How to Reference Previous Communications Inside Your LOI

The way most applicants reference prior communication in a letter of intent is clumsy, redundant, or borderline desperate.

Let me show you how to do it surgically.

You are not just “mentioning” your past contact with a program. You are building continuity. Demonstrating reliability. Proving that your interest has a history and a trajectory, not just a last‑minute panic after interview season.

This is where most letters of intent (LOIs) fall apart: they either ignore the communication trail completely, or they dump every interaction into an awkward paragraph that reads like a social calendar. Both are mistakes.

We are going to dissect how to reference previous emails, meetings, interviews, second-look days, mentor calls—precisely, strategically, and in the right tone.

---

The Core Principle: Continuity, Not Chronology

You are not writing a diary entry.

The purpose of referencing prior communications is to create a coherent narrative:

1. I engaged with you.
2. I learned specific things.
3. Those specifics changed or confirmed my ranking decision.
4. Therefore, I am now committing (or strongly signaling) my intent.

If your references to prior communication do not advance one of those four points, remove them.

Here is the mental rule I use when editing LOIs:

If the reader cannot finish the sentence “Because of that interaction, I now…” then the interaction does not belong in the LOI.

So you do not say:

“I enjoyed talking to Dr. Smith at the pre-interview dinner.”

You say:

“My conversation with Dr. Smith at the pre‑interview dinner clarified how residents are supported in pursuing health policy projects, which solidified my interest in your program’s advocacy infrastructure.”

Same event. But now the event has a consequence.

Your LOI should be a chain of cause and effect, not a scrapbook.

---

What “Previous Communications” Actually Count

Let me be blunt: not every email exchange deserves real estate in your LOI.

Here are the categories that usually do matter:

• Interview day interactions:
  • Individual faculty interview(s)
  • Program director / associate program director meetings
  • Resident panels or small‑group sessions that led to specific insights
• Post‑interview communications:
  • A meaningful email exchange with the PD or APD
  • A substantial back‑and‑forth with a resident about curriculum, call structure, fellowship placement, etc.
  • A phone or Zoom conversation to clarify program details
• Structured second looks / revisit days:
  • Formal second look days
  • Specially arranged visits or shadow days
• Long‑standing connections:
  • Current residents or alumni you have spoken with multiple times who actually influenced your thinking
  • A faculty mentor who knows the program and connected you with people there

On the other hand, these rarely warrant mention:

• “Thanks for interviewing me” emails that got a generic one‑line reply
• Mass informational sessions you attended months before ERAS
• Passive exposure (following the program on social media, attending a big conference talk where 200 others sat in the room)

If you start listing every random point of contact, your LOI feels like you are trying to manufacture depth that is not there.

---

Where in the LOI to Reference Prior Communications

Do not scatter references randomly. They belong in specific zones.

A typical LOI has four functional parts:

1. Opening: who you are and what you are declaring.
2. Evidence: why this program is your top choice / highly ranked (this is where prior communication lives).
3. Fit: what you bring to them in return.
4. Closing: explicit ranking statement and a concise reaffirmation.

Prior communications almost always belong in section 2. Occasionally you weave one key reference into the opening if it defines the whole relationship (“As we discussed in my interview with you on November 7…”), but dumping a list in the first paragraph is heavy‑handed.

Think of it this way: first you declare your intent. Then you substantiate it using:

• Specific program features, and
• Specific prior interactions that led you to value those features.

That is the spine of the letter.

---

How Explicit To Be: Naming People, Dates, and Events

There is an art to being precise without sounding like you are writing minutes from a committee meeting.

When to name individuals

Name the person if:

• They are a PD, APD, chair, or clearly central faculty, or
• Their role is directly connected to what you are talking about (e.g., research director, clerkship director for your specialty).

Examples that work:

“My interview with Dr. Lopez deepened my understanding of how your residents are supported in pursuing community‑based research.”

“Speaking with Dr. Reynolds about your global health track helped me see how I could build on my prior experience in Guatemala.”

Do not list five different residents and three faculty by name. That reads like scorekeeping.

If you had multiple impactful conversations, aggregate them:

“Conversations with several residents, including Drs. Patel and Nguyen, emphasized how closely faculty mentor residents pursuing cardiology fellowships.”

