Insurance Status and Access to Otolaryngology Care: National Mystery Caller Study in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate potential differences in new patient appointment wait times for otolaryngology care based on insurance types and explore factors influencing these wait times. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional audit study, using a "mystery caller" approach, analyzed with a linear mixed Poisson model to adjust for confounding factors. SETTING: A total of 612 physicians across 49 states and the District of Columbia, representing 6 otolaryngology subspecialties, were included. METHODS: Otolaryngology physicians were contacted by mystery callers via telephone with scripted clinical vignettes as patients with either Medicaid or Blue Cross/Blue Shield (BCBS) insurance. Callers requested next available appointment. Wait times for new patient appointments were recorded and analyzed in R using a generalized linear mixed Poisson model. RESULTS: A total of 1183 of 1224 calls reached a representative. Medicaid patients waited 5.73% longer (P < .001) compared to BCBS patients (IRR: 1.06; confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-1.09; P < .001), with respective mean wait times of 36.8 days (SE ± 1.6) and 32.4 days (SE ± 1.6). Longer waiting times were also associated with physicians affiliated with universities (P = .001) and certain subspecialties, such as pediatric otolaryngology (P < .001) and neurotology (P = .008). Regional differences were also observed, with specific AAO-HNS regions showing shorter wait times. The model achieved a conditional R-squared value of 0.947. CONCLUSION: This study reveals disparities in wait times for otolaryngology care based on insurance type, with extended wait times for Medicaid beneficiaries. The findings highlight a potential access to care disparity, which begets the need for strategies that ensure equitable access to otolaryngology care and further research to understand the underlying reasons for these potential disparities.

Subspecialty Faculty in Obstetrics and Gynecology: Distribution, Demographics, and Implications for Training and Clinical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to quantify the subspecialist workforce involved in the clinical education of Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN) residents and to provide an overview of the subspecialist faculty workforce geographic distribution and demographics. METHODS: This cross-sectional, observational study used public data collected from July 1, 2022, through August 31, 2022. A list of Obstetrics and Gynecology residency programs, their sponsoring institutions/locations, and affiliated locations was compiled from the American Medical Association's Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database. Faculty subspecialists' names were collected by manually searching each program's website. Demographics were collected from the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System. Subspecialty faculty who had completed an Obstetrics and Gynecology residency, were fellowship trained, and/or had board certification in the subspecialty were included in the study. RESULTS: A total of 4,659 subspecialist faculty were identified from 278 residency programs, representing 81.5% of the total subspecialist workforce in Obstetrics and Gynecology (n=5,716). Of the subspecialists identified, 2,838 were faculty at sponsoring institutions, representing 49.7% of the entire subspecialist workforce; the remainder worked with residents at affiliate locations. Our results showed 59.9% of subspecialists were female and 40.1% were male; 97.0% were allopathic subspecialists. The largest proportion of subspecialists were in the age group of 40-49 years (36.6%). Subspecialists were present in 45 states, with the exception of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. CONCLUSION: Most of the Obstetrics and Gynecology subspecialty workforce is involved in the clinical education of OBGYN residents, with half of the workforce on faculty at the residency program sponsor site. The subspecialty faculty workforce is primarily female, has an allopathic degree, is mid-career, and is geographically diverse.

Medium-Term Outcomes of Conservative and Surgical Treatments for Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Medicare Claims Analysis: Developed by the AUGS Payment Reform Committee.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the 3- to 5-year retreatment outcomes for conservatively and surgically treated urinary incontinence (UI) in a population of women 66 years and older. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used 5% Medicare data to evaluate UI retreatment outcomes of women undergoing physical therapy (PT), pessary treatment, or sling surgery. The data set used inpatient, outpatient, and carrier claims from 2008 to 2016 in women 66 years and older with fee-for-service coverage. Treatment failure was defined as receiving another UI treatment (pessary, PT, sling, Burch urethropexy, or urethral bulking) or repeat sling. A secondary analysis was performed where additional treatment courses of PT or pessary were also considered a treatment failure. Survival analysis was used to evaluate the time from treatment initiation to retreatment. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2013, 13,417 women were included with an index UI treatment, and follow-up continued through 2016. In this cohort, 41.4% received pessary treatment, 31.8% received PT, and 26.8% underwent sling surgery. In the primary analysis, pessaries had the lowest treatment failure rate compared with PT (P<0.001) and sling surgery (P<0.001; survival probability, 0.94 [pessary], 0.90 [PT], 0.88 [sling]). In the analysis where retreatment with PT or a pessary was considered a failure, sling surgery had the lowest retreatment rate (survival probability, 0.58 [pessary], 0.81 [PT], 0.88 [sling]; P<0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: In this administrative database analysis, there was a small but statistically significant difference in treatment failure among women undergoing sling surgery, PT, or pessary treatment, but pessary use was commonly associated with the need for repeat pessary fittings.

