Katzen, Janine

Abstract To assess breast imaging fellowship program directors’ perspectives of the outcomes of the first-ever virtual interview season. A 19-question survey was constructed by members of the Fellowship Match Committee of the Society of Breast Imaging and distributed via email to 103 program directors. An initial email with a link to the survey was distributed on May 17, 2023, with 2 reminder emails sent on May 31, 2023, and June 20, 2023. The survey was closed on June 26, 2023. Results were compiled, and a descriptive statistical analysis was performed using Excel. There were 36 total responses yielding a response rate of 35% (36/103). The majority of programs, 61% (22/36), did not fill positions with any internal candidates. Overall, 72% answered that the perception of their fellow’s performance was equal to or higher than those in prior years. Despite the effects of the pandemic on clinical exposure for this cohort, 73% of programs stated that the fellow’s foundational knowledge was equivalent or better. Remarkably, 81% of respondents stated that procedural skills were equivalent or better, and 78% stated that communication skills were equivalent or better. This is the first study to investigate the outcomes of the unexpected pivot to virtual interviews. Despite the lack of preparation for this operational shift, it does not appear to have negatively impacted the program directors’ impressions of their matched fellows.

Abstract Objective The purpose of this study is to summarize the results of a survey distributed by the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) to assess applicants’ experience with the 2018 and 2019 Breast Imaging Fellowship Match process. Methods In this institutional review board–exempt study, the SBI issued an anonymous survey to all matched applicants in an attempt to gauge their experience with the 2018 and 2019 Match process. Results The survey was sent to all 2018 and 2019 matched applicants and 105/236 (45%) responses were received. The majority (75%, 79/105) of respondents reported a positive experience with the Match, with at least a 4/5 rating, and only 3% (5/105) reported a rating below 3/5. There was some improvement in 2019, with 86% (24/28) of respondents reporting at least a 4/5 rating compared to 71% (55/77) in 2018. No respondent reported a score below a 3/5 rating in 2019. The most commonly cited issues with the Match were the timing of the Match process, the need for a universal application, and the burden of travel. Location and program reputation were the two most important factors contributing to the final rank order of programs. Conclusion The great majority of applicants felt that the Match created a positive experience. Planned areas of improvement include the implementation of a universal application, the transition to virtual interviews, and a condensed timeline. These measures are likely to increase applicant satisfaction and provide a fair and efficient experience for future breast radiologists.