Gender Distribution of Authors of Evaluation Letters for Promotion at One Medical School.

PURPOSE: Women remain underrepresented in key leadership positions and advanced ranks in academic medicine. This study examines the numbers of men and women letter writers for promotion candidates during a 5-year period across departments, tracks, ranks, and candidate gender. METHOD: A descriptive study characterized the gender of evaluation letter writers for candidates for promotion to associate or full professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School between 2015 and 2020. Letter writer and candidate gender were characterized by self-identified pronouns in the faculty biography or dossier. Letter writer gender was described by candidate department, promotion track, rank, terminal degree, and gender. RESULTS: Among 299 candidates for promotion, 172 (58%) were men and 127 (42%) were women; dossiers included 3,995 evaluation letters. Across all years, men wrote more letters than women (external letters, range, 69% in 2019-2020 to 75% in 2015-2016; internal letters, range, 67% in 2018-2019 to 77% in 2015-2016). Candidates in the family medicine and pediatrics departments had the highest percentages of letters written by women (44% and 40%, respectively). No differences were found in the number of women letter writers by candidate promotion track; however, differences were found by candidate rank (associate professor, 30%; full professor, 23%) and terminal degree (MD/DO, 25%; PhD, 33%; MD-PhD, 20%). Regardless of candidate gender, most evaluation letters were written by men. Women candidates had 15% to 20% more letters authored by women than men candidates (34%-40% vs 18%-23%). CONCLUSIONS: The gender pattern of letter writers may reflect implicit biases regarding gender and perceived leadership status, expertise, and success. Adopting policies that promote or require gender diversity among letter writers for promotion candidates may provide an opportunity to encourage faculty to seek diverse networks and recognize the achievements of women faculty.

Health Care Providers' Readiness to Identify and Respond to Intimate Partner Violence.

Screening rates for intimate partner violence (IPV) among most health care providers are low; yet, positive interactions with providers can benefit people who experience IPV, with respect to increased safety, support, and self-efficacy. Missing is a broad assessment and comparison of knowledge, attitudes, and behavior across the range of providers who are likely to be involved in a response to IPV disclosure. The purpose of our study was to assess health care providers' IPV preparation, knowledge, opinions, and practices and examine differences across three types of health care providers (medical providers, nursing staff, and social/behavioral health providers). We used an anonymous online survey to gather self-reported information on preparation, knowledge, opinions, and practices around IPV. A random sample of 402 providers was drawn from 13 clinics in a large multispecialty outpatient practice setting. The respondents (N = 204) consisted of medical providers (n = 70), nursing staff (n = 107), and social/behavioral health providers (n = 27). Data analyses consisted of univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses. Social/behavioral health providers reported more preparation, knowledge, victim understanding, and less job-related constraints, yet they reported lower screening rates than medical providers and nursing staff. Overall, no provider group seemed well-equipped to work with patients who disclose IPV. Our findings identify unmet needs within our health system to better train health care providers and restructure care models to support IPV identification and response. A focus on interprofessional training and care collaboration would bolster competency and reduce constraints felt by the health care workforce.

