Demographics and Characteristics of Vice Chairs in Academic Orthopaedic Surgery Programs: A Descriptive Study.

INTRODUCTION: The Vice-chair (VC) position is gaining popularity in academic orthopaedic surgery departments; however, there is a paucity of information regarding qualifications and career advancements associated with this role. The purpose of this study was to define the characteristics of current orthopaedic surgery department VCs. DESIGN: Descriptive study following a retrospective web-based search utilizing the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA) database and orthopaedic surgery residency program websites. SETTING: 200 ACGME-accredited orthopaedic surgery residency programs across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Program name and hospital affiliations were collected from the FREIDA database to account for all ACGME-accredited programs. The following information was derived from publicly available program websites: title, role description, previously trained institutions, academic rank, and concurrent roles of VCs. Research productivity was measured using the H-index. The previous roles of current Department Chairs (DC) were also evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 178 VCs identified, VC of Research (n = 36; 20%), Education (n = 25; 14%), and Clinical Operations/Affairs (n = 21; 12%) were the most common titles. Women made up 17% (n = 30) of the VCs. Trauma (n = 36; 20%) was the most common fellowship subspecialty among VCs. The average H-index for VCs was 25. Among VCs, 94 (53%) were professors, 78 were also Chiefs/Heads/Directors (44%), 7 (4%) were Fellowship Directors, and 18 (10%) were Residency Directors. Twenty-six of 95 (27%) current DC had VC experience. CONCLUSION: The findings can facilitate effective leadership development, promotion of diversity and inclusion in these roles, and guidance for those who seek such leadership positions.

Is Program Director Gender Associated With Gender Diversity Among Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Programs?

BACKGROUND: Women remain underrepresented in leadership roles, faculty roles, and among residents in orthopaedic surgery. It has been suggested that having women in leadership positions in orthopaedic surgery may help to increase the gender diversity of residency programs. However, to our knowledge, no study has explored the relationship, if any, between the gender of the residency program director and the percentage of women in the residency program. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is the program director's gender associated with differences in the percentage of women orthopaedic surgery residents? (2) Do women and men differ in the time to appointment of program director? METHODS: A list of 207 orthopaedic surgery residencies was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) website for the academic year 2021 to 2022. The study excluded 6% (13) of programs; 4% (8) were those without ACGME accreditation and those with initial accreditation, and 2% (5) did not have updated 2021 to 2022 resident lists. Descriptive information on 194 programs was obtained from publicly accessible resources from July 2021 through July 2022. The institution's website and the American Medical Association's (AMA) Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA) was used to collect residency program characteristics and resident demographics [ 2 ]. Doximity, Healthgrades, and LinkedIn were used to further collect current orthopaedic surgery residency program director demographics, including gender, age, and education/training history. To determine gender, photographs and pronouns (she/her/hers or he/him/hers) used in their biographies were used first. To confirm this, secondary sources were used including their NPI profile, which lists gender; Doximity; and their LinkedIn profile. Scopus was used to analyze research output by the program directors-using the Hirsch index (h-index) as the primary bibliometric metric. A total of 194 program directors were identified, of whom of 12% (23) were women and 88% (171) were men. Of the 4421 total residents among these programs, 20% (887) were women and 80% (3534) were men. A univariate analysis comparing program directors was conducted, with continuous variables analyzed using an independent-sample t-test and categorical variables analyzed using a Pearson chi-square test. With the numbers available, a post hoc statistical power calculation indicated that we could detect an 32% difference in the percentage of women in a program as significant with 80% power at the p < 0.05 level, whereas we might have been underpowered to discern smaller differences than that. RESULTS: With the numbers available, we found no difference in the percentage of women in residency programs run by women program directors than in programs in which the program director was a man (22% [125 of 558] versus 20% [762 of 3863], mean difference 2% [95% CI -1.24% to 7.58%]; p = 0.08). Comparing women to men program directors, women had fewer years between residency completion and appointment to the position of program director (8 ± 2 years versus 12 ± 7 years, mean difference 4 years [95% CI 2.01 to 7.93 years]; p = 0.02) and had a lower mean h-index (7 ± 4 versus 11 ± 11, mean difference 4 [95% CI 1.70 to 6.56]; p = 0.03) and number of publications (24 ± 23 versus 41 ± 62, mean difference 17 [95% CI 3.98 to 31.05]; p = 0.01), although they did not differ in terms of their advanced degrees, duration of training, or likelihood of having taken a fellowship. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic residency programs that were run by women did not contain a higher percentage of women residents, suggesting that the gender of the individual in that role may not be as important as has been speculated by others. Future studies should investigate the intersectionality of gender, race, and ethnicity of residents, program directors, and current faculty. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The fact that women were placed in program director roles earlier in career may also carry special jeopardy for them. Those roles are difficult and can impair a faculty member's ability to conduct individual research, which often is key to further academic promotions. Given that and the fact that the gender of the program director was not associated with differences in gender composition of residency programs, we believe that increasing mentorship and access to pipeline programs will help promote diversity in residency programs.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after bariatric surgery: a national survey of MBSAQIP director practices.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the most common cause of death following metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS), with most events occurring after discharge. The available evidence on ideal prophylaxis type, dosage, and duration after discharge is limited. OBJECTIVES: Assess metabolic/bariatric surgeon VTE prophylaxis practices and define existing variability. SETTING: Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP)-accredited centers. METHODS: The members of the ASMBS Research Committee developed and administered a web-based survey to MBSAQIP medical directors and ASMBS members to examine the differences in clinical practice regarding the administration of VTE prophylaxis after MBS. RESULTS: Overall, 264 metabolic/bariatric surgeons (136 medical directors and 128 ASMBS members) participated in the survey. Both mechanical and chemical VTE prophylaxis was used by 97.1% of the participants, knee-high compression devices by 84.7%, enoxaparin (32.4% 40 mg every 24 hours, 22.7% 40 mg every 12 hours, 24.4% adjusted the dose based on body mass index) by 56.5%, and heparin (46.1% 5000 units every 8 hours, 22.6% 5000 units every 12 hours, 20.9% 5000 units once preoperatively) by 38.1%. Most surgeons (81.6%) administered the first dose preoperatively, while the first postoperative dose was given on the evening of surgery by 44% or the next morning by 42.2%. Extended VTE prophylaxis was prescribed for 2 weeks by 38.7% and 4 weeks by 28.9%. CONCLUSIONS: VTE prophylaxis practices vary widely among metabolic/bariatric surgeons. Variability may be related to limited available comparative evidence. Large prospective clinical trials are needed to define optimal practices for VTE risk stratification and prophylaxis in bariatric surgery patients.

