Fellowship for Academic Generalists in Obstetrics and Gynecology: Is It Overdue?

Academic specialists in general obstetrics and gynecology are clinicians practicing the full breadth of the specialty while also contributing to medical education and scientific discovery. Residency programs in obstetrics and gynecology provide exposure to research training that is variable but frequently limited. This creates challenges for junior faculty and in many cases limits their research productivity, typically measured by published original research articles and grant funding. This frequently disadvantages academic specialists in promotion compared with their subspecialty fellowship-trained colleagues. A few research fellowship programs were recently launched to address this issue. However, these programs are not uniform and encounter challenges such as sustainable funding. In this article, building on knowledge from current academic specialist fellowship programs, we discuss the needs, challenges, and proposed solutions. We also propose some details needing further discussion among the academic obstetrics and gynecology community. We discuss how such fellowships can integrate with current development and training opportunities such as the Women's Reproductive Health Research award, Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health award, other K and K-type career development programs, NIH T32 grants, and clinical research courses for obstetricians and gynecologists. Academic specialist fellowship programs can have synergy with other women's health fellowship programs offered by other specialties. They can additionally leverage institutional resources. We conclude by summarizing a proposed model for academic specialist research fellowship programs.

The Johns Hopkins Physician-Scientist Training Program to Enhance Institutional Retention and Entry Into Academic Positions: An Evaluation of Program Effectiveness and Outcomes.

PURPOSE: The Johns Hopkins Physician-Scientist Training Program (PSTP) was implemented to overcome well-documented challenges in training and retaining physician-scientists by providing physician-scientist pathway training for residents and clinical fellows. The program's core tenets include monthly seminars, individualized feedback on project proposals, access to mentors, and institutional funding opportunities. This study evaluated the effectiveness and outcomes of the PTSP and provides a framework for replication. METHOD: A query of institutional demographic data and bibliometric variables of the PSTP participants (2017-2020) at a single academic medical center was conducted in 2021. In addition, a voluntary survey collected personal and program evaluation information. RESULTS: Of 145 PSTP scholars, 59 (41%) were women, and 41 (31%), 8 (6%), and 6 (5%) of scholars self-identified as Asian, Hispanic, and Black, respectively. Thirty-three (23%) scholars received PSTP research support or career development microgrants. Of 66 PSTP graduates, 29 (44%) remained at Johns Hopkins as clinical fellows or faculty. Of 48 PSTP graduates in a post-training position, 42 (88%) were in academia, with the majority, 29 (76%), holding the rank of assistant professor. Fifty-nine of 140 available participants responded to the survey (42% response rate). The top-cited reason for joining the PSTP was exposure to mentors and administration (50/58 respondents, 86%), followed by seeking scholarly opportunities (37/58 respondents, 64%). Most scholars intended to continue a career as a physician-scientist. CONCLUSIONS: The PSTP provides internal research support and institutional oversight. Although establishing close mentor-mentee relationships requires individualized approaches, the PSTP provided structured academic pathways that enhanced participating scholars' ability to apply for grants and jobs. The vast majority continued their careers as physician-scientists after training. In light of the national evidence of a "leaky physician-scientist pipeline," programs such as the PSTP can be critical to entry into early academic career positions and institutional retention.

U.S. Healthcare Provider Views and Practices Regarding Planned Birth Setting.

AbstractBackground: Little is known about U.S. healthcare provider views and practices regarding evidence, counseling, and shared decision-making about in-hospital versus out-of-hospital birth settings. METHODS: We conducted 19 in-depth, semistructured, qualitative interviews of eight obstetricians, eight midwives, and three pediatricians from across the United States. Interviews explored healthcare providers' interpretation of the current evidence and their personal and professional experiences with childbirth within the existing medical, ethical, and legal context in the United States. RESULTS: Themes emerged concerning risks and benefits, decision-making, and patient-provider power dynamics. Collectively, the narratives illuminated fundamental ideological tensions between in- and out-of-hospital providers arising from divergent assignment of value to described risks and benefits. The majority of physicians focused on U.S.-specific data demonstrating increased neonatal morbidity and mortality associated with delayed access to hospital-based interventions, thereby justifying hospital birth as the standard of care. By contrast, midwives emphasized data demonstrating fewer interventions and superior maternal and neonatal outcomes in high-income European countries, where out-of-hospital birth is more common for low-risk birthing people. A key gap in counseling was revealed, as no interviewees offered anticipatory counseling regarding birth setting options. Providers directly and indirectly illustrated the propensity for asymmetric power relations between birth providers and pregnant people, especially in hospital settings. CONCLUSIONS: The narratives highlight the common goal of optimizing maternal and neonatal outcomes despite tensions arising from divergent prioritization of specific maternal and neonatal risks. Our findings suggest opportunities to foster collaboration and optimize outcomes via mutual respect and improved integration of care.

