Career Advancement Among Women Physicians in Nine Academic Medicine Specialties.

Objective: Gender parity lags in academic medicine. We applied the Rank Equity Index (REI) to compare the longitudinal progress of women's academic medicine careers. We hypothesized that women have different rank parity in promotion by specialty based on the proportion of women in the specialty. Materials and Methods: Aggregate data by sex for medical students, residents, assistant professors, associate professors, and professors in nine specialties were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges for 2019-2020. Specialties were clustered into terciles based on the proportion of women in the field: upper (obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, psychiatry), middle (internal medicine, emergency medicine, anesthesia), and lower (surgery, urology, and orthopedic surgery). We calculated the percentage representation by sex by specialty and rank to calculate REI. Specialty-specific REI comparisons between each rank were performed to assess parity in advancement. Results: Only specialties in the upper tercile recruited proportionally more women medical students to residency training. All specialties advanced women for the resident-to-assistant professor with psychiatry, internal medicine, emergency medicine, anesthesia, urology, and orthopedic surgery that promoted women faculty at rates above parity. No specialty demonstrated parity in advancement based on sex for the assistant professor-to-associate professor or associate professor-to-professor transitions. Conclusion: Gender inequity in advancement is evident in academic medicine starting at the assistant professor-to-associate professor stage, regardless of overall proportion of women in the specialty. This suggests a common set of barriers to career advancement of women faculty in academic medicine that must be addressed starting at the early career stage.

The effect of a relationship-centered communication program on patient experience and provider wellness.

OBJECTIVES: Despite evidence of the central importance of communication to patient experience, health outcomes, and provider wellness, communication training for clinicians is not a standard part of clinical education. The study explores the impact of an 8-hour relationship-centered communication (RCC) training program on patient experience and provider wellness. METHODS: 636 healthcare providers participated in 48 workshops conducted January-August 2018. 481 (76%) agreed to participate in research. Participants completed a pre/post assessment that included a wellness survey, the Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI). We conducted chi-squared analyses comparing wellness data immediately prior to the course to 3 months following course participation. Patient experience, assessed using Press Ganey likelihood to recommend care provider (PG-LTR CP) scores, were examined prior to an individual's course participation and following participation up to September 2019. RESULTS: 104 participants completed the three-month PFI (22% response rate). Participants demonstrated marked improvements in professional wellness after 3 months. In bivariate analyses, PG-LTR CP significantly increased and persisted more than 7 months following program completion. CONCLUSIONS: The RCC training program, a low-cost communication intervention, led to significant, beneficial changes in provider wellness and patient experience. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Implementing a RCC course for providers may improve patient experience and provider wellness.

Effects of surgeon sociodemographics on patient-reported satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported satisfaction scores, including the Press Ganey surveys, are increasingly used as measures for quality healthcare among surgical subspecialties. However, the influence of surgeon sociodemographics is not clear. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed Press Ganey surveys linked to outpatient surgical visits at a single academic institution from January 2015 to December 2018 as they related to surgeon age, gender, and race. The primary outcome variable was achievement of a top-box score (5/5) on likelihood to recommend surgeon queries. Secondary analysis examined the relationship of likelihood to recommend surgeon to other survey questions, such as those regarding surgeon courtesy, concern, understandability, patient inclusion in medical decision making, and patient confidence in surgeon. χ2 tests and generalized estimating equation regression models were run to assess correlation. RESULTS: In bivariate analysis of 36,840 surveys, non-Hispanic white surgeons were more likely to receive likelihood to recommend surgeon top-box ratings than Asian (P < .001) or underrepresented minority surgeons (P < .001). Additionally, male gender (P < .01) and older surgeon age (P < .001) were associated with higher top-box scores. However, in multivariate generalized estimating equation analysis, the effect of age was no longer significant, but female gender continued to be associated with lower odds of top-box likelihood to recommend surgeon ratings (odds ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.70%-0.99%), as did Asian compared with white race (odds ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.65%-0.95%). Likelihood to recommend surgeon scores correlated most closely with patients' "confidence" in the surgeon rather than measures of courtesy, concern, understandability, or inclusion in medical decision making. CONCLUSION: Top-box scores varied by surgeon race and gender in correlation with patients' perceived confidence in the provider. Interpretation of Press Ganey scores should account for potential bias in patient satisfaction surveys based on surgeon demographics.

The Long "Race" to Diversity in Otolaryngology.

The number of health disparities disproportionately affecting minority communities continue to rise. Thus, it is imperative to assess whether equity within medical school enrollment and along the academic pipeline has mirrored this growth, especially among elite surgical specialties such as otolaryngology. Census and educational data from 2010 and 2018 were used to assess the current otolaryngology, surgery, and internal medicine physician and faculty workforce diversity across each stage of the academic medicine trajectory by race and ethnicity. We found that disparities exist in medical school enrollment for minority students such that Hispanic/Latinx representation was only 30% and Black representation only 50% of their respective proportions in the US population in 2018. Disparities in achieving full professorship were also observed across all 3 specialties but most prominently in otolaryngology, with 1% Black representation among otolaryngology professors in 2018. A collective strategy toward diversifying the otolaryngology workforce should be explored.