Female Leadership in Academic Plastic Surgery: A Comprehensive Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gender equity remains to be realized in academic plastic and reconstructive surgery. The purpose of this study was to measure the proportion of women in leadership roles in academic plastic and reconstructive surgery to verify where gender gaps may persist. METHODS: Six markers of leadership were analyzed: academic faculty rank, manuscript authorship, program directorship, journal editor-in-chief positions, society board of directors membership, and professional society membership. Descriptive statistics were performed, and chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables. RESULTS: About 16 percent to 19 percent of practicing plastic surgeons are female, as measured by the percentage of female faculty and American Society of Plastic Surgeons members. Female plastic surgeons comprised 18.9 percent (n = 178) of the faculty from 88 academic plastic surgery institutions, and represented 9.9 percent of full professors and 10.8 percent of chiefs. Nineteen institutions had no female faculty. Women were first authors in 23.4 percent of publications and senior author in 14.7 percent of publications. No journal studied had a female editor-in-chief. Of the examined plastic and reconstructive societies, the proportion of women on the board of directors ranged from 16.7 percent to 23.5 percent. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of female program directors, first manuscript authors, and board members of certain societies is commensurate with the number of women in the field, suggesting an evolving landscape within the specialty. However, women remain underrepresented in many other leadership roles, heralding the work that remains to ensure gender parity exists for those pursuing leadership roles in the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery.

Trends in Leadership at Pediatric Orthopaedic Fellowships.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric orthopaedic fellowship directors (FDs) have a valuable impact on the education of trainees and future leaders in the field. There is currently no research on the characteristics of pediatric orthopaedic FDs. METHODS: Programs were identified using the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America fellowship directory. Operative, nonoperative, and specialty programs were included. Data was collected through Qualtrics survey, e-mail, telephone, and online searches. Variables included demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity), Hirsch index (h-index) as a measure of research productivity, graduate education, residency and fellowship training, years of hire at current institution and as FD, and leadership roles. RESULTS: Fifty-five FDs were identified. The majority (49/55, 89%) were male and 77% (27/35) were Caucasian. The mean age at survey was 51.1±8.2 years. The mean h-index was 17.2. Older age correlated with higher h-index (r=0.48, P=0.0002). The average duration from fellowship graduation to FD appointment was 9.6±6.7 and 6.9±6.1 years from institutional hire. Sixteen FDs (29%) had additional graduate level degrees. Almost all (52/55, 95%) FDs completed orthopaedic surgery residencies and all graduated fellowship training. Twenty-nine percent (16/55) completed more than 1 fellowship. Most FDs (51/55, 93%) completed a fellowship in pediatric orthopaedic surgery. Ten FDs (18%) completed pediatric orthopaedic surgery fellowships that included spine-specific training. One-third of all current FDs were fellowship-trained at either Boston Children's Hospital (9/55, 16%) or Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children (9/55, 16%). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric orthopaedic FDs are typically early-career to mid-career when appointed, with a strong research background. Nearly a third completed additional graduate degrees or multiple fellowships. Although male dominated, there are more female FDs leading pediatric orthopaedic programs compared with adult reconstruction, trauma, and spine fellowships. As fellowships continue to grow and diversify, this research will provide a baseline to determine changes in FD leadership.