Trainee Physician Milestone Ratings and Patient Complaints in Early Posttraining Practice.

Importance: Evaluation of trainees in graduate medical education training programs using Milestones has been in place since 2013. It is not known whether trainees who have lower ratings during the last year of training go on to have concerns related to interactions with patients in posttraining practice. Objective: To investigate the association between resident Milestone ratings and posttraining patient complaints. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included physicians who completed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited programs between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019, and worked at a site that participated in the national Patient Advocacy Reporting System (PARS) program for at least 1 year. Milestone ratings from ACGME training programs and patient complaint data from PARS were collected. Data analysis was conducted from March 2022 to February 2023. Exposures: Lowest professionalism (P) and interpersonal and communication skills (ICS) Milestones ratings 6 months prior to the end of training. Main Outcomes and Measures: PARS year 1 index scores, based on recency and severity of complaints. Results: The cohort included 9340 physicians with median (IQR) age of 33 (31-35) years; 4516 (48.4%) were women physicians. Overall, 7001 (75.0%) had a PARS year 1 index score of 0, 2023 (21.7%) had a score of 1 to 20 (moderate), and 316 (3.4%) had a score of 21 or greater (high). Among physicians in the lowest Milestones group, 34 of 716 (4.7%) had high PARS year 1 index scores, while 105 of 3617 (2.9%) with Milestone ratings of 4.0 (proficient), had high PARS year 1 index scores. In a multivariable ordinal regression model, physicians in the 2 lowest Milestones rating groups (0-2.5 and 3.0-3.5) were statistically significantly more likely to have higher PARS year 1 index scores than the reference group with Milestones ratings of 4.0 (0-2.5 group: odds ratio, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.0-1.5]; 3.0-3.5 group: odds ratio, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1-1.3]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, trainees with low Milestone ratings in P and ICS near the end of residency were at increased risk for patient complaints in their early posttraining independent physician practice. Trainees with lower Milestone ratings in P and ICS may need more support during graduate medical education training or in the early part of their posttraining practice career.

The Undergraduate to Graduate Medical Education Transition as a Systems Problem: A Root Cause Analysis.

The transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education (GME) constitutes a complex system with important implications for learner progression and patient safety. The transition is currently dysfunctional, requiring students and residency programs to spend significant time, money, and energy on the process. Applications and interviews continue to increase despite stable match rates. Although many in the medical community acknowledge the problems with the UME-GME transition and learners have called for prompt action to address these concerns, the underlying causes are complex and have defied easy fixes. This article describes the work of the Coalition for Physician Accountability's Undergraduate Medical Education to Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) to apply a quality improvement approach and systems thinking to explore the underlying causes of dysfunction in the UME-GME transition. The UGRC performed a root cause analysis using the 5 whys and an Ishikawa (or fishbone) diagram to deeply explore problems in the UME-GME transition. The root causes of problems identified include culture, costs and limited resources, bias, systems, lack of standards, and lack of alignment. Using the principles of systems thinking (components, connections, and purpose), the UGRC considered interactions among the root causes and developed recommendations to improve the UME-GME transition. Several of the UGRC's recommendations stemming from this work are explained. Sustained monitoring will be necessary to ensure interventions move the process forward to better serve applicants, programs, and the public good.

Facilitating an Optimal Transition to Residency in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The transition to residency in obstetrics and gynecology is difficult, threatening the well-being of residents as well as their preparedness to care for patients. In addition to essential foundational knowledge and skills, obstetrics and gynecology interns must develop professional identity and a growth mindset toward learning to acquire the self-directed learning skills required of physicians throughout their careers. The transition to residency is a critical opportunity for learning and development. A group of educators and learners from around the country created a preparedness program building on available resources. The result is a national curriculum for improving the transition to obstetrics and gynecology residency on three levels: self-directed learning, facilitated small-group workshops, and coaching. Sharing tools for preparing matched applicants for residency in obstetrics and gynecology ensures adequate residency preparation for all interns, independent of medical school attended. This program aims to address potential threats to equity in the training of our future workforce and to ensure that all obstetrics and gynecology interns are prepared to thrive in residency training.

UGRC 2021 recommendations on GME transition: pros and cons, opportunities and limitations.

