The Plastic Surgery Residency Interview: A Survey of Residents and Program Directors

PURPOSE

The integrated plastic surgery residency interview is a rigorous process to navigate for applicants and programs alike. Applicants traditionally apply and interview broadly.¹ Programs are inundated with applications making interviewee selection difficult. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the integrated plastic surgery residency interview process through parallel surveys of residents and program directors. With the survey information, we hope to improve the interview process by sharing insight and aligning preferences. We also seek to evaluate perception of and compliance with the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons (ACAPS) postinterview communications policy.

METHODS

Two online surveys were conducted regarding the interview process. One survey was disseminated to residents and applicants and the other to program directors. An additional survey was administered to program directors and assistant program directors regarding the ACAPS postinterview communications policy and match guidelines. Survey responses were collected, analyzed, and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Online respondents included 127 applicants and residents and 53 program directors. The ACAPS survey was completed by 106 program directors. Applicants are interviewing at a large number of programs, 11–15 on average, with a high monetary cost of $5,000–10,000. Applicants most often cancelled interviews due to scheduling conflicts with another program’s interview. Program accommodation of interview schedule conflicts varies. Applicants prefer residents only at the preinterview welcome dinner and value resident involvement in the interview process. One-on-one interview style is preferred. Ethical questions are common while clinical questions or tasks are uncommon. Most interview time is spent by applicants answering questions about themselves. In ranking programs, most valuable to applicants are rotations, the interview, and time spent with residents. Applicants most value fit and quality of life. Program directors most value rotations, letters of recommendation, interview performance, and academic performance. Match violations are decreasing in frequency and do not often bother applicants. Approximately 25% of applicants and program directors would like the option of postinterview communication. Postinterview communication occurs mainly between residents or program coordinators and mostly pertains to program information or applicant updates; some regards ranking. Applicants prefer communication with coordinators and residents, faculty prefer program directors be accessible as well.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful pairing of applicants and programs is fundamental to an optimal match experience. While programs and applicants share opinions on many features of the interview process, this survey study has indicated important aspects on which perceptions vary. Through shared insight, we hope to bridge preferences of both parties and streamline the interview process. In time, this may curb broad application and subsequently ease interviewee selection, improving match efficacy while reducing cost.