Process evaluation of a systemic intervention to identify and support partner violence survivors in a multi-specialty health system.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is highly prevalent in the United States and impacts the physical and mental health and social well-being of those who experience it. Healthcare settings are important intervention points for IPV screening and referral, yet there is a wide range of implementation of IPV protocols in healthcare settings in the U.S., and the evidence of the usefulness of IPV screening is mixed. This process evaluation investigates the facilitators and barriers to implementing Coordinated Care for IPV Survivors through the M Health Community Network ("M Health Network"), an intervention that aimed to standardize IPV screening and referral in a multi-specialty clinic and surgery center (CSC). Two validated IPV screens were introduced and mandated to be done by rooming staff at least once every 3 months with all clinic patients regardless of gender; the Humiliation Afraid Rape Kick (HARK) for presence of IPV and the shortened Danger Assessment (DA-5) for lethality of IPV. Upon a positive screen, the patient was offered immediate informational resources and, if willing, was referred to a social worker for care coordination with a community organization. METHODS: Semi-structured, individual and group process interviews with clinic managers and clinic staff at 8 CSC clinics (N = 24) were undertaken at 3,12, and 27 months after intervention start. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with the research team (N = 3) post-implementation. A Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) codebook was used to code data in two rounds. After each round, thick description was used to write detailed and contextual descriptions of each code. Facilitators and barriers to implementation were identified during the second round of thick description. RESULTS: Facilitators to implementation were clinic staff support, dedication, and flexibility and research team engagement. Barriers were lack of prioritization, loss of intervention champions, lack of knowledge about intervention protocol and resources, staff and patient discomfort discussing IPV, and operational issues with screen technology. CONCLUSIONS: The IPV protocol was implemented, but faced common barriers. CFIR is a complex, but comprehensive, tool to guide process evaluation for IPV screening and referral interventions in health systems in the U.S.

Intimate Partner Violence Screening and Referral Practices in an Outpatient Care Setting.

Health care providers who screen for intimate partner violence (IPV) and counsel patients can reduce victimization and positively impact women's health and well-being; yet only 2% to 50% of medical professionals report routinely screening female patients. The purpose of this study was to identify current practices, policies, barriers, and opportunities for a coordinated and routinized response to IPV in an outpatient academic primary care clinic. Data were collected through interviews and the Physician Readiness to Manage Intimate Partner Violence questionnaire. Data on IPV screening practices over a 5-month period were also available through the electronic health record. Study participants expressed that there was no uniform method of documenting screening results and great variability in the patient populations and circumstances that prompted screening. Over two thirds of the survey respondents reported either a lack of IPV protocol or a lack of knowledge about one if it existed. Providers and staff who participated believed it was within their scope of work to screen for IPV and recognized IPV as a serious health threat; however, they cited an absence of patient education resources, a lack of staff training and awareness, and no established IPV referral network as barriers to screening for IPV. The results of the pilot are in line with existing research highlighting a general lack of screening, variability in process, and the absence of systems-level policies and protocols and linkages to community resources. Pilot findings have been used to initiate a project which encompasses routinized screening, documentation, and care coordination between providers and community organizations to improve patient well-being.

Linking partner violence survivors to supportive services: impact of the M Health Community Network project on healthcare utilization.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with adverse health effects and increased healthcare utilization. Systems-level interventions have been shown to be effective in identifying and referring survivors but little is known about how these strategies impact future utilization. The objective of this study is to examine the impact of a systems-level response on healthcare utilization among patients screening positive for IPV from November 2016 to February 2019 in a large multi-specialty outpatient health system in the Midwest. METHODS: Using electronic health record (EHR) data, we identified patients who screened positive for IPV (N = 756) and categorized their response as accepted printed material (N = 116), accepted direct referrals (N = 85), declined both (N = 271), or missing (N = 255). We used negative binomial models to model post-period utilization as a function of decision group, pre-period utilization, and clinical and demographic factors. RESULTS: After controlling for demographic characteristics and baseline utilization, the printed materials and direct referral groups had higher utilization rates than those who declined printed materials and direct referral during the post-period for every type of service. However, these differences were only statistically significant for outpatient, behavioral health, and social work services. Specifically, the visit rate for patients receiving printed materials was two times higher (rate ratio: 2.18; 95% CI: 1.21, 3.94) for behavioral health services and three times higher (rate ratio: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.3, 8.52) for social work services compared to those who refused printed material and direct referral. For those opting for a direct referral, the visit rate was two times higher for outpatient services (rate ratio: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.13, 3.42) compared to those who refused. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving printed materials or direct referrals had more social work and behavioral health visits, highlighting an important outcome of the protocol. However, higher utilization rates among outpatient services and a trend toward higher utilization of other services, including the emergency department, suggest greater health service utilization is not diminished by the systems level response-at least not within a two-year time frame.