Diversity of leadership in academic emergency medicine: Are we making progress?

BACKGROUND: Faculty who identify as women or racial/ethnic groups underrepresented in medicine (URiM) are less likely to occupy senior leadership positions or be promoted. Recent attention has focused on interventions to decrease this gap; thus, we aim to evaluate changes in leadership and academic promotion for these populations over time. METHODS: Successive cross-sectional observational study of six years (2015 to 2020) of data from the Academy of Administrators/Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine- Benchmark Survey. Primary analyses focused on gender/URiM differences in leadership roles and academic rank. Secondary analysis focused on disparities during the first 10 years of practice. Statistical modeling was conducted to address the primary aim of assessing differences in gender/URiM representation in EM leadership roles/rank over time. RESULTS: 12,967 responses were included (4589 women, 8378 men). Women had less median years as faculty (7 vs 11). Women and URiM were less likely to hold a leadership role and had lower academic rank with no change over the study period. More women were consistently in the early career cohort (within 10 years or less as faculty) : 2015 =-75.0% [95% CI:± 3.8%] v 61.4% [95% CI:± 3.0%]; 2020 =-75.1% [95% CI: ± 2.9%] v 63.3%, [95% CI:: ± 2.5%]. Men were significantly more likely to have any leadership role compared to women in 2015 and 2020 (2015 = 54.3% [95% CI: ± 3.1%] v 44.8%, [95% CI: ± 4.3%]; 2020 = 43.1% [95% CI:± 2.5%] v 34.8 [95% CI:± 3.1%]). Higher academic rank (associate/professor) was significantly more frequent among early career men than women in 2015 (21.1% [95% CI:± 2.58%] v 12.9%; [95% CI:± 3.0%]) and 2020 (23.1% [95% CI:± 2.2%] v 17.4%; [95% CI:± 2.5%]). CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in women and URiM faculty leadership and academic rank persist, with no change over a six-year time span. Men early career faculty are more likely to hold leadership positions and be promoted to higher academic rank, suggesting early career inequities must be a target for future interventions.

Institutional solutions addressing disparities in compensation and advancement of emergency medicine physicians: A critical appraisal of gaps and associated recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in salary and advancement of emergency medicine (EM) faculty by race and gender have been consistently demonstrated for over three decades. Prior studies have largely focused on individual-level solutions. To identify systems-based interventions, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) formed the Research Equity Task Force in 2018 with members from multiple academies (the Academy of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine [AACEM], the Academy of Academic Administrators in Emergency Medicine [AAAEM], the Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine [AWAEM], and the Academy for Diversity and Inclusion in Emergency Medicine [ADIEM]) and sought recommendations from EM departmental leaders. METHODS: The task force conducted interviews containing both open-ended narrative and closed-ended questions in multiple phases. Phase 1 included a convenience sample of chairs of EM departments across the United States, and phase 2 included vice-chairs and other faculty who lead promotion and advancement. The task force identified common themes from the interviews and then developed three-tiered sets of recommendations (minimal, target, and aspirational) based on participant responses. In phase 3, iterative feedback was collected and implemented on these recommendations from study participants and chairs participating in a national AACEM webinar. RESULTS: In findings from 53 interviews of chairs, vice-chairs, and faculty leaders from across the United States, we noted heterogeneity in the faculty development and promotion processes across institutions. Four main themes were identified from the interviews: the need for a directed, structured promotion process; provision of structured mentorship; clarity on requirements for promotion within tracks; and transparency in salary structure. Recommendations were developed to address gaps in structured mentorship and equitable promotion and compensation. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations for AEM departments have the potential to increase structured mentorship programs, improve equity in promotion and advancement, and reduce disparities in the AEM workforce. These recommendations have been endorsed by SAEM, AACEM, AWAEM, ADIEM, and AAAEM.

Salary disparities based on gender in academic emergency medicine leadership.

OBJECTIVE: There are significantly fewer women than men in leadership roles in health care. Previous studies have shown that, overall, male physicians earn nearly $20,000 more annually than their female physician colleagues after adjusting for confounding factors. However, there has not been a description of physician leadership compensation in relation to gender. METHODS: This was a successive cross-sectional observation study design of 154 emergency departments in the United States from 5 years (2013, 2015-2018) using Association of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine and Academy of Administrators in Academic EM survey data. The primary variable of interest, leadership role, was attained by recoding the survey responses to assign primary job duty into four main categories: no leadership role, operations leadership, education leadership, and executive leadership. RESULTS: Overall, 8820 responses were included. Across all survey years, the mean (±SD) percentage of women in any leadership role was significantly less than men (44.5% [95% CI: 42.8, 46.2%] vs. 55.3% [95% CI: 54.1, 56.5%]). Women in leadership roles worked more clinical hours than men in the same position (female median = 1008, male median = 960). Women also had significantly lower salaries than men at each of the 5-year time points that data are reported, with unadjusted mean salary differences of -$54,409 per year for executives, -$27,803 for operational leaders, and -$17,803 for education leaders. CONCLUSIONS: Female physicians hold fewer leadership roles in academic emergency medicine (EM), and when they do, they work more clinical hours and are paid less than male physicians. As a specialty, EM should continue to investigate and report on gender achievement disparities as work is done to rectify the system inequalities.

Here to chair: Gender differences in the path to leadership.

