User login
Recruiting gastroenterology and hepatology fellows virtually - Should we continue after the pandemic?
Recruiting medical trainees is a major yearly step for all teaching hospitals in health care. The concept of interviewing residents and fellows virtually is not completely new and has been used in the past.1 With the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) epidemic, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recommended in May 2020 that all interviews be conducted virtually to ensure safety and prevent spread of the disease.2,3 Over the past few years, and with the gradual loosening of some restrictions, some programs have adopted a hybrid interview model for their recruitment plan, while others continue to use the virtual model exclusively.
, from the standpoint of the program director (Dr. Clark) and the associate program director (Dr. Dakhoul) of the fellowship program at the University of Florida in Gainesville. We have conducted our fellowship interviews for the academic year 2022-2023 completely virtually over multiple half-day sessions and fully matched all four positions. At the time of the interviews, we extended a general invitation to all candidates for an in-person visit for the purpose of touring the facilities and our community. Out of the 37 applicants interviewed, 2 made an in-person visit later.
After we concluded the interview season, we conducted a brief, anonymous survey to assess the overall experience of the interviewees with their virtual interviews. (See end of this article.) The survey contained a combination of single-choice questions and open-ended questions. The response rate was 35%. Most responders (92.3%) thought that they had a great understanding of the program from the information provided to them, and 84.6% were quite satisfied with their virtual interview experience. Regarding the likelihood of accepting the interview if it were offered in person, only one person answered that he/she would not have accepted the invitation. A total of 31% of participants might have changed the ranking of the program if they’d had an in-person interview instead.
When asked to choose between an invitation for an in-person vs. a virtual interview, the majority (77%) chose the virtual option. The stated pros of being interviewed virtually included convenience (not having to find coverage, etc.), time and cost savings, and a less stressful experience. Cons were focused mostly on not being able to see the hospital or the geographical area in person, as well as limited exposure to the facility and work environment for subjective assessment of “fitting” into the program. Additional comments included mostly positive feedback about the whole experience specific to the program. Finally, 77% of respondents recommended that the program should continue to conduct its interviews virtually.
It seems that the general feedback from our survey was positive. Certainly, limitations exist, including but not limited to the response rate, the geographic locations of the invited candidates, the design of the interview day, and familiarity with the fellowship program and the surrounding area. Several studies have been published on the topic with variable results across centers and among specialties, but most of them reported an encouraging overall experience.4-9
While the virtual recruitment experience seems to be most appealing to candidates, fellowships program directors and faculty who are part of the selection committee do not seem to be completely satisfied with the process and/or the outcome. Although virtual recruitment was shown to reduce financial costs and use of institutional resources,6 the major drawbacks were a lack of perception of the communication skills of the candidates as well as an inability to properly assess the interpersonal interactions with fellows and other applicants, both major keys to ranking decisions.10
Furthermore, the number of candidates who applied to our program has been steadily on the rise since the virtual platform was introduced. This has been the case nationwide and in other specialties as well.11 Applicants invited for an interview rarely decline or cancel the invitation due to the convenience of the virtual setting.6 These factors can affect the choice of candidates and subsequently the results of the match, especially for smaller programs. These observations create a new dilemma of whether fellowship programs need to consider increasing the number of their interviewees to ascertain a full match. Although the number of gastroenterology fellowship positions is steadily increasing with new program openings every year, it might not match the speed of the up-trending number of applicants. This certainly creates concern for fairness and equity in the selection process in this very competitive subspecialty.
As most gastroenterology programs continue to recruit their fellows virtually, it is important to keep in mind a few key elements to enhance the virtual experience. These include: a) familiarity of the interviewers and interviewees with video conference software to avoid technical problems, b) inclusion of up-to-date information about the program on the institutional website as well as videos or live-stream tours to show the physical aspect of the training sites (mainly the endoscopy areas) as alternatives to in-person tours,12 and c) timing of the interview, taking into consideration the different time zones of the invited applicants. Despite optimizing the virtual experience, some interviewees might still choose to visit in person. While this decision is solely voluntary and remains optional (at least in our program), it does allow program directors to indirectly evaluate candidates with a strong interest in the program.
