate that we are all going to be affected by a second “wave” this fall (applicant and interviewer illnesses, quarantines, redeployments, etc.) - might need to plan for a longer interview season than shorter.

We started end of August last year

Last year Critical Care started in mid August and Neo the beginning of September

Neonatology- mid/late august

Start 1st-2nd week of September, PEM DC Children's.

Agree with Jessica Madden

If we keep the same opening date but not close the interview dates, we could save some slots for those applicants coming from harder hit locations? our first interviews are usually towards the end of august but run until beginning of November

We start interviews as early as the last week of July!!

Wow!

Another concern that I have is that we try to be done with interviews by the time the peds residency starts their interviews to avoid overwhelming interviewers

Most large programs batch interviews. The largest problem with the later ERAS date will be a much more compressed time period. Our program (neonatology at CHOP) typically receives 165 applications and it takes 15 people on a committee approximately 3 weeks to get through these applications. More applications = more time to evaluate applications for interviews. I think that August 1 is the latest that we should open the applications.

Agree with concern that having fellowship and resident interviews closer together may create a problem in terms of faculty availability and “interviewer fatigue”

I agree Jerri

Agree Scott

Agree, interviewer fatigue is a real problem.

YES - this could be the case!

yes!

WE have administrative staff on furlough through July

I totally agree with Pat- our coordinators cover 2-3 fellowships here at Emory

admin strain would be very hard

Yes

anyone else concerned that if a large 2nd wave comes in the fall, fellow education may not be able to continue as we have previously know it for quite some time?

or for a coordinator for one program but has other duties outside of the fellowship.

Agree with that comment about admin stress, my PC is shared among several fellowships

it’s me for my fellowship and 2 4th year fellowships. we also have several new faculty staring Sept 1

and we have others who share multiple fellowships.

Could someone call the ACGME re: stalling on webads submission?

Agree that bottom line is what is equitable for residents impacted by COVID-19 (which includes IM- if we are married to them). Go from there...

and the time it took to screen to get to the interview stage…so it’s not just the cancelation but the time that was invested to the them to the point that we scheduled them for the interivew

I've only been in my current position for one interview season, but in my previous job when we sent out the interview confirmations we added the following lines "I know interview season can be a stressful time. Please be respectful of your classmates who also want to interview! That includes cancelling an interview no later than 10 days before your scheduled interview so someone else may be reviewed by our program." I don't know if that would help, but we did seem to notice a difference in my past residency position. I think it makes them think a bit

If they find that they are not that interested in our fellowship, I'd rather they cancel and save us the time we would spend interviewing them.

Kris Forneris—I think that’s the best approach about guidance re: cancelling interviews.

These virtual café sessions have been VERY helpful. Thank you!

thank you!

Thank you.

Many thanks!

Thank you all!

This was great- thanks so much!!

Thank you!

Thank you

Any templates for setting up the virtual interviews so we can get a core group to start the process ?