The Coalition for Physician Accountability's Undergraduate Medical Education-Graduate Medical Education (UME-GME) Review Committee (UGRC): Recommendations for Comprehensive Improvement of the UME-GME Transition final report includes a total of 34 recommendations and outlines opportunities to transform the current processes of learner transition from a US-based MD- or DO-granting medical school or international medical education pathway into residency training in the United States. This review provides a reflection on the recommendations from the authors, all members of the UGRC, describing the pros and cons and the opportunities and limitations, in the hopes that they might inspire readers to dig deeper into the report and contribute to meaningful improvements to the current transition. The UGRC Recommendations highlight the many opportunities for improvement in the UME-to-GME transition. They are built on the connection to the system of education and formation of physicians to a more just healthcare system, with attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion to improve health disparities and to the quality of care that patients receive. However, there are justifiable concerns about changes that are not fully understood or that could potentially lead to unintentional consequences. This analysis, reached through author consensus, considers the pros and cons in the potential application of the UGRC Recommendations to improve the UME-to-GME transition. Further debate and discussion are warranted, without undue delay, all with the intention to continue to improve the education of tomorrow's physicians and the care for the patients who we have the privilege to serve.

How We Do It: Student Perspectives on Changes to the Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Application Process.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the perspectives of obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) residency applicants regarding new standards for the 2019 to 2020 application cycle. DESIGN: An anonymous electronic survey was sent to all OBGYN residency applicants to US programs retrospectively evaluating 5 new recommended standards for the application process. This 15-item survey assessed the importance of the proposed standards and their impact on applicants' anxiety. SETTING: The OBGYN residency application process is marked by increasing application numbers and no standardization for managing interview offers. The Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics (APGO) received a 5-year Reimagining Residency grant from the American Medical Association to improve the transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education (GME) within OBGYN. The multiphase project, "Transforming the UME to GME Transition for Obstetrics and Gynecology- Right Resident, Right Program, Ready Day One (RRR)," began with Standardizing the OBGYN Application and Interview Process (SOAIP). This group recommended 5 new standards for all US OBGYN residency programs and applicants. PARTICIPANTS: Applicants for US OBGYN residency programs for the 2019 to 2020 application cycle completed the survey, with a 904/2508 (36.0%) response rate, including 762 complete responses (30.4%). RESULTS: Applicants reported that all 5 of the new standards would cause the least self-perceived anxiety (range 76.8% - 96.5%). The impact of the standards on perceived anxiety varied by student group, with International Medical Graduates (IMGs) and students with USMLE Step I scores <200 describing lesser impact compared to others. Despite these differences, all 5 standards were consistently noted to cause the least anxiety for all groups. Despite varying degrees of effects in different groups, the new OBGYN residency application standards caused the least anxiety for all subgroups of applicants. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing universal standards for the OBGYN residency application process was favorably perceived by applicants and caused the least anxiety for applicants.

Establishing a Deaf and American Sign Language Inclusive Residency Program.

Improving diversity in residency programs has been increasingly emphasized as a means to address gender, racial, and ethnic disparities in medicine. However, limited attention has been given to the potential benefits of training physicians with differences other than gender or race and ethnicity. Americans with a disability represent about 27% of the U.S. population, whereas 1%-3% of physician trainees report having a disability. In 2013, a national survey identified only 86 physicians or trainees reporting deafness or hearing loss as a disability. To date, there are no published strategies on how to create an inclusive program for Deaf trainees. Herein, the authors report on the development of a Deaf and American Sign Language (ASL) inclusive residency program that can serve as an academic model for other programs, in any medical specialty, seeking to create an accessible training program for Deaf physicians and that can be adapted for trainees with other disabilities. In March 2017, the radiation oncology residency program at Johns Hopkins University matched an ASL-signing Deaf resident who would begin the program in July 2018. In preparation, department leadership engaged key stakeholders and leaders within the university's health system and among the department faculty, residents, and staff as well as the incoming resident to create an ASL inclusive program. A 5-step transition process for the training program was ultimately developed and implemented. The authors focused on engaging the Deaf trainee and interpreters, engaging health system and departmental leadership, contracting a training consultant and developing oral and written training materials for faculty and staff, and optimizing the workspace via accommodations. Through collaborative preparation, a Deaf and ASL-signing resident was successfully integrated into the residency program. The proposed 5-step transition process provides an effective, engaging model to encourage other institutions that are seeking to employ similar inclusivity initiatives.

What are the attitudes of medical students and housestaff towards health advocacy? A physician-led voter registration initiative and health advocacy survey.