In conclusion, there is no clear-cut answer to whether conducting interviews virtually is the best way to continue to recruit gastroenterology and hepatology fellows beyond the pandemic. While our perspective might be somewhat biased by the positive experience we had in the past few years recruiting our fellows virtually, this should be an individualized decision for every program. It is highly dependent on the location and size of each fellowship program, faculty engagement in the interview process, and the historical matching rates of the program. On a positive note, the individualized approach by each fellowship program should highlight the best features of the program and have a positive impact on recruitment at the local level. We have to bear in mind that a nonstandardized approach to fellow recruitment may have disadvantages to both programs and applicants with fewer resources to successfully compete and may introduce another element of uncertainty to an already stressful process for applicants and programs alike. As we continue to understand the implications of using the virtual platform and to reflect on the previous match results through the performance and satisfaction of the fellows recruited virtually, this option does not seem to have completely replaced in-person meetings. Further follow-up to evaluate the impact of virtual interviews should be done by surveying program directors nationally on the impact of match results before and after implementation of virtual interviews.
Survey
A. Do you think you had a good understanding of the UF GI Fellowship program from the information provided to you during your virtual interview?
1. I was provided with all the information I needed to know, and I had a great understanding of the program
2. I was provided with some information, and I had a fair understanding of the program
3. I was not provided with enough information, and I don’t think I understand the program well
B. How likely were you to accept this interview if this had been an in-person interview?
1. I would have still accepted the invitation regardless
2. I would have thought about possibly not accepting the invitation
3. I wouldn’t have accepted the invitation
C. Do you think an in-person interview would have changed your program ranking?
1. Yes
2. Maybe, I am not sure
3. No
D. If you had a choice between conducting this interview virtually vs. in-person, which one would you have chosen?
1. Virtual
2. In-person
E. Overall, how satisfied were you with your virtual GI Fellowship interview experience at UF?
1. Quite satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Not at all satisfied
F. If you chose “somewhat satisfied” or “not at all satisfied” in the previous question, please tell us why, and what are the things that we could have done better:G. Do you think the UF GI Fellowship program should continue to conduct its interviews virtually (regardless of COVID)?
1. Yes
2. No
H. Please list some of the pros and cons of being interviewed virtually, in your opinion:
I. Additional comments:
Dr. Dakhoul, Ms. Rhoden, and Dr. Clark are with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Florida, Gainesville. They have no disclosures or conflicts.
References
1. Shah SK et al. Randomized evaluation of a web based interview process for urology resident selection. J Urol. Apr 2012;187(4):1380-4.
2. AAMC Interview Guidance for the 2022-2023 Residency Cycle. May 16, 2022.
3. Bernstein SA et al. Graduate medical education virtual interviews and recruitment in the era of COVID-19. J Grad Med Educ. Oct 2020;12(5):557-60.
4. Gupta S et al. Is the changing landscape of fellowship recruitment during COVID-19 here to stay? J Pediatr Surg. Oct 2022;57(10):445-50.
5. Vining CC et al. Virtual surgical fellowship recruitment during COVID-19 and its implications for resident/fellow recruitment in the future. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020 Dec;27(Suppl 3):911-15.
6. Simmons RP et al. Virtual Recruitment: Experiences and Perspectives of Internal Medicine Program Directors. Am J Med. Feb 2022;135(2):258-63.e251.
7. Daram SR et al. Interview from anywhere: Feasibility and utility of web-based videoconference interviews in the gastroenterology fellowship selection process. Am J Gastroenterol. Feb 2014;109(2):155-9.
8. Ponterio JM et al. The virtual interview format for fellowship recruitment in obstetrics and gynecology: A nationwide survey of program directors. Med Educ Online. Dec 2022;27(1):2054304.
9. DiGiusto M et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 2020 pediatric anesthesiology fellowship application cycle: A survey of program directors. Paediatr Anaesth. Mar 2022;32(3):471-8.
10. Hamade N et al. Virtual Gastroenterology Fellowship Recruitment During COVID-19 and Its Implications for the Future. Dig Dis Sci. Jun 2022;67(6):2019-28.
11. AAMC: ERAS Statistics. Historical Specialty Specific Data.
12. Advani R et al. An Overview of the GI Fellowship Interview: Part II-Tips for Selection Committees and Interviewers. Dig Dis Sci. May 2022;67(5):1712-17.
