Use of In-Training Examination Scores as a Fellowship Candidate Evaluation Metric: Time for a Change.

ABSTRACT: In the field of obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN), the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology (CREOG) administers an annual in-training examination to all OB/GYN residents as a formative educational tool for assessing medical knowledge and promoting self-improvement. Although the CREOG examination is not designed or intended for knowledge certification, many OB/GYN subspecialty fellowship programs request and use CREOG examination scores as a metric to evaluate fellowship candidates. Among the 57 gynecology-based urogynecology fellowship programs, 30 programs (53%) request CREOG examination scores to be submitted by candidates, as of March 2023. Although the use of CREOG examination scores as an evaluation metric may constitute a minor component within the fellowship match process, this practice fundamentally contradicts the intended purpose of the examination as an educational self-assessment. In addition, it introduces the potential for bias in fellowship recruitment, lacks psychometric validity in predicting specialty board examination failure, and shifts the CREOG examination from its original intention as low-stakes self-assessment into a high-stakes examination akin to a certification examination. For these reasons, we call upon the urogynecology community to prioritize the educational mission of the CREOG examination and reconsider the practice of requesting or using CREOG examination scores in the fellowship match progress.

"If You Need a Psychiatrist, It's BAD": Stigma Associated with Seeking Mental Health Care Among Obstetric Providers in Ghana.

Purpose: Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought attention to the impact of negative patient outcomes on healthcare providers. In Ghana, obstetric providers regularly face maternal and neonatal mortality, yet limited research has focused on provision of mental health support for these providers. This study sought to understand how obstetric providers viewed seeking mental health support after poor clinical outcomes, with a focus on the role of mental health stigma. Patients and Methods: Participants were 52 obstetric providers (20 obstetrician/gynecologists and 32 midwives) at two tertiary care hospitals in Ghana. Five focus groups, led by a trained facilitator and lasting approximately two hours, were conducted to explore provider experiences and perceptions of support following poor maternal and neonatal outcomes. Discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim, then analyzed qualitatively using grounded theory methodology. Results: Most participants (84.3%, N=43) were finished with training, and 46.2% (N=24) had been in practice more than 10 years. Emerging themes included pervasive stigma associated with seeking mental health care after experiencing poor clinical outcomes, which was derived from two overlapping dimensions. First, societal-level stigma resulted from a cultural norm to keep emotions hidden, and the perception that psychiatry is equated with severe mental illness. Second, provider-level stigma resulted from the belief that healthcare workers should not have mental health problems, a perception that mental health care is acceptable for patients but not for providers, and a fear about lack of confidentiality. Despite many providers acknowledging negative mental health impacts following poor clinical outcomes, these additive layers of stigma limited their willingness to engage in formal mental health care. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that stigma creates significant barriers to acceptance of mental health support among obstetric providers. Interventions to support providers will need to respect provider concerns without reinforcing the stigma associated with seeking mental health care.

Complications After Orchiectomy and Vaginoplasty for Gender Affirmation: An Analysis of Concurrent Versus Separate Procedures Using a National Database.

IMPORTANCE: Gender-affirming orchiectomy may be performed in isolation, as a bridge to vaginoplasty, or concurrently with vaginoplasty for transgender and nonbinary persons, although there is a paucity of data on immediate postoperative outcomes on the various procedural approaches. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to compare 30-day surgical outcomes after gender-affirming orchiectomy and vaginoplasty as separate and isolated procedures. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to compare surgical outcomes of orchiectomy alone and vaginoplasty alone to concurrent orchiectomy with vaginoplasty using bivariate and adjusted multivariable regression statistics. RESULTS: Concurrent orchiectomy and vaginoplasty were associated with greater 30-day surgical complications compared with orchiectomy alone (15.4% vs 2.9%, P < 0.01) and similar odds of 30-day surgical complications compared with vaginoplasty alone (15.4% vs 11.1%, P = 0.15). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, compared with orchiectomy alone, concurrent orchiectomy and vaginoplasty were associated with higher increased odds of 30-day surgical complications (adjusted odds ratio, 6.48; 95% confidence interval, 2.83-14.86) as well as vaginoplasty alone (adjusted odds ratio 4.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.85-10.00). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the perioperative outcomes for isolated versus concurrent gender-affirming orchiectomy and vaginoplasty, demonstrating lower morbidity for orchiectomy alone and similar morbidity for vaginoplasty alone when compared with concurrent procedures. These data will aid health care providers in preoperative counseling and surgical planning for gender-affirming genital surgery, particularly for patients considering concurrent versus staged orchiectomy and vaginoplasty.