When to mention dates

Exact dates almost never matter in LOIs.

“Sometime in November” vs “on November 9” adds zero persuasive value. It just bloats the sentence.

Good:

“During my interview day, I appreciated our discussion about…”

Clumsy:

“During my interview day on November 9, 2025, I appreciated our discussion about…”

Use dates only when sequence truly matters, such as:

“After our post‑interview phone conversation in January, I revisited my rank list and moved your program to the top.”

Even there, “in January” is enough.

When to identify the event

Do specify the setting briefly, because “where” you learned something matters for credibility.

• “During my interview with you…”
• “At the pre‑interview dinner…”
• “In our follow‑up Zoom conversation…”
• “At the recent second look day…”

One short prepositional phrase is enough. Then move to the point.

---

Example Structures: Sentences That Actually Work

Let me give you patterns you can copy and adapt. These are the workhorses.

1. Interview interaction → program feature → impact on ranking

“During my interview with Dr. Williams, our discussion of your resident‑run quality improvement projects showed me how early autonomy is built into your training. That level of responsibility is exactly what I am seeking, and it is a core reason I am ranking your program first.”

Structure:

• Anchor in the interaction
• Name the feature
• Tie to your preference + ranking

2. Resident conversation → culture insight → personal alignment

“Speaking with Dr. Chen and the other residents at the pre‑interview dinner, I was struck by how candidly they described their wellness and backup systems. Hearing about tangible examples—like cross‑coverage when a resident had a family emergency—convinced me that your emphasis on psychological safety is not just marketing language, but lived reality.”

Structure:

• Interaction
• Concrete anecdote or example
• Your interpretation

3. Post‑interview email/phone → clarification → final commitment

“Our email exchange about your rural outreach elective helped me understand that I could spend meaningful time at your satellite clinics while still maintaining continuity clinic in the city. That flexibility removed my last hesitation and confirmed that your program is the best fit for my long‑term goal of practicing in underserved communities.”

Structure:

• Follow‑up communication
• The specific uncertainty resolved
• Direct “this changed my mind / removed hesitation”

4. Second look day → comparative insight

“During the second look day, shadowing your inpatient team highlighted how efficiently residents integrate bedside teaching with patient care. After visiting a few programs, that experience stood out and solidified my decision to rank your program first.”

Structure:

• Second look
• Observed behavior
• Comparison to others (subtly)
• Ranking consequence

You can wrap almost any meaningful prior communication inside one of these templates.

---

Tone: Confident, Not Clingy

A lot of applicants sound like they are trying to prove “I really, really liked you, please believe me.”

That is the wrong energy.

You are an emerging colleague explaining a considered decision. The subtext is: “I have done my homework. Our previous interactions were data points. Here is my conclusion.”

Watch for these red flags in your draft:

• “As I mentioned in my previous emails…”
  Translation: “I am worried you did not read my previous emails.”

• “I have been in frequent contact with your residents…”
  This can sound like you are hovering on the edge of annoyance, unless you qualify it: “I have spoken with three of your residents…” with a clear reason.

• Long lists of names:
  “I spoke with Dr. A, Dr. B, Dr. C, and Dr. D…” becomes noise.

Instead, you want compact, matter‑of‑fact references:

“Throughout the season, my conversations with your residents have consistently highlighted…”

Confidence, not pleading.

---

How Much Is Too Much? Calibrating Detail

A typical LOI should be one page. That is not a suggestion; that is reality. PDs are not reading essays.

You usually get space for 2–3 prior communications, max, unless you condense aggressively.

Here is a simple way to think about what to include.

Priority Level	Type of Interaction
Must Include	PD/APD interview with key insight
High Value	Resident discussion that changed ranking
Optional	Second look day, if specific takeaway
Low Value	Brief logistical emails
Exclude	Mass webinars, generic info sessions

Rule of thumb:

• 1 PD/APD interaction that anchors your interest.
• 1–2 resident/faculty/second‑look interactions that show culture or specifics.
• Everything else either supports those or gets cut.

If you are naming more than three separate interactions, you are probably overdoing it.