How real is a virtual interview? Perspectives of orthopaedic surgery residency directors.

OBJECTIVE: As a result of COVID-19 pandemic, the 2021 US residency MATCH was devoid of the traditional in-person interviews. Herein, we assess the impact of Virtual Interviews (VIs) on resident selection, from the perspectives of Orthopedic Surgery (OS) Program Directors (PDs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 14-item survey was sent to PDs of ACGME-accredited OS residencies. Questions were designed to assess the pros, cons, and robustness of VIs compared to their antecedent in-person format. RESULTS: Forty-seven PDs responded to our survey. VIs antagonized PDs' ability to assess applicants' fit to program (76.6%), commitment to specialty (64%), and interpersonal skills (68.1%). This led to heavier dependence upon applicants' portfolios (64%). Almost all respondents (97.9%) found VIs to be more cost-efficient, saving a median of $3000 in interview-related expenses. Overall, only 8.5% of PDs were willing to conduct exclusive VIs in future cycles, compared to the majority in favor of dual formats (51.5%) or exclusive in-person interviews (40.4%). CONCLUSIONS: VIs have been an overall success, making most PDs opt for dual interview formats in future cycles. How this technology is further implemented in the future remains to be seen.

Gender Representation at Conferences, Executive Boards, and Program Committees in Otolaryngology.

OBJECTIVE: Women represent approximately 28.0% of academic otolaryngologists. Previous studies have shown that women in academic medicine, including surgical subspecialties, have disparate career advancement opportunities and grant funding compared to male counterparts. Representation at major academic meetings is an important career advancement opportunity. In this study, we assess the representation of women at otolaryngology conferences. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of otolaryngology conference programs. METHODS: All publicly available scientific programs from The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation Annual Meeting (AAO-HNSF), the Triological Society Annual Combined Sections Meeting (TS), and the Triological Society Annual Meeting at Combined Otolaryngology Spring Meetings (TS-COSM) were obtained and analyzed. Name and gender were collected, along with the type of role: speaker, panelist, oral session moderator, and other leadership positions. Yearly trends were analyzed and compared between the conferences and in aggregate. RESULTS: AAO-HNSF had available scientific programs from 2012-2017, while TS and TS-COSM had programs available from 2003-2018. Across all conferences and years, 16.9% of recorded opportunities were occupied by women, with an upward trend from 2005 to 2018. Program committees had the highest proportion of women (21.4%) and presidential citation and guest of honor recipients had the lowest (9.1%). Of all panels, 87.5% did not have any women panelists in 2003, but by 2018 only 24.0% panels were male-only. There was marked repetition among women occupying roles, with only 423 unique women occupying a total of 1,733 filled spots. CONCLUSION: Measured representation of women in academic otolaryngology conferences has improved from 2003-2018. Despite this improvement, gender disparity still exists. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Laryngoscope, 131:E373-E379, 2021.

Women in Otolaryngology: Experiences of Being Female in the Specialty.

OBJECTIVES: A broad survey of women otolaryngologists on the current state of the field, including opportunities for advancement, support of family leave, and prevalence of harassment, has not been performed since 1998. An update on the experiences of female otolaryngologists is vital to continue to advance the specialty. STUDY DESIGN: Anonymous web-based survey. METHODS: Survey of members of the Women in Otolaryngology (WIO) section of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (all members of the AAO-HNS that identify as female are automatically members of this section). Distributed via AAO-HNS. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-five responses out of 2303 total WIO members (response rate of 23.2%). Respondents ranged in age from 25 to >65 years. Respondents reported that in the residency programs they attended, 29% of residents, 13% of faculty, and 7% of department leaders were women. Forty-four percent disagreed that their department leaders and 39% disagreed that their male co-residents were supportive of women starting families in training. Younger respondents were more likely to feel that their department leaders were supportive of female residents, maternity leave, etc. Harassment in the current work environment did not differ by age; 53% reported harassment-free, 31% subtle undertones, 8% noticeable tones, 2% significant harassment. Harassment in the workplace varied by region; the greatest level of harassment was in the Midwest. CONCLUSIONS: Women otolaryngologists continue to experience harassment in the workplace. It is encouraging that younger otolaryngologists feel more supported by their departments in both their careers and their personal lives. This survey highlights critical areas for continued growth within our specialty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV Laryngoscope, 131:E380-E387, 2021.