Medicaid coverage and access to obstetrics and gynecology subspecialists: findings from a national mystery caller study in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that access to healthcare may influence the diagnosis and treatment of obstetrical and gynecologic pathologies. Audit studies, a single-blinded and patient-centered design, have been employed to measure access to care for health services. To date, no study has assessed the dimensions of access to obstetrics and gynecologic subspecialty care based on insurance type (Medicaid vs commercial). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the mean appointment wait time for a new patient visit to female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, gynecologic oncology, maternal-fetal medicine, and reproductive endocrinology and infertility when presenting with Medicaid vs commercial insurance. STUDY DESIGN: Each subspecialty medical society has a patient-facing physician directory of physicians across the United States. Of note, 800 unique physicians were randomly selected from the directories (200 per subspecialty). Of the 800 physicians, each physician was called twice. The caller presented with Medicaid or, in a separate call, with Blue Cross Blue Shield. The order in which the calls were placed was randomized. The caller asked for the soonest appointment available for respective medical conditions based on subspecialty: stress urinary incontinence, new-onset pelvic mass, preconceptual counseling after an autologous kidney transplant, and primary infertility. RESULTS: From 800 physicians initially contacted, 477 responded to at least 1 call in 49 states plus the District of Columbia. The mean appointment wait time was 20.3 business days (standard deviation, ±18.6). A significant difference was found in new patient appointment wait times by type of insurance, with 44% longer wait time for Medicaid (ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-1.54; P<.001). When the interaction between insurance type and subspecialty was added to the model, it was also highly significant (P<.01). More specifically, Medicaid patients in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery had a longer wait time than commercially insured patients. Patients seeking care in maternal-fetal medicine had the least difference, but Medicaid-insured patient wait times were still longer than commercial-insured patient wait times. CONCLUSION: Typically, a patient can expect to wait 20.3 days for a new patient appointment with a board-certified obstetrics and gynecology subspecialist. Callers presenting with Medicaid insurance experienced significantly longer new patient appointment wait times than callers with commercial insurance.

American Indian and Alaskan Native Access to Obstetrics and Gynecology Subspecialists: Findings From a National Mystery Caller Study in the United States.

Background A significant disparity exists for American Indian and Alaska Native populations in accessing obstetric and gynecology (OBGYN) subspecialty care, as nearly 43% of individuals do not reside in areas where the Indian Health Service (IHS) provides care. Geographical separation from IHS facilities exacerbates healthcare disparities, particularly regarding access to specialized services. This study aims to create a map illustrating the average driving time from an IHS clinic to OBGYN subspecialists (e.g., gynecologic oncology, maternal-fetal medicine, family planning, urogynecology, pediatric and adolescent gynecology, and reproductive endocrinology and infertility [REI]) and determine the average wait time for appointments with these specialists. Study design A cross-sectional and mystery caller study was conducted using hospital-level data from the IHS and data on women from the 2010 United States Census provided by the US Census Bureau. All US OBGYN subspecialists were identified and mapped. The local distribution of clinics near IHS hospitals was determined, and the nearest OBGYN subspecialist was mapped to IHS hospitals providing women's care services. Thirty-seven OBGYN subspecialists closest to IHS hospitals were contacted to calculate the mean wait time for subspecialty care appointments. Results The median driving time to the closest gynecologic oncology, maternal-fetal medicine, family planning, urogynecology, pediatric and adolescent gynecology, and reproductive endocrinology and infertility OBGYN subspecialist was 214 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 107-290). The longest drive to see a subspecialist for urogynecology services was over 240 minutes. From the 2010 US Census, we identified 583,574 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) pediatric, adolescent, and women within a 60-minute drive of an IHS hospital. The mean wait time for a new patient appointment was 13.6 business days (SD ± 2). Conclusions Geographical disparities significantly impact the ability of American Indian and Alaska Native populations to access OBGYN subspecialty care. There was no difference in wait times compared to the national average, though there were significantly longer drive times.