Recruiting medical trainees is a major yearly step for all teaching hospitals in health care. The concept of interviewing residents and fellows virtually is not completely new and has been used in the past.1 With the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) epidemic, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recommended in May 2020 that all interviews be conducted virtually to ensure safety and prevent spread of the disease.2,3 Over the past few years, and with the gradual loosening of some restrictions, some programs have adopted a hybrid interview model for their recruitment plan, while others continue to use the virtual model exclusively.
, from the standpoint of the program director (Dr. Clark) and the associate program director (Dr. Dakhoul) of the fellowship program at the University of Florida in Gainesville. We have conducted our fellowship interviews for the academic year 2022-2023 completely virtually over multiple half-day sessions and fully matched all four positions. At the time of the interviews, we extended a general invitation to all candidates for an in-person visit for the purpose of touring the facilities and our community. Out of the 37 applicants interviewed, 2 made an in-person visit later.
After we concluded the interview season, we conducted a brief, anonymous survey to assess the overall experience of the interviewees with their virtual interviews. (See end of this article.) The survey contained a combination of single-choice questions and open-ended questions. The response rate was 35%. Most responders (92.3%) thought that they had a great understanding of the program from the information provided to them, and 84.6% were quite satisfied with their virtual interview experience. Regarding the likelihood of accepting the interview if it were offered in person, only one person answered that he/she would not have accepted the invitation. A total of 31% of participants might have changed the ranking of the program if they’d had an in-person interview instead.
When asked to choose between an invitation for an in-person vs. a virtual interview, the majority (77%) chose the virtual option. The stated pros of being interviewed virtually included convenience (not having to find coverage, etc.), time and cost savings, and a less stressful experience. Cons were focused mostly on not being able to see the hospital or the geographical area in person, as well as limited exposure to the facility and work environment for subjective assessment of “fitting” into the program. Additional comments included mostly positive feedback about the whole experience specific to the program. Finally, 77% of respondents recommended that the program should continue to conduct its interviews virtually.
It seems that the general feedback from our survey was positive. Certainly, limitations exist, including but not limited to the response rate, the geographic locations of the invited candidates, the design of the interview day, and familiarity with the fellowship program and the surrounding area. Several studies have been published on the topic with variable results across centers and among specialties, but most of them reported an encouraging overall experience.4-9
While the virtual recruitment experience seems to be most appealing to candidates, fellowships program directors and faculty who are part of the selection committee do not seem to be completely satisfied with the process and/or the outcome. Although virtual recruitment was shown to reduce financial costs and use of institutional resources,6 the major drawbacks were a lack of perception of the communication skills of the candidates as well as an inability to properly assess the interpersonal interactions with fellows and other applicants, both major keys to ranking decisions.10
Furthermore, the number of candidates who applied to our program has been steadily on the rise since the virtual platform was introduced. This has been the case nationwide and in other specialties as well.11 Applicants invited for an interview rarely decline or cancel the invitation due to the convenience of the virtual setting.6 These factors can affect the choice of candidates and subsequently the results of the match, especially for smaller programs. These observations create a new dilemma of whether fellowship programs need to consider increasing the number of their interviewees to ascertain a full match. Although the number of gastroenterology fellowship positions is steadily increasing with new program openings every year, it might not match the speed of the up-trending number of applicants. This certainly creates concern for fairness and equity in the selection process in this very competitive subspecialty.
As most gastroenterology programs continue to recruit their fellows virtually, it is important to keep in mind a few key elements to enhance the virtual experience. These include: a) familiarity of the interviewers and interviewees with video conference software to avoid technical problems, b) inclusion of up-to-date information about the program on the institutional website as well as videos or live-stream tours to show the physical aspect of the training sites (mainly the endoscopy areas) as alternatives to in-person tours,12 and c) timing of the interview, taking into consideration the different time zones of the invited applicants. Despite optimizing the virtual experience, some interviewees might still choose to visit in person. While this decision is solely voluntary and remains optional (at least in our program), it does allow program directors to indirectly evaluate candidates with a strong interest in the program.