Factors Associated With Distribution of Female Otolaryngology Residents in United States.

OBJECTIVE: The gender balance within medicine, and specifically within otolaryngology, is equalizing. It is important to determine the factors that impact the distribution of female residents among otolaryngology programs in the United States to better understand factors that may affect these changing trends. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Study. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis was performed using data from 2018 of otolaryngology residents at 90 programs across the United States. Each program's website was searched for a current resident roster. Data of geography, number of female faculty, number of female physicians in leadership positions, program setting, and program size were obtained. Statistical comparison of these factors with number of female residents was performed with P < .05 as significant. RESULTS: There was a significant association between programs having a higher-than-average female faculty representation and a greater representation of female residents (P < .001). Larger residency programs were more likely to have greater female representation (P = .010). There was a slight predominance of both female residents and female faculty at urban programs (odds ratio [OR] = 1.27, P = .04; OR = 1.28, P = .03). Geographic location, presence of a female chairperson, and presence of a female residency program director were not associated with higher female-to-male resident ratio. CONCLUSION: Availability of female role models in faculty, along with program setting and size, may be more likely to promote greater female representation. Focusing on gender equality in the workplace can help promote diversity in the workforce and improve patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 131:E367-E372, 2021.

Gender and ethnic diversity in academic general surgery department leadership.

BACKGROUND: Diversity in surgery has been shown to improve mentorship and patient care. Diversity has improved among general surgery (GS) trainees but is not the case for departmental leadership. We analyzed the race and gender distributions across leadership positions at academic GS programs. METHODS: Academic GS programs (n = 118) listed by the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access system were included. Leadership positions were ascertained from department websites. Gender and race were determined through publicly provided data. RESULTS: Ninety-two (79.3%) department chairs were white and 99 (85.3%) were men. Additionally, 88 (74.6%) program directors and 34 (77.3%) vice-chairs of education were men. A higher proportion of associate program directors were women (38.5%). Of 787 division-chiefs, 73.4% were white. Only trauma had >10% representation from minority surgeons. Women represented >10% of division chiefs in colorectal, thoracic, pediatric, and plastic/burn surgery. CONCLUSION: Diversity among GS trainees is not yet reflected in departmental leadership. Effort is needed to improve disparities in representation across leadership roles.

Disparate opinions on the value of Vice Chairs of education in Departments of Surgery: A national survey of Department Chairs and other surgical education stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: The position of Vice Chair of Education (VCE) is increasingly common in Surgery Departments. The role remains ill-defined. The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions of Department Chairs (DCs) and Other Education Stakeholders (OESs) regarding the VCE role. METHODS: DCs and OESs at institutions with a VCE were surveyed. Descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations were calculated (SAS V9.4). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 25% (166/666). There were significant differences in whether DCs and OESs agree that the VCE supports others in fulfilling educational roles (95.2% vs 49.5%, p = 0.0002), is critical in achieving education missions (90.5% vs 56.6%, p = 0.0032), enhances the quality of education (95.3% vs 65.7%, p = 0.0174), and is important to education teams (95.0% vs 68.7%, p = 0.0464). CONCLUSIONS: DCs value the VCE role more so than OESs, whom VCEs support. In order for VCEs to be effective educational leaders in Departments of Surgery, the needs of key stakeholders deserve further clarification.

Determining Grades in the Internal Medicine Clerkship: Results of a National Survey of Clerkship Directors.