Medicare Patient Referral Networks to Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy Across the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the distribution of referrals to pelvic floor physical therapy throughout the United States and to identify specialties with the highest and lowest referral rates. Referral networks to pelvic floor physical therapy were identified, and factors associated with referral connections were determined. METHODS: This retrospective network analysis of referrals examined U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data from 2009 to 2017. Pelvic floor physical therapists were identified, and their patient-sharing networks were modeled using social network analytics. RESULTS: There were 18,740 Medicare beneficiaries referred to pelvic floor physical therapists between 2009 and 2017. The mean number of referrals to each physical therapy provider or practice was 82 (SD ±46.3). Half of the referrals were made by a general acute care hospital. The remainder were referred by female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeons, nurse practitioners, colorectal surgeons, internal medicine, and obstetrician-gynecologists.The number of individual pelvic floor physical therapists, as well as the referrals, increased each year. The geographic representation of the patient referral networks is illustrated. The map reveals that pelvic floor physical therapists often work in groups and treat patients in their geographic vicinity. In this study, we demonstrate intensely fractured referral networks. CONCLUSION: Our network analysis of pelvic floor physical therapy referrals in Medicare patients across the United States shows fractured networks with dense geographic connections in some areas, whereas sparse in others. Multidisciplinary approaches and early referrals to pelvic floor physical therapy are recommended as some ways to amend these fractured networks.

Appointment Wait Times in Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery: A Mystery Caller Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the mean appointment wait time for a new patient visit at outpatient female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) offices for U.S. women with the common and nonemergent concern of uterine prolapse. METHODS: The American Urogynecologic Society "Find a Provider" tool was used to generate a list of FPMRS offices across the United States. Each of the 427 unique listed offices was called. The caller asked for the soonest appointment available for her mother, in whom uterine prolapse was recently diagnosed. Data for each office were collected, including date of the earliest appointment, FPMRS physician demographics, and office demographics. Mean appointment wait time was calculated. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-seven FPMRS offices were called in 46 states plus the District of Columbia. The mean appointment wait time was 23.1 business days for an appointment (standard deviation, 19 business days). The appointment wait time was 6 days longer when seeing a female FPMRS physician compared with a male FPMRS physician (mean, 26 business days vs 20 business days, P < 0.02). There was no difference in wait time by day of the week called. CONCLUSIONS: Wait times are a measure of access to care within the health care system. Shorter wait times are associated with increased patient satisfaction. Typically, a woman with uterine prolapse can expect to wait at least 4 weeks for a new patient appointment with an FPMRS board-certified physician listed on the American Urogynecologic Society website. The first available appointment is more often with a male physician. A patient can expect to wait 6 days longer to see a female FPMRS physician. As mean wait times across outpatient specialties continue to increase, FPMRS offices should strive to keep wait times at a minimum to allow women timely access to care.

Hysterectomy Volume Among Recent Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Graduates.

OBJECTIVE: Although guidelines recommend hysterectomy be performed vaginally whenever possible, recent trainees have decreased exposure to vaginal hysterectomy given the availability of laparoscopic hysterectomy, nonsurgical management, and falling volume nationwide. We sought to estimate hysterectomy volume in the 5 years after residency. Our secondary objective was to compare vaginal hysterectomy utilization between recent graduates and senior surgeons. METHODS: Retrospective, statewide data from 2005 to 2014 was obtained from the Massachusetts Center for Health Information Analysis. All hysterectomies performed in Massachusetts, regardless of payer type, were included. Surgeon identifiers were cross-referenced to another data set with provider demographics. Hysterectomies performed in the first 5 years after graduation were compared with a group 21 to 25 years after residency. RESULTS: Data from inpatient and outpatient databases revealed 87,846 hysterectomies performed by 1967 physicians, including 3146 simple hysterectomies by 192 recent graduates. Recent graduates chose abdominal hysterectomy (44.2%) most commonly, followed by laparoscopic (29.4%), vaginal (16.1%), and laparoscopically assisted vaginal (10.4%). Recent graduates performed a median of 3 to 4 hysterectomies in each of the first 5 years with no increase over time (P = 1). The median number of vaginal or laparoscopic hysterectomies was 0 in these 5 years (interquartile ranges, 0-1 and 0-2, respectively). Members of the senior cohort performed a median of 8 to 9 hysterectomies annually, completing them vaginally more often (24.7% vs 16.1%, P < 0.01). When controlling for patient age and hysterectomy indication, this effect dissipated. CONCLUSIONS: Recent graduates perform 3 to 4 (interquartile range, 1-7) hysterectomies annually, predominantly by laparotomy. Although senior surgeons perform vaginal hysterectomy more often, this is explained by patient characteristics.