In conclusion, there is no clear-cut answer to whether conducting interviews virtually is the best way to continue to recruit gastroenterology and hepatology fellows beyond the pandemic. While our perspective might be somewhat biased by the positive experience we had in the past few years recruiting our fellows virtually, this should be an individualized decision for every program. It is highly dependent on the location and size of each fellowship program, faculty engagement in the interview process, and the historical matching rates of the program. On a positive note, the individualized approach by each fellowship program should highlight the best features of the program and have a positive impact on recruitment at the local level. We have to bear in mind that a nonstandardized approach to fellow recruitment may have disadvantages to both programs and applicants with fewer resources to successfully compete and may introduce another element of uncertainty to an already stressful process for applicants and programs alike. As we continue to understand the implications of using the virtual platform and to reflect on the previous match results through the performance and satisfaction of the fellows recruited virtually, this option does not seem to have completely replaced in-person meetings. Further follow-up to evaluate the impact of virtual interviews should be done by surveying program directors nationally on the impact of match results before and after implementation of virtual interviews.
Survey
A. Do you think you had a good understanding of the UF GI Fellowship program from the information provided to you during your virtual interview?
1. I was provided with all the information I needed to know, and I had a great understanding of the program
2. I was provided with some information, and I had a fair understanding of the program
3. I was not provided with enough information, and I don’t think I understand the program well
B. How likely were you to accept this interview if this had been an in-person interview?
1. I would have still accepted the invitation regardless
2. I would have thought about possibly not accepting the invitation
3. I wouldn’t have accepted the invitation
C. Do you think an in-person interview would have changed your program ranking?
1. Yes
2. Maybe, I am not sure
3. No
D. If you had a choice between conducting this interview virtually vs. in-person, which one would you have chosen?
1. Virtual
2. In-person
E. Overall, how satisfied were you with your virtual GI Fellowship interview experience at UF?
1. Quite satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Not at all satisfied
F. If you chose “somewhat satisfied” or “not at all satisfied” in the previous question, please tell us why, and what are the things that we could have done better:G. Do you think the UF GI Fellowship program should continue to conduct its interviews virtually (regardless of COVID)?
1. Yes
2. No
H. Please list some of the pros and cons of being interviewed virtually, in your opinion:
I. Additional comments:
Dr. Dakhoul, Ms. Rhoden, and Dr. Clark are with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Florida, Gainesville. They have no disclosures or conflicts.
References
1. Shah SK et al. Randomized evaluation of a web based interview process for urology resident selection. J Urol. Apr 2012;187(4):1380-4.
2. AAMC Interview Guidance for the 2022-2023 Residency Cycle. May 16, 2022.
3. Bernstein SA et al. Graduate medical education virtual interviews and recruitment in the era of COVID-19. J Grad Med Educ. Oct 2020;12(5):557-60.
4. Gupta S et al. Is the changing landscape of fellowship recruitment during COVID-19 here to stay? J Pediatr Surg. Oct 2022;57(10):445-50.
5. Vining CC et al. Virtual surgical fellowship recruitment during COVID-19 and its implications for resident/fellow recruitment in the future. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020 Dec;27(Suppl 3):911-15.
6. Simmons RP et al. Virtual Recruitment: Experiences and Perspectives of Internal Medicine Program Directors. Am J Med. Feb 2022;135(2):258-63.e251.
7. Daram SR et al. Interview from anywhere: Feasibility and utility of web-based videoconference interviews in the gastroenterology fellowship selection process. Am J Gastroenterol. Feb 2014;109(2):155-9.
8. Ponterio JM et al. The virtual interview format for fellowship recruitment in obstetrics and gynecology: A nationwide survey of program directors. Med Educ Online. Dec 2022;27(1):2054304.
9. DiGiusto M et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 2020 pediatric anesthesiology fellowship application cycle: A survey of program directors. Paediatr Anaesth. Mar 2022;32(3):471-8.
10. Hamade N et al. Virtual Gastroenterology Fellowship Recruitment During COVID-19 and Its Implications for the Future. Dig Dis Sci. Jun 2022;67(6):2019-28.
11. AAMC: ERAS Statistics. Historical Specialty Specific Data.
12. Advani R et al. An Overview of the GI Fellowship Interview: Part II-Tips for Selection Committees and Interviewers. Dig Dis Sci. May 2022;67(5):1712-17.
