Learning Objectives: Assess EM residency program leadership preferences/concerns for the 2021-22 residency interview cycle.

Background: The Coalition for Physician Accountability recommended 2021-2022 residency interviews be held virtually. Studies assessing EM program leadership preferences for virtual versus in person interviews have been limited.

Objective: Assess EM residency program leadership preferences/concerns for the 2021-2022 residency interview cycle.

Methods: Via CORD’s Program Director and Faculty Community, EM program leadership were asked to complete a 10 question survey, which included likert, multiple choice, and open response questions. There were 73 responses (86.3% PDs, 12.3% APDs, 2.7% CDs, Vice Chair of Education 1.4%). Descriptive and summary statistics were used.

Results: When asked comfort level with formats for 2021-2022, respondents felt most comfortable (agree or strongly agree) with virtual interviews only (64.4%), followed by virtual interviews with all applicants with optional in person second looks (57.5%), in person interviews only (50.7%), and offering both in person and virtual formats with applicants choosing the format they prefer (29.1%). When asked which one format they prefer, 37% preferred virtual interviews with all applicants with optional in person second looks, followed by 26% virtual interviews only, 20.5% offering both in person and virtual formats with applicants choosing which format they prefer, and 16.4% preferred in person interviews only (Figure 1). There was concern for bias if students are given a choice between in person and virtual interviews (Figure 2). In the open response, a novel idea suggested second looks for students after programs have submitted their rank list, yet before students submit their lists.

Conclusions: A majority of EM program leaders feel comfortable with virtual interviews only for the 2021-2022 cycle. The largest percentage prefer virtual interviews with all applicants, with optional in person second looks. As a follow up, we plan to survey current interns who interviewed in 2020-2021.

Introduction: Competency-based medical education (CBME) presents a paradigm shift in medicaltraining. This outcome-based education movement has triggered substantive changes across the globe.Since this transition is only beginning, many faculty members may not have experience with CBMEnor a solid foundation in the grounding literature. We identify and summarize key papers to help facultymembers learn more about CBME.

Methods: Based on the online discussions of the 2016-2017 ALiEM Faculty Incubator program, a seriesof papers on the topic of CBME was developed. Augmenting this list with suggestions by a guest expertand by an open call on Twitter for other important papers, we were able to generate a list of 21 papers intotal. Subsequently, we used a modified Delphi study methodology to narrow the list to key papers thatdescribe the importance and significance for educators interested in learning about CBME. To determinethe most impactful papers, the mixed junior and senior faculty authorship group used three-round votingmethodology based upon the Delphi method.

Results: Summaries of the five most highly rated papers on the topic of CBME, as determined by thismodified Delphi approach, are presented in this paper. Major themes include a definition of core CBMEthemes, CBME principles to consider in the design of curricula, a history of the development of the CBMEmovement, and a rationale for changes to accreditation with CBME. The application of the study findingsto junior faculty and faculty developers is discussed.

Conclusion: We present five key papers on CBME that junior faculty members and faculty expertsidentified as essential to faculty development. These papers are a mix of foundational and explanatorypapers that may provide a basis from which junior faculty members may build upon as they help toimplement CBME programs.