---

Referencing Different Communication Channels

Not all prior contact is from the same channel. You need slightly different handling for each.

1. Email exchanges

You do not need to say, “Thank you again for your email on X date.” That belongs in the original reply, not in the LOI.

Your LOI should reference email only to highlight substantive content:

“In our email exchange about your longitudinal primary care curriculum, I was encouraged to learn that interns carry their own panel from the start of PGY‑1.”

What you are doing:

• Label: “In our email exchange about X”
• Content: 1 specific detail you learned
• Effect: how that aligns with your goals

Do not quote the email. Summarize its impact on your decision.

2. Phone or Zoom calls

These feel more personal and are slightly higher value.

“During our follow‑up Zoom conversation, your description of how you tailored the schedule for a resident returning from parental leave demonstrated the program’s flexibility and genuine support for work‑life balance.”

You are not there to prove the call existed. You are there to show why it mattered.

3. Second looks / in‑person visits

If you went to a second look, mention it once. With a point.

“Attending your second look day gave me the opportunity to see how residents interact with faculty in real time. Observing the morning report discussion, where interns openly questioned management decisions without hesitation, confirmed for me that your culture truly values teaching and inquiry.”

One concrete scene like that is more powerful than saying “The second look reinforced my strong interest” with no specifics.

4. Conversations with current residents or alumni (not on interview day)

These are high‑yield when they are substantive and recent.

Instead of:

“I also talked to several alumni who spoke highly of your program.”

Use:

“Speaking with Dr. Rivera, a recent graduate now in a cardiology fellowship, helped me see how your program’s mentorship and case volume prepared her to match at a top program and feel ready on day one.”

One resident, one story, one outcome.

---

Handling Multiple Points of Contact Without Sounding Redundant

Here is where you can get clever.

If you had several interactions pointing to the same theme (for instance, strong support for physician‑scientist careers), you do not have to itemize them.

You can synthesize:

“Across my interview day, subsequent email exchange with Dr. Patel, and conversations with current residents, one theme has been consistent: your program strongly supports residents pursuing research careers. Hearing specific examples of residents presenting at national conferences and receiving internal funding convinced me that I would be able to grow as a physician‑scientist in your department.”

Notice the sequence:

• “Across my interview day, subsequent email, and resident conversations…”
  (This compresses three different touchpoints into one phrase.)

• “One theme has been consistent: …”
  (This signals synthesis, not logbook.)

• “Hearing specific examples of…”
  (Concrete content without drowning in names.)

• “Convinced me that I would…”
  (Clear consequence for your decision.)

That is how you reference multiple communications efficiently.

---

What If You Had Almost No Prior Communication?

Sometimes you had:

• A single interview day
• No follow‑up emails
• No second look
• Minimal resident contact beyond the standard sessions

You still have options.

First, do not fabricate. PDs have superb radar for manufactured “conversations.”

Instead, focus on:

• The interview itself, if you had a solid discussion.
• Something specific you observed that functionally acted like communication (e.g., watching how residents interacted on rounds, morning report, or noon conference).

For example:

“During my interview day, observing your morning report gave me more insight into your program than any website description could. Seeing interns present complex cases and receive respectful but rigorous feedback from faculty showed me that your program combines high expectations with real support.”

That is legitimate. You “communicated” by observing how the program runs in real time.

If the only meaningful personal interaction was a single interview, you can lean into it more:

“Our interview conversation about your approach to feedback and evaluation has stayed with me throughout this process. Your description of scheduled quarterly feedback meetings and written milestone‑based evaluations made it clear that residents are not left guessing about their performance.”

You are allowed to squeeze more value out of that one interaction, as long as it is specific.

---

How To Reference Previous LOIs or Updates (Advanced Problem)

Occasionally, someone has:

• Sent an earlier update or intent email
• Spoken with the PD multiple times
• Now wants to send a final, clear LOI

The temptation is to say: “As I mentioned in my prior letter of interest…” Do not do that. It creates clutter and reminds them you already emailed.

Instead:

• Assume they read nothing.
• Treat this as the definitive communication.
• Integrate any important prior points cleanly into this letter.