Recruiting medical trainees is a major yearly step for all teaching hospitals in health care. The concept of interviewing residents and fellows virtually is not completely new and has been used in the past.1 With the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) epidemic, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recommended in May 2020 that all interviews be conducted virtually to ensure safety and prevent spread of the disease.2,3 Over the past few years, and with the gradual loosening of some restrictions, some programs have adopted a hybrid interview model for their recruitment plan, while others continue to use the virtual model exclusively.
, from the standpoint of the program director (Dr. Clark) and the associate program director (Dr. Dakhoul) of the fellowship program at the University of Florida in Gainesville. We have conducted our fellowship interviews for the academic year 2022-2023 completely virtually over multiple half-day sessions and fully matched all four positions. At the time of the interviews, we extended a general invitation to all candidates for an in-person visit for the purpose of touring the facilities and our community. Out of the 37 applicants interviewed, 2 made an in-person visit later.
After we concluded the interview season, we conducted a brief, anonymous survey to assess the overall experience of the interviewees with their virtual interviews. (See end of this article.) The survey contained a combination of single-choice questions and open-ended questions. The response rate was 35%. Most responders (92.3%) thought that they had a great understanding of the program from the information provided to them, and 84.6% were quite satisfied with their virtual interview experience. Regarding the likelihood of accepting the interview if it were offered in person, only one person answered that he/she would not have accepted the invitation. A total of 31% of participants might have changed the ranking of the program if they’d had an in-person interview instead.
When asked to choose between an invitation for an in-person vs. a virtual interview, the majority (77%) chose the virtual option. The stated pros of being interviewed virtually included convenience (not having to find coverage, etc.), time and cost savings, and a less stressful experience. Cons were focused mostly on not being able to see the hospital or the geographical area in person, as well as limited exposure to the facility and work environment for subjective assessment of “fitting” into the program. Additional comments included mostly positive feedback about the whole experience specific to the program. Finally, 77% of respondents recommended that the program should continue to conduct its interviews virtually.
It seems that the general feedback from our survey was positive. Certainly, limitations exist, including but not limited to the response rate, the geographic locations of the invited candidates, the design of the interview day, and familiarity with the fellowship program and the surrounding area. Several studies have been published on the topic with variable results across centers and among specialties, but most of them reported an encouraging overall experience.4-9
While the virtual recruitment experience seems to be most appealing to candidates, fellowships program directors and faculty who are part of the selection committee do not seem to be completely satisfied with the process and/or the outcome. Although virtual recruitment was shown to reduce financial costs and use of institutional resources,6 the major drawbacks were a lack of perception of the communication skills of the candidates as well as an inability to properly assess the interpersonal interactions with fellows and other applicants, both major keys to ranking decisions.10
Furthermore, the number of candidates who applied to our program has been steadily on the rise since the virtual platform was introduced. This has been the case nationwide and in other specialties as well.11 Applicants invited for an interview rarely decline or cancel the invitation due to the convenience of the virtual setting.6 These factors can affect the choice of candidates and subsequently the results of the match, especially for smaller programs. These observations create a new dilemma of whether fellowship programs need to consider increasing the number of their interviewees to ascertain a full match. Although the number of gastroenterology fellowship positions is steadily increasing with new program openings every year, it might not match the speed of the up-trending number of applicants. This certainly creates concern for fairness and equity in the selection process in this very competitive subspecialty.
As most gastroenterology programs continue to recruit their fellows virtually, it is important to keep in mind a few key elements to enhance the virtual experience. These include: a) familiarity of the interviewers and interviewees with video conference software to avoid technical problems, b) inclusion of up-to-date information about the program on the institutional website as well as videos or live-stream tours to show the physical aspect of the training sites (mainly the endoscopy areas) as alternatives to in-person tours,12 and c) timing of the interview, taking into consideration the different time zones of the invited applicants. Despite optimizing the virtual experience, some interviewees might still choose to visit in person. While this decision is solely voluntary and remains optional (at least in our program), it does allow program directors to indirectly evaluate candidates with a strong interest in the program.