Medicare Patient Referral Networks to Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgeons Across the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The source of urogynecology patient referrals remains poorly understood. We used novel methods to identify referral networks to female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeons (FPMRS) and to determine factors associated with physician connections. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data with physician sharing relationships spanning 180 days during 2015 was performed. All patients studied were Medicare beneficiaries. Provider patient-sharing networks were modeled using social network analytics. To visualize the resulting flow of patients from referring providers to FPMRS, we encoded the node and edge data and mapped the data to a map of the United States. RESULTS: We studied 206,568 Medicare beneficiaries who were seen by 618 different board-certified FPMRS. Internal medicine physicians followed by nurse practitioners referred the most patients to FPMRS. Over half of referrals were made locally, with patients traveling less than 5 miles from the referring provider to the female pelvic surgeon. The median number of incoming Medicare patient referrals per FPMRS provider was 15 (interquartile range, 12-20) over a 6-month period. The high modularity of the referral network indicates that most providers refer their patients to a few female pelvic surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare patient referrals to FPMRS are primarily and proportionally the highest from local internal medicine physicians.

Postoperative infections in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited data on the incidence of postoperative infections following hysterectomy by route of surgery. We hypothesize that vaginal hysterectomy has lower rates of postoperative infection than laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomies. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study and independent hand review of charts of participants undergoing hysterectomy at five hospitals from September 2011 through May 2015 was performed. Cases were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes and were reviewed by the investigators. The primary outcome was the development of Clostridium difficile infection, urinary tract infection, surgical site infection, or yeast vaginitis within 60 days following surgery. RESULTS: In total, 2742 women underwent hysterectomy: abdominal 17.5% (AH), laparoscopic 65.8% (LH), and vaginal 16.7% (VH). The composite postoperative infection rate for the four specified variables was 8.5% (232). In comparing surgical route, AH was most commonly associated with CDI (0.6%, p <0.001), SSI (6.0%, P=0.001), and yeast vaginitis (1.9%, p <0.001), while VH was most commonly associated with UTI (8.1%, P=0.002). After controlling for demographic and operative factors, multivariable analysis showed that hysterectomy route was not associated with infection. Independent predictors for postoperative infection were increasing age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, operative time, and hospital type. CONCLUSIONS: Infectious complications after hysterectomy are uncommon, accounting for 8.5% of cases. Multivariable analysis showed that demographic and operative variables were more likely to serve as independent predictors of development of infection than hysterectomy route.

A 3-Dimensional Anatomical Education Model in Postpartum Perineal Laceration Care: A Pre-Post Intervention Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of postpartum patients introduction to and interaction with a virtual 3-dimensional (3D) pelvic model on the self-care, knowledge, and anxiety parameters. METHODS: The model was designed from computed tomography data displaying the involvement of the levator ani in a fourth-degree perineal laceration. This 3D model was used to educate postpartum day 1 patients at the bedside. Patient data were collected using a pre and post questionnaire assessing knowledge, anxiety, and confidence in perineal wound self-care. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled with a median age of 28.5 years (interquartile range, 31, 21.75 years) and a median parity of 1 (interquartile range, 2, 1). Patient use of the tool significantly decreased patient anxiety regarding perineal lacerations (P < 0.01) and significantly increased patient knowledge on what part of their vagina was lacerated during vaginal delivery (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Reviewing a 3D model of perineal lacerations with patients on postpartum day 1 is associated with less anxiety and increased knowledge of pelvic floor anatomy. These pilot data represent a preliminary investigation into the relations between 3D model of perineal lacerations and a range of patient outcomes.

