Words Matter: Examining Gender Differences in the Language Used to Evaluate Pediatrics Residents.

BACKGROUND: Gender disparities in academic medicine continue to be pervasive. Written evaluations of residents may provide insight into perceptions of residents by faculty, which may influence letters of recommendation for positions beyond residency and reinforce perceived stereotype threat experienced by trainees. OBJECTIVE: To examine language used in faculty evaluations of pediatrics residents to determine if there are differences in language used with respect to gender of resident. DESIGN/METHODS: All faculty evaluations of residents in 3 consecutive intern classes from 2016 to 2018 were collected and redacted for name and gender identifiers. We performed a qualitative analysis of written comments in 2 mandatory free text sections. The study team initially coded text collectively, generating a code book, then individually to apply the coding scheme. Next, evaluations were unblinded to gender. Code applications were aggregated by resident, and frequencies of code application by resident were compared by standardized mean differences to detect imbalances between genders. RESULTS: A total of 448 evaluations were analyzed: 88 evaluations of 17 male residents, and 360 evaluations of 70 female residents. Codes more frequently applied to women included "enthusiasm," and "caring," while codes more frequently applied to men included "intelligence," and "prepared." A conceptual model was created to reflect potential impacts of these differences using a lens of social role theory. CONCLUSIONS: We identified differences in the way male and female residents are evaluated by faculty, which may have negative downstream effects on female residents, who may experience negative self-perception, differential development of clinical skills, and divergent career opportunities as a result.

Fertility Benefits at Top U.S. Medical Schools.

Background: Female physicians have a higher prevalence of infertility compared with the general population. Physician well-being can be significantly impacted by the physical and emotional challenges associated with this, including the high cost of fertility treatments, which are often not covered by health insurance. There are limited data on the current state of fertility coverage available for physicians. This study examines fertility insurance benefits offered for faculty at top U.S. medical schools. Methods: Between March and April 2021, we reviewed fertility benefits at medical schools ranked in the top 14 for research as identified by the US News & World Report 2021. The summary plan descriptions of benefits were collected from each institution's human resources (HR) website and direct phone call to HR representatives. We examined descriptions of coverage for fertility services including evaluation, treatments, medications, maximum lifetime coverage, and whether a formal diagnosis of infertility was required for benefit eligibility. Results: Fourteen institutions offer benefits for fertility evaluation and 13 offer benefits for treatment. Of the 13 institutions that offer treatment coverage, 11 cover in vitro fertilization, with 6 having limits on the number of cycles. Twelve offer medication coverage. Ten institutions specified maximum lifetime coverage for treatments and medications, ranging from $10,000 to $100,000. Only 1 school provided coverage for elective fertility preservation, and none covered surrogacy expenses. Half of the schools are in states where fertility benefits are mandated. Conclusion: There is wide variation in fertility benefits offered at top medical schools across the country. Many schools offered coverage for fertility evaluation and treatments; however, majority had restrictions and limitations to the benefits, suggesting that there is still inadequate coverage provided. This study's selected sample also does not reflect other medical schools across the country, which may not be as well-resourced in their provision of fertility benefits.

Parent Perceptions and Experiences Regarding Medication Education at Time of Hospital Discharge for Children With Medical Complexity.

BACKGROUND: Children with medical complexity (CMC) often require complex medication regimens. Medication education on hospital discharge should provide a critical safety check before medication management transitions from hospital to family. Current discharge processes may not meet the needs of CMC and their families. The objective of this study is to describe parent perspectives and priorities regarding discharge medication education for CMC. METHODS: We performed a qualitative, focus-group-based study, using ethnography. Parents of hospitalized CMC were recruited to participate in 1 of 4 focus groups; 2 were in Spanish. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and then coded and organized into themes by using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-four parents participated in focus groups, including 12 native English speakers and 12 native Spanish speakers. Parents reported a range of 0 to 18 medications taken by their children (median 4). Multiple themes emerged regarding parental ideals for discharge medication education: (1) information quality, including desire for complete, consistent information, in preferred language; (2) information delivery, including education timing, and delivery by experts; (3) personalization of information, including accounting for literacy of parents and level of information desired; and (4) self-efficacy, or education resulting in parents' confidence to conduct medical plans at home. CONCLUSIONS: Parents of CMC have a range of needs and preferences regarding discharge medication education. They share a desire for high-quality education provided by experts, enabling them to leave the hospital confident in their ability to care for their children once home. These perspectives could inform initiatives to improve discharge medication education for all patients, including CMC.

Long length of hospital stay in children with medical complexity.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations of children with medical complexity (CMC) account for one-half of hospital days in children, with lengths of stays (LOS) that are typically longer than those for children without medical complexity. The objective was to assess the impact of, risk factors for, and variation across children's hospitals regarding long LOS (≥10 days) hospitalizations in CMC. METHODS: A retrospective study of 954,018 CMC hospitalizations, excluding admissions for neonatal and cancer care, during 2013 to 2014 in 44 children's hospitals. CMC were identified using 3M's Clinical Risk Group categories 6, 7, and 9, representing children with multiple and/or catastrophic chronic conditions. Multivariable regression was used to identify demographic and clinical characteristics associated with LOS ≥10 days. Hospital-level risk-adjusted rates of long LOS generated from these models were compared using a covariance test of the hospitals' random effect. RESULTS: Among CMC, LOS ≥10 days accounted for 14.9% (n = 142,082) of all admissions and 61.8% ($13.7 billion) of hospital costs. The characteristics most strongly associated with LOS ≥10 days were use of intensive care unit (ICU) (odds ratio [OR]: 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.4-3.5), respiratory complex chronic condition (OR: 2.7, 95% CI: 2.6-2.7), and transfer from another medical facility (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 2.0-2.1). After adjusting for severity, there was significant (P < 0.001) variation in the prevalence of LOS ≥10 days for CMC across children's hospitals (range, 10.3%-21.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Long hospitalizations for CMC are costly. Their prevalence varies significantly by type of chronic condition and across children's hospitals. Efforts to reduce hospital costs in CMC might benefit from a focus on prolonged LOS. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:750-756. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.