Prevalence and Correlates of Prohibited Questions in Internal Medicine and Pediatrics Fellowship Interviews During One Appointment Year.

PURPOSE: This study sought to investigate how frequently applicants to internal medicine (IM) and pediatrics fellowships are subjected to prohibited questions, how correlates of these interview questions compare between IM and pediatrics fellowship applicants, and which applicant subgroups are most affected. METHOD: The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) emailed an anonymous survey to all applicants for the 2021 appointment year to the Medical Specialties Matching Program (i.e., IM fellowship Matches) and Pediatric Specialties Fellowship Match who certified rank order lists (ROLs). The survey addressed specific questions regarding the use of legally prohibited questions and questions that violate the NRMP's Match Participation Agreement during interview-related activities. Experiences of respondents were compared by preferred subspecialty and respondent demographics within IM and pediatrics. RESULTS: The final response rates of IM and pediatrics fellowship applicants who certified ROLs, including complete and partial surveys, were 21.7% (1,483/6,847) and 23.4% (385/1,648), respectively. Of the IM and pediatrics respondents, 432/1,296 (33.3%) and 97/366 (26.5%), respectively, reported being asked at least one prohibited demographic question. The most commonly asked prohibited questions pertained to relationship or marital status (IM: 312/1,296, 24.1%; pediatrics: 69/367, 18.8%), national origin (IM: 200/1,296, 15.4%; pediatrics: 30/365, 8.2%), and family planning (IM: 104/1,288, 8.1%; pediatrics: 14/366, 3.8%). Nearly 25% of IM and pediatrics respondents reported being asked to identify other programs they applied to or interviewed with. Most often, these questions came from program faculty (IM: 238/303, 78.5%; pediatrics: 69/88, 78.4%) or program directors (IM: 84/303, 27.7%; pediatrics: 18/88, 20.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial proportions of IM and pediatrics fellowship applicants reported being asked prohibited questions during fellowship interview-related activities. Additional educational efforts are needed to eradicate such questions from the interview process.

Child Health Needs and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Workforce: 2020-2040.

Pediatric infectious diseases (PID) physicians prevent and treat childhood infections through clinical care, research, public health, education, antimicrobial stewardship, and infection prevention. This article is part of an American Board of Pediatrics Foundation-sponsored supplement investigating the future of the pediatric subspecialty workforce. The article offers context to findings from a modeling analysis estimating the supply of PID subspecialists in the United States between 2020 and 2040. It provides an overview of children cared for by PID subspecialists, reviews the current state of the PID workforce, and discusses the projected headcount and clinical workforce equivalents of PID subspecialists at the national, census region, and census division levels over this 2-decade period. The article concludes by discussing the education and training, clinical practice, policy, and research implications of the data presented. Adjusting for population growth, the PID workforce is projected to grow more slowly than most other pediatric subspecialties and geographic disparities in access to PID care are expected to worsen. In models considering alternative scenarios, decreases in the number of fellows and time spent in clinical care significantly affect the PID workforce. Notably, model assumptions may not adequately account for potential threats to the PID workforce, including a declining number of fellows entering training and the unknown impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and future emerging infections on workforce attrition. Changes to education and training, clinical care, and policy are needed to ensure the PID workforce can meet the future needs of US children.

Exploring Factors for Implementation of EPAs in Pediatric Subspecialty Fellowships: A Qualitative Study of Program Directors.

OBJECTIVE: To understand fellowship program directors' (FPDs) perspectives on facilitators and barriers to using entrustable professional activities (EPAs) in pediatric subspecialty training. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study of FPDs, balancing subspecialty, program size, geographic region and current uses of EPAs. A study coordinator conducted 1-on-1 interviews using a semistructured approach to explore EPA use or nonuse and factors supporting or preventing their use. Investigators independently coded transcribed interviews using an inductive approach and the constant comparative method. Group discussion informed code structure development and refinement. Iterative data collection and analysis continued until theoretical sufficiency was achieved, yielding a thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-eight FPDs representing 11 pediatric subspecialties were interviewed, of whom 16 (57%) reported current EPA use. Five major themes emerged: (1) facilitators including the intuitive nature and simple wording of EPAs; (2) barriers such as workload burden and lack of a regulatory requirement; (2) variable knowledge and training surrounding EPAs, leading to differing levels of understanding; (3) limited current use of EPAs, even among self-reported users; and (4) complementary nature of EPAs and milestones. FPDs acknowledged the differing strengths of both EPAs and milestones but sought additional knowledge about the value added by EPAs for assessing trainees, including the impact on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Identified themes can inform effective and meaningful EPA implementation strategies: Supporting and educating FPDs, ongoing assessment of the value of EPAs in training, and practical integration with current workflow. Generating additional data and engaging stakeholders is critical for successful implementation for the pediatric subspecialties.