Fellow Perceptions of Residency Training in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perceptions of current and former fellows in obstetrics and gynecology (OBG) subspecialties of their readiness for fellowship training. METHODS: A previously used survey was modified and distributed in 2016 to current and former fellows in gynecologic oncology, maternal-fetal medicine, reproductive endocrinology-infertility, and female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. The survey explored domains of professionalism, independent practice, psychomotor ability, clinical evaluation, and scholarship. A standard Likert scale was employed and domains/responses were tailored to each subspecialty. Standard statistical models were utilized. RESULTS: A total of 478 fellows responded to the survey. Nearly 75% of fellows from each specialty reported feeling prepared or very prepared for fellowship. More than 65% of fellows from each specialty reported feeling very prepared to perform core surgical procedures. More than 90% of respondents reported having opportunities during residency to independently develop a plan of action for patients on labor and delivery. Fewer respondents reported opportunities to independently manage postoperative complications-40.7% of gynecologic oncology and 44.7% of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery reported having such opportunities, whereas 91.9% of maternal-fetal medicine respondents reported having had such opportunities. While 46.4% of respondents received education on scientific writing during residency, 80% reported writing a manuscript as a resident. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of current and former fellows in OBG subspecialties report feeling prepared for fellowship in terms of clinical and surgical skills. Their feedback reveals opportunities for improvement of independent practice in gynecologic scenarios, as well as formal education on scientific research, for OBG residencies.

Industry Payments to Obstetricians and Gynecologists Under the Sunshine Act.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate financial relationships between obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) and industry, including the prevalence, magnitude, and the nature of payments. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in which we obtained a list of industry contributions to U.S. obstetricians and gynecologists through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015. These data were cross-referenced with the entire cohort of practicing obstetricians and gynecologists, who were identified using the National Provider Identification database, because not all practicing ob-gyns received payments. These payments were analyzed with respect to 1) types of payments, 2) demographic attributes of health care providers receiving payments, and 3) comparisons between obstetrician and gynecologist subspecialties. Continuous data were compared using the Mann-Whitney test for variables that were not normally distributed and with the t test for variables that are normally distributed. RESULTS: A total of 517,077 nonresearch payments, totaling $79,965,244, were made to 23,292 ob-gyns. Physicians receiving payments were predominantly female, younger than 65 years old, allopathic physicians who graduated from U.S. medical schools in the late 1990s, and were board-certified subspecialists (P<.001 for all). Half of all ob-gyns received payments of varying amounts from drug manufacturers, device manufacturers, or both, with most of the payments for honoraria, faculty compensation, or consulting. Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery physicians received the largest median dollar amount; maternal-fetal medicine physicians received the smallest. CONCLUSION: Obstetricians and gynecologists receive a substantial amount of payments from industry. Most of these payments were for honoraria, faculty compensation, or consulting and totaled less than $400 per health care provider. Although this total amount is less than typically received by surgical providers, including orthopedic surgeons who account for the highest compensated group in total and mean industry payments, the median payment value for obstetrics and gynecology subspecialists surpasses the median payment to orthopedic surgeons. These financial relationships warrant further exploration with future research.

The Pediatric Anesthesiology Workforce: Projecting Supply and Trends 2015-2035.

BACKGROUND: A workforce analysis was conducted to predict whether the projected future supply of pediatric anesthesiologists is balanced with the requirements of the inpatient pediatric population. The specific aims of our analysis were to (1) project the number of pediatric anesthesiologists in the future workforce; (2) project pediatric anesthesiologist-to-pediatric population ratios (0-17 years); (3) project the mean number of inpatient pediatric procedures per pediatric anesthesiologist; and (4) evaluate the effect of alternative projections of individual variables on the model projections through 2035. METHODS: The future number of pediatric anesthesiologists is determined by the current supply, additions to the workforce, and departures from the workforce. We previously compiled a database of US pediatric anesthesiologists in the base year of 2015. The historical linear growth rate for pediatric anesthesiology fellowship positions was determined using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Data Resource Books from 2002 to 2016. The future number of pediatric anesthesiologists in the workforce was projected given growth of pediatric anesthesiology fellowship positions at the historical linear growth rate, modeling that 75% of graduating fellows remain in the pediatric anesthesiology workforce, and anesthesiologists retire at the current mean retirement age of 64 years old. The baseline model projections were accompanied by age- and gender-adjusted anesthesiologist supply, and sensitivity analyses of potential variations in fellowship position growth, retirement, pediatric population, inpatient surgery, and market share to evaluate the effect of each model variable on the baseline model. The projected ratio of pediatric anesthesiologists to pediatric population was determined using the 2012 US Census pediatric population projections. The projected number of inpatient pediatric procedures per pediatric anesthesiologist was determined using the Kids' Inpatient Database historical data to project the future number of inpatient procedures (including out of operating room procedures). RESULTS: In 2015, there were 5.4 pediatric anesthesiologists per 100,000 pediatric population and a mean (±standard deviation [SD]) of 262 ±8 inpatient procedures per pediatric anesthesiologist. If historical trends continue, there will be an estimated 7.4 pediatric anesthesiologists per 100,000 pediatric population and a mean (±SD) 193 ±6 inpatient procedures per pediatric anesthesiologist in 2035. If pediatric anesthesiology fellowship positions plateau at 2015 levels, there will be an estimated 5.7 pediatric anesthesiologists per 100,000 pediatric population and a mean (±SD) 248 ±7 inpatient procedures per pediatric anesthesiologist in 2035. CONCLUSIONS: If historical trends continue, the growth in pediatric anesthesiologist supply may exceed the growth in both the pediatric population and inpatient procedures in the 20-year period from 2015 to 2035.

