Abstract
Rationale and Objectives: To assess resident and fellowship program director (PD) perceptions of the abdominal radiology fellowship application process following the first cycle in which an embargo on interviews until December 1, 2019 was set according to the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD) timeline for the 2021–2022 abdominal imaging fellowship year. Materials and Methods: Eligible study participants included fellowship PDs of all abdominal imaging programs in the United States and residents that attended the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) 2020 Annual Meeting. A questionnaire was developed by content and survey experts, pilot tested, and administered from May to June 2020. Results: A total of 39% (36/92) of all PDs and 30% (46/152) of all individuals identified as residents with valid email addresses that attended the SAR 2020 Annual Meeting responded to the survey with an overall response rate of 34%. Only 42% of PDs and 33% of residents supported moving to a match, while 62% of PDs and 70% of residents thought that a match would limit the autonomy of applicants. While most PDs and residents also agreed that the first iteration of the SCARD timeline allowed residents to make a more informed choice, the majority of PDs were dissatisfied with their experience. Most PDs and residents additionally want applications to be accepted no earlier than July and/or August of the R3 year (initial SCARD guidelines did not restrict timing), interviews to begin on November 1st or earlier of the R3 year (compared to December 1st set in the first iteration of the guidelines), and a gap of 2–4 weeks between the date of first interviews and notification of first offers (initial SCARD guidelines did not restrict timing). Lastly, an overwhelming majority of PDs and residents agreed that SAR should enforce the abdominal imaging fellowship application process. Conclusion: Following the first cycle of abdominal imaging fellowship applications conducted according to the SCARD guidelines, a majority of trainees and PDs felt the changes were favorable and were opposed to a formal match. Specific suggestions for improvement were elicited from stakeholders and will be incorporated for the next cycle.