Outcomes After Lysis of Adhesions and Dilator Placement for Treatment of Vulvovaginal Agglutination Due to Lichen Planus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to determine intraoperative and postoperative surgical outcomes for the treatment of vulvovaginal agglutination secondary to lichen planus (LP) following a standard protocol using intraoperative dilator placement and postoperative intravaginal steroid use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent surgical management of vulvovaginal agglutination due to LP following a protocol that included surgical lysis of vulvovaginal adhesions, intraoperative dilator placement and removal 48 hours later, and high-potency intravaginal corticosteroid and regular dilator use thereafter. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted from the medical record and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients, with mean age 51.2 ± 11 years and body mass index 32.8 ± 8.5 kg/m 2 , underwent lysis of vulvovaginal adhesions between 1999 and 2021 with 8 different surgeons at a single institution. The mean preoperative, immediate postoperative, and 6-week postoperative vaginal lengths were 2.8 ± 1.8 cm ( n = 18), 8.0 ± 1.9 cm ( n = 21), and 7.9 ± 2.2 cm ( n = 16), respectively. The mean estimated blood loss intraoperatively was 16 ± 15 mL. No patients had a documented surgical site infection or reoperation within 30 days after surgery. Of patients who had it documented ( n = 26), 70% (18/26) reported postoperative sexual activity. Where documented, 100% (18/18) reported preoperative dyspareunia, while 17% (3/18) did postoperatively. Six percent (2/34) had recurrent severe agglutination and 3% (1/34) underwent reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Lysis of vulvovaginal adhesions, intraoperative dilator placement, and postoperative intravaginal corticosteroids with dilator use is a safe and effective treatment option to restore vaginal length for those with vulvovaginal LP.

Gender Differences of Endowed Professorship in Obstetrics and Gynecology Departments at Top Academic Institutions.

Background: Gender equity is a critical issue in academic medicine. Whether there is equitable access to the prestige and resources of endowed professorships merits evaluation. We investigated this question in obstetrics and gynecology, a field that focuses on the health of women and in which women are much better represented than other specialties of medicine. Materials and Methods: We compiled a list of the top 25 United States departments of obstetrics and gynecology and contacted department chairs (and used department websites) to obtain lists of faculty and their positions. Scopus, department websites, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER were used to collect h-Index, number of publications and citations, graduation year, degrees, gender, and NIH-funding. We conducted a bivariate comparison of endowed professorship attainment by gender using a chi-square test and created a multiple variable regression model. Results: Of the 680 obstetrics and gynecology faculty across 23 departments that had endowed chairs, 64 out of 400 women (16%) and 66 out of 280 men (24%) held endowed chairs (p = 0.01). The multivariable model suggested no independent gender difference in attainment of an endowed chair after adjusting for covariates. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine gender as a variable in endowed chair allocation in top obstetrics and gynecology academic departments. Our findings suggest a significant gender difference in the allocation of endowed chairs. That difference is driven by gender differences in academic rank, graduation year, publications, and funding. To promote the intraprofessional equity necessary to optimally advance women's health, further research and intervention are necessary.

Assisted reproductive technology: considerations for the nonheterosexual population and single parents.

This study aimed to discuss fertility concerns unique to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, plus and single-parent-to-be populations and review special considerations regarding the evaluation and treatment of these patients relevant to the practicing reproductive medicine provider. The use of assisted reproductive technology has rapidly increased over the past 50 years. Given these trends, providers can expect a greater diversity of patients making use of these technologies. Both the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, plus community and single parents-to-be represent understudied and important populations who often require the use of assisted reproductive technology to build their families. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine advocates for equitable treatment of patients regardless of sexual orientation and partner status, and health care providers working in the fertility field should be comfortable and confident in assessing the needs of and providing care to these populations.

Variation in the interpretation and application of the Medicaid sterilization consent form among Medicaid officials.

OBJECTIVE: The Medicaid consent policy has been identified as a major barrier to desired permanent contraception, particularly for low-income communities and communities of color. As each state may modify their state Medicaid sterilization consent form, variation in the form has been reported. This study aims to characterize state-level variation in Medicaid Title XIX consent form interpretation and application. STUDY DESIGN: We aimed to collect primary data from Medicaid officials in all 50 United States from January to May 2020 via a 25-question electronic survey regarding state-level consent form implementation. Questions targeted consent form details and definitions, insurance and billing, clinician correspondence, and administrative processes. We used Qualtrics XM to collect survey responses. We performed descriptive statistics on the survey responses. There were no exclusion criteria. RESULTS: We had 41 responses from 36/50 states (72% participation rate). Heterogeneity existed in the key definitions of "Premature Delivery" and "Emergency Abdominal Surgery." One in five respondents reported the consent form was only available in English. Variation among Current Procedural Terminology codes covered in each state's sterilization policy were noted. Nearly a quarter of respondents did not know how Medicaid informed healthcare providers of consent form denials. Most participants (90%) were unaware of differences between state sterilization policies. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates variation in terms of consent form definitions, procedures covered, correspondence with clinicians, and administrative review processes among state Medicaid offices regarding the sterilization consent form. Greater transparency is necessary in order to reduce administrative barriers to desired permanent contraception. IMPLICATIONS: Inconsistent interpretation poses an administrative barrier to care, raises concern regarding appropriate clinician reimbursement, and can potentially lead to unnecessarily denying patients the contraceptive option of their choice. Permanent contraception policies should be equitable no matter insurance status, preserve reproductive autonomy and effectively protect vulnerable populations.