PURPOSE: Trust in and comparability of assessments are essential in clerkships in undergraduate medical education for many reasons, including ensuring competency in clinical skills and application of knowledge important for the transition to residency and throughout students' careers. The authors examined how assessments are used to determine internal medicine (IM) core clerkship grades across U.S. medical schools. METHODS: A multisection web-based survey of core IM clerkship directors at 134 U.S. medical schools with membership in the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine was conducted in October through November 2018. The survey included a section on assessment practices to characterize current grading scales used, who determines students' final clerkship grades, the nature/type of summative assessments, and how assessments are weighted. Respondents were asked about perceptions of the influence of the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Medicine Subject Examination (MSE) on students' priorities during the clerkship. RESULTS: The response rate was 82.1% (110/134). There was considerable variability in the summative assessments and their weighting in determining final grades. The NBME MSE (91.8%), clinical performance (90.9%), professionalism (70.9%), and written notes (60.0%) were the most commonly used assessments. Clinical performance assessments and the NBME MSE accounted for the largest percentage of the total grade (on average 52.8% and 23.5%, respectively). Eighty-seven percent of respondents were concerned that students' focus on the NBME MSE performance detracted from patient care learning. CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable variability in what IM clerkships assessed and how those assessments were translated into grades. The NBME MSE was a major contributor to the final grade despite concerns about the impact on patient care learning. These findings underscore the difficulty in comparing learners across institutions and serve to advance discussions for how to improve accuracy and comparability of grading in the clinical environment.

Plastic Surgeons as Institutional Leaders.

BACKGROUND: Physicians, especially plastic surgeons, are underrepresented in hospital leadership. As such, the steps an aspiring plastic surgeon should take toward assuming a high-level administrative role remain unclear. The authors aim to profile the chief executive officers and surgeons-in-chief at top-ranked U.S. hospitals with the goal of better characterizing the attributes of institutional leaders. METHODS: Chief executive officers and surgeons-in-chief at top-ranking hospitals in the 2019 to 2020 U.S. News and World Report "Best Hospitals Honor Roll" were included in this study. For each leader, sex, title, degrees, years of experience, total number of publications, practice specialty (for physician leaders), and previous leadership roles in national societies were reviewed. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 99 leadership positions at 66 institutions were included. Of these, 67 were chief executive officers and 32 were surgeons-in-chief. Overall, 28 of 67 chief executive officers (42 percent) were physicians-23 nonsurgeons and five surgeons. Of all surgeon executives, only two were plastic surgeons, and both were surgeons-in-chief. The "average" physician-chief executive officer had 24 years of experience, no M.B.A., over 100 publications, zero to one fellowship, and was involved in national leadership. There was no difference in professional qualifications (defined as years of experience, business training, number of publications and fellowships, and leadership positions) between nonsurgeon- and surgeon-chief executive officers, or between plastic surgeons and other surgeons in leadership positions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite possessing adequate qualifications, plastic surgeons are underrepresented in American health care institutional leadership roles. Aspiring plastic surgeon leaders should lean on their peer credibility and experience delivering patient-centered care to succeed in leadership roles.

Prevalence and extent of industry support for program directors of surgical fellowships in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Fellowship program directors have a considerable influence on the future practice patterns of their trainees. Multiple studies have demonstrated that industry can also exert substantial influence on the practice patterns of physicians as a whole. The purpose of this study is to quantify industry support of fellowship program directors across surgical subspecialties and to assess the prevalence of this support within specific subspecialties. METHODS: Fellowship program directors for acute care, breast, burn, cardio-thoracic, critical care, colon and rectal, endocrine, hepato-pancreato-biliary, minimally invasive, plastic, oncologic, pediatric, and vascular surgery for 2017 were identified using a previously described database. The Open Payments Database for 2017 was queried and data regarding general payments, research, associated research payments, and ownership were obtained. The national mean and median payouts to nonfellowship program director surgeons were used to determine subspecialties with substantial industry support. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventy-six fellowship program directors were identified. Of these, 77% of the fellowship program directors had a presence on the Open Payments Database. The subspecialties with the most fellowship program directors receiving any industry payment, regardless of amount, included vascular (93.5%), cardio-thoracic (92.8%), minimally invasive surgery (90.5%), plastics (85.3%), and colon and rectal (81.0%). The subspecialty with the greatest mean payment was minimally invasive surgery (21,175 US dollars); the greatest median payment was vascular (1,871 US dollars). The 3 most common types of payments were for general compensation (31.4%), consulting fees (28.7%), and travel and lodging (14.7%). Vascular surgery had the greatest percentage of fellowship program directors receiving research payments (48%). The greatest amount paid to any individual fellowship program director was 382,368 US dollars. Excluding outliers, fellowship program directors received substantially more payments than those received on average by general surgeons. CONCLUSION: The majority of fellowship program directors receive some industry support. Most payments are for compensation for noncontinuing medical education related services and consulting fees. Certain specialties were more likely to have industry payments than others. Overall, only a minority of fellowship program directors received research support from industry. We advocate for transparent discussions between fellowship program directors and their trainees to help foster healthy academic-industry collaborations.