Does gender still matter in the pursuit of a career in anaesthesia?

A survey sent to fellows of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) aimed to document issues affecting gender equity in the anaesthesia workplace. A response rate of 38% was achieved, with women representing a greater proportion of respondents (64.2%). On average women worked fewer hours than men and spent a larger percentage of time in public practice; however, satisfaction rates were similar between genders. There was a gender pay gap which could not be explained by the number of hours worked or years since achieving fellowship. The rates of bullying and harassment were high among all genders and have not changed in 20 years since the first gender equity survey by Strange Khursandi in 1998. Women perceived that they were more likely to be discriminated against particularly in the presence of other sources of discrimination, and highlighted the importance of the need for diversity and inclusion in anaesthetic workplaces. Furthermore, women reported higher rates of caregiving and unpaid domestic responsibilities, confirming that anaesthetists are not immune to the factors affecting broader society despite our professional status. The overall effect was summarised by half of female respondents reporting that they felt their gender was a barrier to a career in anaesthesia. While unable to be included in statistics due to low numbers, non-binary gendered anaesthetists responded and must be included in all future work. The inequities documented here are evidence that ANZCA's gender equity subcommittee must continue promoting and implementing policies in workplaces across Australia and New Zealand.

Interviewer bias in selection of anaesthesia Fellows: A single-institution quality assessment study.

Fellowships are competitive training posts, often in a subspecialty area. We performed a quality assessment of potential interviewer bias on anaesthesia Fellow selection. After research locality approval, we analysed interview scores for all Fellowship applications to our department over six years. Panel interviewers participated in a structured interview process, asking a series of standardised questions to rate applicants. A mixed model analysis of total applicant rating with crossed effects of applicants and interviewers was used. A total of 94 applicants were interviewed by 27 panel members, with between two and four panel members per interview, giving a total of 329 applicant ratings. The random effect of applicants accounted for 45.8% of total variance in ratings (95% confidence intervals (CI) for intraclass correlation (ICC) 35.8%-57.2%) while interviewer effects accounted for 13.4% of total variance (95% CI for ICC 5.3%-30.0%). We found no evidence of bias for most potential sources after analysing multiple applicant and interviewer factors. After adjusting for interviewer training programme, applicants from other training programmes were rated a mean of 1.87 points lower than Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) applicants (95% CI 0.62-3.12, P = 0.003) and 1.84 points lower than Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA) applicants (95% CI 0.37-3.32, P = 0.014). After adjusting for applicant gender, female clinicians rated applicants 1.12 points higher (95% CI 0.19-2.06, P = 0.019) on average than male clinicians. The observed differences in interview scores amongst male and female clinicians and lower scores in applicants from programmes other than ANZCA/RCoA were small, and require confirmation in independent studies.