The Geographic Distribution of Pediatric Anesthesiologists Relative to the US Pediatric Population.

BACKGROUND: The geographic relationship between pediatric anesthesiologists and the pediatric population has potentially important clinical and policy implications. In the current study, we describe the geographic distribution of pediatric anesthesiologists relative to the US pediatric population (0-17 years) and a subset of the pediatric population (0-4 years). METHODS: The percentage of the US pediatric population that lives within different driving distances to the nearest pediatric anesthesiologist (0 to 25 miles, >25 to 50 miles, >50 to 100 miles, >100 to 250 miles, and >250 miles) was determined by creating concentric driving distance service areas surrounding pediatric anesthesiologist practice locations. US Census block groups were used to determine the sum pediatric population in each anesthesiologist driving distance service area. The pediatric anesthesiologist-to-pediatric population ratio was then determined for each of the 306 hospital referral regions (HRRs) in the United States and compared with ratios of other physician groups to the pediatric population. All geographic mapping and analysis was performed using ArcGIS Desktop 10.2.2 mapping software (Redlands, CA). RESULTS: A majority of the pediatric population (71.4%) lives within a 25-mile drive of a pediatric anesthesiologist; however, 10.2 million US children (0-17 years) live greater than 50 miles from the nearest pediatric anesthesiologist. More than 2.7 million children ages 0 to 4 years live greater than 50 miles from the nearest identified pediatric anesthesiologist. The median ratio of pediatric anesthesiologists to 100,000 pediatric population at the HRR level was 2.25 (interquartile range, 0-5.46). Pediatric anesthesiologist geographic distribution relative to the pediatric population by HRR is lower and less uniform than for all anesthesiologists, neonatologists, and pediatricians. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of the US pediatric population lives greater than 50 miles from the nearest pediatric anesthesiologist, and pediatric anesthesiologist-to-pediatric population ratios by HRR vary widely across the United States. These findings are important given that the new guidelines from the American College of Surgeons Children's Surgery Verification™ Quality Improvement Program state that pediatric anesthesiologists must care for a subset of pediatric patients. Because of the geographic distribution of pediatric anesthesiologists relative to the pediatric population, access to care by a pediatric anesthesiologist may not be feasible for all children, particularly for those with limited resources or in emergent situations.

Predictors of Manuscript Publication: A Review of Obstetrics and Gynecology Society Meeting Abstracts.

OBJECTIVE: The authors attempted to understand the manuscript publication rate and predictors of publication of abstracts presented at obstetrical and gynecologic society meetings. METHODS: In 2013, the authors obtained the text of all 2005 abstracts presented at a major generalist- and fellowship-associated society meetings. In this cross-sectional study, a search was completed for publication and identified possible predictors. RESULTS: The authors examined 1405 abstracts; the overall full-text publication rate was 54% (755/1405 publications) and the mean (SD) time to publication was 25.6 (20.8) months. Variables associated with publication in multivariable analysis included number of abstract authors (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.2), first authorship in American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists district IV (OR, 1.7; CI, 0.9-3.1), prospective design (OR, 1.7; CI, 0.9-3.1), multicenter design (OR, 2.5; CI, 1.3-4.9), and oral presentation (OR, 3.2; CI, 1.4-7.3). Abstracts from specialty meetings were more likely to have these characteristics and, thus, higher publication rates. CONCLUSIONS: This study can guide project development for young researchers by informing them of key study design features associated with manuscript publication.