In conclusion, there is no clear-cut answer to whether conducting interviews virtually is the best way to continue to recruit gastroenterology and hepatology fellows beyond the pandemic. While our perspective might be somewhat biased by the positive experience we had in the past few years recruiting our fellows virtually, this should be an individualized decision for every program. It is highly dependent on the location and size of each fellowship program, faculty engagement in the interview process, and the historical matching rates of the program. On a positive note, the individualized approach by each fellowship program should highlight the best features of the program and have a positive impact on recruitment at the local level. We have to bear in mind that a nonstandardized approach to fellow recruitment may have disadvantages to both programs and applicants with fewer resources to successfully compete and may introduce another element of uncertainty to an already stressful process for applicants and programs alike. As we continue to understand the implications of using the virtual platform and to reflect on the previous match results through the performance and satisfaction of the fellows recruited virtually, this option does not seem to have completely replaced in-person meetings. Further follow-up to evaluate the impact of virtual interviews should be done by surveying program directors nationally on the impact of match results before and after implementation of virtual interviews.
Survey
A. Do you think you had a good understanding of the UF GI Fellowship program from the information provided to you during your virtual interview?
1. I was provided with all the information I needed to know, and I had a great understanding of the program
2. I was provided with some information, and I had a fair understanding of the program
3. I was not provided with enough information, and I don’t think I understand the program well
B. How likely were you to accept this interview if this had been an in-person interview?
1. I would have still accepted the invitation regardless
2. I would have thought about possibly not accepting the invitation
3. I wouldn’t have accepted the invitation
C. Do you think an in-person interview would have changed your program ranking?
1. Yes
2. Maybe, I am not sure
3. No
D. If you had a choice between conducting this interview virtually vs. in-person, which one would you have chosen?
1. Virtual
2. In-person
E. Overall, how satisfied were you with your virtual GI Fellowship interview experience at UF?
1. Quite satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Not at all satisfied
F. If you chose “somewhat satisfied” or “not at all satisfied” in the previous question, please tell us why, and what are the things that we could have done better:G. Do you think the UF GI Fellowship program should continue to conduct its interviews virtually (regardless of COVID)?
1. Yes
2. No
H. Please list some of the pros and cons of being interviewed virtually, in your opinion:
I. Additional comments:
Dr. Dakhoul, Ms. Rhoden, and Dr. Clark are with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Florida, Gainesville. They have no disclosures or conflicts.
References
1. Shah SK et al. Randomized evaluation of a web based interview process for urology resident selection. J Urol. Apr 2012;187(4):1380-4.
2. AAMC Interview Guidance for the 2022-2023 Residency Cycle. May 16, 2022.
3. Bernstein SA et al. Graduate medical education virtual interviews and recruitment in the era of COVID-19. J Grad Med Educ. Oct 2020;12(5):557-60.
4. Gupta S et al. Is the changing landscape of fellowship recruitment during COVID-19 here to stay? J Pediatr Surg. Oct 2022;57(10):445-50.
5. Vining CC et al. Virtual surgical fellowship recruitment during COVID-19 and its implications for resident/fellow recruitment in the future. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020 Dec;27(Suppl 3):911-15.
6. Simmons RP et al. Virtual Recruitment: Experiences and Perspectives of Internal Medicine Program Directors. Am J Med. Feb 2022;135(2):258-63.e251.
7. Daram SR et al. Interview from anywhere: Feasibility and utility of web-based videoconference interviews in the gastroenterology fellowship selection process. Am J Gastroenterol. Feb 2014;109(2):155-9.
8. Ponterio JM et al. The virtual interview format for fellowship recruitment in obstetrics and gynecology: A nationwide survey of program directors. Med Educ Online. Dec 2022;27(1):2054304.
9. DiGiusto M et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 2020 pediatric anesthesiology fellowship application cycle: A survey of program directors. Paediatr Anaesth. Mar 2022;32(3):471-8.
10. Hamade N et al. Virtual Gastroenterology Fellowship Recruitment During COVID-19 and Its Implications for the Future. Dig Dis Sci. Jun 2022;67(6):2019-28.
11. AAMC: ERAS Statistics. Historical Specialty Specific Data.
12. Advani R et al. An Overview of the GI Fellowship Interview: Part II-Tips for Selection Committees and Interviewers. Dig Dis Sci. May 2022;67(5):1712-17.