OBJECTIVE: Career paths leading to department chair positions are elusive. Women represent only 11% of academic emergency department (ED) chairs. It is unclear whether the pathway to chair is different for men and women; the characteristics, achievements, and qualifications among those who become ED chairs is unknown. METHODS: This study is a cross-sectional analysis of curriculum vitae (CV) of current ED chairs in departments with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency programs. Former women chairs were included due to paucity of current women chairs. Statistics were calculated using bivariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Of 163 eligible chairs, 88 CV (54%) were obtained, including six former women chairs. A majority (86.4%) self-identified as White/Caucasian, 21.5% were women, 46% were chief residents, 28.4% completed additional postgraduate degrees, and 21.8% were fellowship trained. At time of chair appointment, 58% were professor rank, 53.5% held ED operations roles, and 32% served as vice chair. Women were more likely to be in educational (53% vs. 22%) versus operational (26% vs. 61%, p = 0.02) roles. Women obtained more advanced degrees (47% vs. 25%, p = 0.02), were awarded more nonfederal grants (median = 7 vs. 3, p = 0.04), and achieved more national committee leadership (median = 4 vs. 1, p = 0.02). There were no gender differences in fellowship training, awards, leadership training programs, publications, federal grants, or national/international lectures after adjusting for years in practice. CONCLUSION: While the majority of chairs held prior leadership roles in ED operations, only one in five women chairs did, suggesting gender differences in the path to chair attainment. These differences in paths may contribute to persistent gender disparities in ED chairs and may be influenced by career path choices, implicit bias, and structural barriers.

Continuation of Gender Disparities in Pay Among Academic Emergency Medicine Physicians.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to identify the effects of gender and other predictors of change in the salary of academic emergency physicians over a four sequential time period of survey administration, across a sample of physicians within different emergency departments (EDs) and within states representing the four main geographical regions of the United States. METHODS: This was a successive cross-sectional observational study of EDs in the United States using an annual salary survey distributed to all Association of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine (AACEM) and Academy of Administrators in Academic Emergency Medicine (AAAEM) members in 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2017 with a sample size of 7,102 respondents over all time periods. The primary variable of interest was the adjusted base salary, calculated to be the full-time effort of the physician without any enhancements (e.g., without stipend, release time, extra hours). Institutional predictive variables included U.S. region that ED was in and if the site was an academic or community academic hybrid ("community") ED. Individual level variables included gender, academic rank, years at academic rank, years at rank within the ED, and primary duty (clinical or other). A series of Wilcoxon tests were conducted to determine if the unadjusted difference in salaries by gender for each year of the survey were significantly different. The effects of relative change in adjusted base salary over time were assessed using a mixed-effects regression model, with institutional- and individual-level predictors included in the model. RESULTS: Data were provided by 81 departments across the four geographic regions of the United States (Northeast, South, West, and Midwest). Most of the survey respondents across the four time periods of administration were male (65%) and reported primary clinical appointments at an academic ED (94%). Overall salaries increased across the four time points of the data with an overall relative 10.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.6%-12%) change in median salary between 2013 and 2017; the relative percentage change for female respondents was 10.6% (95% CI = 9.4%-11.85%) and 11.1% (95% CI = 10.2%-12%) for males. Within survey years, not adjusting for academic rank, the median salary increase for males was higher ($226,746 in 2013 to $252,000 in 2017) than females ($217,000 in 2013 to $240,000 in 2017), with significance at all four time points (Z = 6.33, p < 0.001), with a median average salary gap of $12,000 in 2017. In the predictive model that adjusted for covariates, gender significantly predicted median adjusted salary, with males earning significantly more than females (F(1) = 22.5, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite previously published data showing an inappropriate gender salary gap in emergency medicine, this gap has remained essentially unchanged over the past 4 years.

Current Status of Gender and Racial/Ethnic Disparities Among Academic Emergency Medicine Physicians.

OBJECTIVE: A 2010 survey identified disparities in salaries by gender and underrepresented minorities (URM). With an increase in the emergency medicine (EM) workforce since, we aimed to 1) describe the current status of academic EM workforce by gender, race, and rank and 2) evaluate if disparities still exist in salary or rank by gender. METHODS: Information on demographics, rank, clinical commitment, and base and total annual salary for full-time faculty members in U.S. academic emergency departments were collected in 2015 via the Academy of Administrators in Academic Emergency Medicine (AAAEM) Salary Survey. Multiple linear regression was used to compare salary by gender while controlling for confounders. RESULTS: Response rate was 47% (47/101), yielding data on 1,371 full-time faculty: 33% women, 78% white, 4% black, 5% Asian, 3% Asian Indian, 4% other, and 7% unknown race. Comparing white race to nonwhite, 62% versus 69% were instructor/assistant, 23% versus 20% were associate, and 15% versus 10% were full professors. Comparing women to men, 74% versus 59% were instructor/assistant, 19% versus 24% were associate, and 7% versus 17% were full professors. Of 113 chair/vice-chair positions, only 15% were women, and 18% were nonwhite. Women were more often fellowship trained (37% vs. 31%), less often core faculty (59% vs. 64%), with fewer administrative roles (47% vs. 57%; all p < 0.05) but worked similar clinical hours (mean ± SD = 1,069 ± 371 hours vs. 1,051 ± 393 hours). Mean overall salary was $278,631 (SD ± $68,003). The mean (±SD) salary of women was $19,418 (±$3,736) less than men (p < 0.001), even after adjusting for race, region, rank, years of experience, clinical hours, core faculty status, administrative roles, board certification, and fellowship training. CONCLUSIONS: In 2015, disparities in salary and rank persist among full-time U.S. academic EM faculty. There were gender and URM disparities in rank and leadership positions. Women earned less than men regardless of rank, clinical hours, or training. Future efforts should focus on evaluating salary data by race and developing systemwide practices to eliminate disparities.