Preparedness of Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents for Fellowship Training.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perceptions of fellowship program directors of incoming clinical fellows for subspecialty training. METHODS: A validated survey by the American College of Surgeons was modified and distributed to all fellowship program directors in four subspecialties within obstetrics and gynecology: female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, gynecologic oncology, maternal-fetal medicine, and reproductive endocrinology-infertility. The 59-item survey explored five domains concerning preparedness for fellowship: professionalism, independent practice, psychomotor ability, clinical evaluation, and academic scholarship. A Likert scale with five responses was used and tailored to each subspecialty. Standard statistical methods were used to compare responses between subspecialties and to analyze data within each subspecialty individually. RESULTS: One hundred thirty directors completed the survey, for a response rate of 60%. In the domain of professionalism, more than 88% of participants stated that incoming fellows had appropriate interactions with faculty and staff. Scores in this domain were lower for gynecologic oncology respondents (P=.046). Responses concerning independent practice of surgical procedures (hysterectomy, pelvic reconstruction, and minimally invasive) were overwhelmingly negative. Only 20% of first-year fellows were able to independently perform a vaginal hysterectomy, 46% an abdominal hysterectomy, and 34% basic hysteroscopic procedures. Appropriate postoperative care (63%) and management of the critically ill patient (71%) were rated adequate for all subspecialties. CONCLUSION: Graduating residents may be underprepared for advanced subspecialty training, necessitating an evaluation of the current structure of resident and fellow curriculum. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

The effect of an air knot on surgical knot integrity.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical trainees may tie air knots, which have a questionable tensile strength and rate of untying. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of an air knot on knot integrity. METHODS: The 5 suture materials tested were 0-0 gauge coated polyethylene, polyglyconate, glycolide/lactide, polypropylene, and silk. The suture was tied between 2 hex screws 50 mm on center. The strands were tied using 5 square throws, and the knot tails were cut at 3-mm length. To create a standardized air knot, a round common nail measuring 3 mm in diameter was inserted between throws before tying square throw #3. The suture loop was positioned around the upper and lower hooks of the tensiometer so the location of the knot was roughly equidistant from the hooks. Ultimately, either the loop broke or the knot slipped. At that time, the peak tensile force as well as the outcome of the knot were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 480 knots were tied. The presence of an air knot significantly lowered the tension at knot failure in the glycolide/lactide (P = 0.0003), polypropylene (P = 0.0005), and silk (P = 0.0001) knot configurations. Air knots had the same integrity as surgical knots when coated polyethylene and polyglyconate suture were used. Linear regression was performed and identified both suture material (P < 0.0001) and presence of an air knot (P < 0.0001) to be independently associated with a lower tension at failure. CONCLUSIONS: Under laboratory conditions, an air knot may contribute to a lower tensile strength at failure for certain suture materials.

Small bowel surgery for the gynecologist specializing in benign disease.

INTRODUCTION: Adhesions are fibrous bands of scar tissue that are often a result of surgery. Adhesions of the bowel are a common finding during gynecologic procedures, and their presence can lead to injury. METHOD: This video article demonstrates enterolysis and small-bowel surgery in women undergoing surgery for a benign gynecologic condition and found to have severe adhesive disease. CONCLUSION: Small bowel surgery is best carried out using a team approach. Surgeons should be especially vigilant about injury to the bowel in patients undergoing extensive adhesiolysis or enterolysis.

Discrepancies in the female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeon workforce.

INTRODUCTION: It is unclear whether the current distribution of surgeons practicing female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery in the United States is adequate to meet the needs of a growing and aging population. We assessed the geographic distribution of female pelvic surgeons as represented by members of the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) throughout the United States at the county, state, and American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists district levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: County-level data from the AUGS, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the United States Census were analyzed in this observational study. State and national patterns of female pelvic surgeon density were mapped graphically using ArcGIS software and 2010 US Census demographic data. RESULTS: In 2013, the 1058 AUGS practicing physicians represented 0.13% of the total physician workforce. There were 6.7 AUGS members available for every 1 million women and 20 AUGS members for every 1 million postreproductive-aged women in the United States. The density of female pelvic surgeons was highest in metropolitan areas. Overall, 88% of the counties in the United States lacked female pelvic surgeons. Nationwide, there was a mean of 1 AUGS member for every 31 practicing general obstetrician-gynecologists. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have implications for training, recruiting, and retaining female pelvic surgeons. The uneven distribution of female pelvic surgeons throughout the United States is likely to worsen as graduating female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellows continue to cluster in urban areas.