Background: Compared to the general population, physicians have been shown to be less engaged in civic participation and less likely to vote. However, perspectives of current trainees on health advocacy remain under-explored. Objective: To investigate perspectives on a physician led voter registration initiative and identify current beliefs of physicians in training and medical students regarding physician health advocacy. Design: Cross sectional survey performed at a single urban academic center. Participants: A total of 366 medical students, residents, and fellows voluntarily participated in the survey out of a total of 1,719 available (21% response rate). Main Measures: We examined the current perceptions surrounding health advocacy among medical students and physicians in training and how this was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses were analyzed using Chi-square analysis and logistic regression. Key Results: The voter registration code was scanned 131 times prior to the 2020 Presidential elections. Barriers to hospital-based voter registration included lack of time, lack of fit into the workflow and forgetting to ask. Over half of internal medicine-based residents and fellows (51%) and medical students (63%) agreed that physicians should be involved in helping patients register to vote compared to 34% of surgical-based trainees. A large majority (87%) indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic made it more necessary for physicians to be involved in politics. Conclusion: A high proportion of medical students and housestaff across specialties report an obligation to be involved in health advocacy, though there were differing views towards direct involvement in voter registration.

Perspectives of Stakeholders About an Early Result Acceptance Program to Complement the Residency Match in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Importance: The residency application process is flawed, costly, and distracts from the preparation for residency. Disruptive change is needed to improve the inefficiencies in current selection processes. Objective: To determine interest in an early result acceptance program (ERAP) among stakeholders in obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN), and to estimate its outcome in future application cycles. Design, Setting, and Participants: Surveys of stakeholders in March 2021 queried interest in ERAP across the US. Respondents included OBGYN residency applicants, members of the Association of American Medical Colleges Group on Student Affairs, OBGYN clerkship directors, and residency program directors. Statistical analysis was performed from March to April 2021. Exposures: Respondents completed surveys sent by email from the Association of American Medical Colleges (to OBGYN applicants and members of the Group on Student Affairs), the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics (to clerkship directors), and the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology (to program directors). Main Outcomes and Measures: Applicants and program directors indicated their interest in participating in ERAP, and clerkship directors and members of the Group on Student Affairs indicated their likelihood of recommending ERAP using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: Respondents included 879 (34.0%) of 2579 applicants to OBGYN, 143 (50.3%) of 284 residency program directors, 94 (41.8%) of 225 clerkship directors, and 51 (32.9%) of 155 student affairs deans. The majority of respondents reported being either somewhat or extremely likely to participate in ERAP, including 622 applicants (70.7%) and 87 program directors (60.8%). Interest in ERAP was independent of an applicant's reported board scores, medical school type, race, number of applications submitted, or number of interviews completed. Among program directors, those at university programs were more likely to participate. Stakeholders supported a limit of 3 applications for ERAP, to fill 25% to 50% of residency positions. Estimating the outcome of ERAP using these data suggests 26 280 to 52 560 fewer applications could be submitted in the regular match cycle. Conclusions and Relevance: Stakeholders in the OBGYN application process expressed broad support for the concept of ERAP. The majority of applicants and programs indicated that they would participate, with potentially substantial positive impact on the application process. Careful pilot testing and research regarding implementation are essential to avoid worsening an already dysfunctional application process.

Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Selection of Obstetrician-Gynecologists.

In the setting of long-standing structural racism in health care, it is imperative to highlight inequities in the medical school-to-residency transition. In obstetrics and gynecology, the percentage of Black residents has decreased in the past decade. The etiology for this troubling decrease is unknown, but racial and ethnic biases inherent in key residency application metrics are finally being recognized, while the use of these metrics to filter applicants is increasing. Now is the time for action and for transformational change to rectify the factors that are detrimentally affecting the racial diversity of our residents. This will benefit our patients and learners with equitable health care and better outcomes.

A Qualitative Study of the Barriers and Benefits to Resident Education in Ambulatory Surgical Centers.

OBJECTIVE: As Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs) become more common in academic medical centers, large hospital systems must determine how to shift resident education from inpatient to outpatient surgical centers. This study aims to define stakeholders' views regarding the integration of surgical residents into ASCs. DESIGN: Long-form interviews lasting 30 to 60 minutes were conducted. Interviews were hand-transcribed and analyzed by qualitative analysis to determine benefits of learning in ASCs for residents, challenges that arise from integrating residents, and recommendations to improve resident incorporation. SETTING: Interviews were conducted using a video conferencing platform. PARTICIPANTS: Residency program directors, attending surgeons, graduate medical learners, and a nursing manager were interviewed. Twenty-one total interviews were conducted, representing ten different departments. RESULTS: Stakeholders agreed that residents benefit from being placed in ASCs because the fast, surgical pace allows the residents to engage in more cases. However, different stakeholders highlighted different challenges, all centered around the notion of inter-stakeholder conflict due to conflicting priorities among residents, attending physicians, and administration. Likewise, recommendations differed by stakeholder group-faculty members sought more defined learning objectives and enhanced communication, whereas residents desired that ambulatory surgical time be more structured. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the pressures of rapid case turnover, stakeholders agreed that there are many benefits to resident education in ASCs. Findings related to challenges and recommendations support the need to strengthen communication between stakeholder groups and better plan for resident integration into ASCs.