If you absolutely must reference an earlier substantial communication (for example, a scheduled call about a couple match), you can do it like this:

“When we spoke in December about the logistics of couples matching at your institution, I appreciated your candid explanation of how often couples have been able to match together and what flexibility exists across departments. That conversation reassured both of us and has been central to our decision to rank your program first.”

That is it. No need to mention that you “previously wrote” or “already expressed strong interest.”

Each LOI should stand on its own as if it is the only one they will see.

---

A Quick Flow for Structuring the “Prior Communication” Paragraph

If you want a mechanical blueprint, here is one.

Integrating Prior Communication Into LOI

Step	Description
Step 1	Choose 2 to 3 key interactions
Step 2	For each, identify 1 concrete takeaway
Step 3	Link takeaway to program feature
Step 4	Link program feature to your goal or value
Step 5	State impact on your ranking decision

Run each interaction through that pipeline.
If you cannot complete the chain, the interaction probably does not belong.

---

Sample Paragraphs You Can Adapt

Let me give you a composite example from a strong LOI, focused on prior communications.

Example 1: Classic categorical program LOI

“During my interview day, my conversations with you and with Dr. Lowe made a strong impression. Hearing how the program deliberately schedules protected teaching time and enforces it—even on busy services—showed me that education is truly prioritized. Later, speaking with Dr. Ali, a current PGY‑2, about how he has been supported in applying for a nephrology fellowship further confirmed that residents are guided closely toward their goals. These interactions, combined with what I observed on rounds, have made it clear that your program offers the mentorship, case exposure, and culture I am seeking, and they are central to my decision to rank your program first.”

You can see each piece:

• Interview + specific teaching structure
• Resident discussion + fellowship support
• “These interactions…are central to my decision”

Example 2: Subspecialty fellowship LOI

“When we spoke during my interview, your description of how fellows progressively gain independence in managing the consult service resonated with me. Our subsequent email exchange about research opportunities in cardio‑oncology, and your willingness to connect me with Dr. Hsu about ongoing trials, underscored how invested your faculty are in fellow development. Those conversations have convinced me that your program would be the ideal environment to grow as both a clinician and investigator, and they are the reason I am ranking your fellowship first.”

Again: interaction → detail → impact.

---

Common Mistakes and How To Fix Them

Let me run through a few patterns I see constantly and how to repair them.

Mistake 1: Laundry list paragraph

“I enjoyed talking to Dr. X, Dr. Y, and Dr. Z on interview day. I also enjoyed meeting your residents and having dinner with them. I later emailed Dr. X and received more information. I also attended your second look and very much appreciated the opportunity.”

Fix:

Condense into one sentence of context plus one or two specific insights.

“Across my interview day, follow‑up email with Dr. X, and second look visit, I consistently heard and saw how your residents receive close mentorship in research and have real autonomy on the wards.”

Then add one concrete example from any of those events.

Mistake 2: Vague flattery with no content

“The conversations I have had with your faculty and residents have only increased my already strong interest in your program.”

Fix:

Replace with something like:

“Speaking with your residents about how they receive early exposure to the MICU through the night float system helped me appreciate how thoughtfully your rotations are structured.”

One credible detail beats five lines of empty praise.

Mistake 3: Sounding like you are keeping score

“As you know, I have been in touch several times this season and have expressed my strong interest from the beginning.”

That makes them feel managed, not respected.

Fix:

Drop all meta‑commentary. Just write:

“Throughout this season, your program has remained at the top of my list because of X, Y, and Z.”

The fact that you wrote now, with a clear LOI, is plenty.

---

Where Data and Specifics Pay Off

Program directors are pattern detectors. They see thousands of LOIs.

Most of them are vague. Some are overeager. Few are grounded in specific, previously shared content.

When you reference prior communication well, you hit a different category in their mind: “This applicant actually paid attention. They listened. They integrated what we said.”

That matters.

To close, remember three things:

1. Reference prior communications only when they lead directly to a concrete insight or a change in your ranking decision.
2. Be specific but lean—one interaction, one clear takeaway, one link to your goals.
3. Sound like a future colleague explaining a logical choice, not a nervous applicant trying to prove they made enough contact.

If you do that, your LOI stops sounding like noise and starts sounding like a continuation of a conversation the program actually remembers having with you.