Rank Equity Index: Measuring Parity in the Advancement of Underrepresented Populations in Academic Medicine.

As educators, researchers, clinicians, and administrators, faculty serve pivotal roles in academic medical centers (AMCs). Thus, the quality of faculty members' experiences is inseparable from an AMC's success. In seeking new methods to assess equity in advancement in academic medicine, the authors developed the Rank Equity Index (REI)-adapted from the Executive Parity Index, a scale previously implemented within the business sector-to examine national data on gender and racial/ethnic equity across faculty ranks. The REI was employed on self-reported demographic data, collected by the Association of American Medical Colleges, from U.S. medical school faculty in 2017, to make pairwise rank comparisons of the professoriate by demographic characteristics and department. Overall results indicated that women did not attain parity at any pairwise rank comparison, while men were above parity at all ranks. Similar results were observed across all departments surveyed: women in the basic sciences had REIs closest to parity, women in pediatrics had the highest representation but had REIs that were further from parity than REIs in the basic sciences, and women in surgery demonstrated the lowest REIs. Nationally, REIs were below 1.00 for all racial/ethnic group rank comparisons except for White and, in one case, multiple-race non-Hispanic/Latinx. Across all analyzed departments, Black/African American, Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, and multiple-race Hispanic/Latinx faculty had REIs below parity at all ranks except in 2 cases. In a comparison of 2017 and 2007 data, REIs across both race/ethnicity and gender were lower in 2007 for nearly all groups. REI analyses can highlight inequities in faculty rank that may be masked when using aggregate faculty proportions, which do not account for rank. The REI provides AMCs with a new tool to better analyze institutional data to inform efforts to increase parity across all faculty ranks.

Female Surgeons as Counter Stereotype: The Impact of Gender Perceptions on Trainee Evaluations of Physician Faculty.

OBJECTIVE: Similar to women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics disciplines, women in medicine are subject to negative stereotyping when they do not adhere to their sex-role expectations. These biases may vary by specialty, largely dependent on the gender's representation in that specialty. Thus, females in male-dominated surgical specialties are especially at risk of stereotype threat. Herein, we present the role of gender expectations using trainee evaluations of physician faculty at a single academic center, over a 5-year period (2010-2014). DESIGN: Using Graduate Medical Education evaluation data of physician faculty from MedHub, we examined the differences in evaluation scores for male and female physicians within specialties that have traditionally had low female representation (e.g., surgical fields) compared to those with average or high female representation (e.g., pediatrics). SETTING: Stanford Medicine residents and fellows' MedHub ratings of their physician faculty from 2010 to 2014. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3648 evaluations across 1066 physician faculty. RESULTS: Overall, female physicians received lower median scores than their male counterparts across all specialties. When using regression analyses controlling for race, age, rank, and specialty-specific characteristics, the negative effect persists only for female physicians in specialties with low female representation. CONCLUSIONS: This finding suggests that female physicians in traditionally male-dominated specialties may face different criteria based on sex-role expectations when being evaluated by trainees. As trainee evaluations play an important role in career advancement decisions, dictate perceptions of quality within academic medical centers and affect overall job satisfaction, we propose that these differences in evaluations based merely on gender stereotypes could account, in part, for the narrowing pipeline of women promoted to higher ranks in academic medicine.

Occupational Radiation Exposure during Pregnancy: A Survey of Attitudes and Practices among Interventional Radiologists.

PURPOSE: To assess attitudes of interventional radiologists toward occupational ionizing radiation exposure in pregnancy and to survey practice patterns and outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 34-question anonymous online survey on attitudes and work practices toward interventional radiologists who worked during pregnancy was sent to active SIR members, including 582 women. RESULTS: There were 534 (10%) respondents, including 142 women and 363 men. Among respondents, men were statistically older than women (P < .001) and had practiced interventional radiology (IR) longer (P < .001). Of female interventional radiologists, 55% had worked during pregnancy and reported no specific mutagenic events in their offspring. Spontaneous abortions (11%) and use of reproductive technology (17%) matched that of women with similar age and socioeconomic background. Although more women changed their work practice because of concerns of occupational exposure than men (23% vs 13%), this change was largely limited to the duration of a pregnancy. Among pregnant interventional radiologists, 4 (6%) completely abstained from performing fluoroscopically guided interventions (FGIs), whereas 31 (46%) continued to spend > 80% of their work week doing FGIs with additional protection. Perceptions of impact of pregnancy on daytime work redistribution varied significantly with gender (P < .001); however, perceptions regarding impact of pregnancy on on-call hours, distribution of complex cases, and need to hire for temporary coverage were similar between the genders. CONCLUSIONS: Most pregnant interventional radiologists continue to practice IR while pregnant. Pregnancy and fetal outcomes parallel that of the general population when matched for demographics. However, perceptions of impact of pregnancy on work lives of colleagues vary notably.