Dataset Information

Program Director Perceptions of Subspecialty Tracking in Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Residency programs have experienced a trend toward decreased work hours and case volumes, negatively affecting the perception of graduating residents' competence. Subspecialty tracks have been proposed to help address these issues.

Objective

We evaluated the perceptions of obstetrics and gynecology (ob-gyn) residency program directors (PDs) on subspecialty tracking during training.

Methods

In 2017, a web-based, anonymous survey with Likert scale and open-ended items was e-mailed to US ob-gyn PDs.

Results

Of 250 PDs surveyed, 169 (68%) responded. More than half (54%) reported tracking would positively affect training of future ob-gyn physicians; 80% agreed it would increase resident preparedness for fellowship. Nearly half (49%) indicated it should be available for interested residents. However, some respondents expressed concerns this would negatively affect resident training (38%) and could decrease the number of ob-gyn generalists (50%). Most (88%) believed that tracking, if implemented, should not be mandatory, and 84% agreed that a tracking curriculum should be accompanied by Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology changes. Only 31% of PDs felt tracking could be successfully implemented in their programs. Barriers to implementation included too few residents to divide into tracks, challenging administrative logistics, and concerns about meeting ACGME case volume requirements.

Conclusions

PDs have defined but diverse opinions on the implementation of tracking in ob-gyn. Slightly more than half of responding PDs reported tracking would positively affect the training of future ob-gyn physicians, and less than one-third indicated that their program could successfully implement tracking.

SUBMITTER: Hariton E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6314374 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the United States (US), many obstetrics & gynecology (OB-GYN) trainees feel unprepared to care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) individuals, but interest in this topic is rising. Residency program websites are one way that directors can advertise whether this training is offered within their program. We aimed to describe the extent to which LGBTQI content is currently featured on OB-GYN residency websites across the country.MethodsWe identified all OB-GYN residency programs in the United States using a publicly available database. We systematically searched for select LGBTQI keywords on program websites. We collected data on mentions of LGBTQI didactics and rotations. We also searched whether LGTBQI keywords were included in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare the characteristics of programs that do and do not include this content. We used STATA SE Version 16.0 for all analyses and set the level of significance at 5%.ResultsWe included 287/295 US OB-GYN residency programs in our analysis (97.3%) and excluded 8 that did not have websites. We identified any LGBTQI content on 50 program websites (17.4%), and specific mention of didactics or rotations on 8 websites (2.8%). On multivariable analysis, programs in the West were more likely to include any LGBTQI content compared to programs in the South (OR 2.81, 95%CI 1.04-7.63), as were programs with 1 or 2 fellowships (OR 3.41, 95%CI 1.43-8.14) or 3 or more fellowships (OR 4.85, 95%CI 2.03-11.57) compared to those without fellowships. Programs in departments led by female chairs were also more likely to include LBTQI content (OR 3.18, 95%CI 1.55-6.51).ConclusionsAcademic programs, West Coast programs, and those with departments led by female chairs are more likely to mention LGBTQI keywords on their websites. Given the increasing interest in LGBTQI education for OB-GYN trainees, program directors should consider providing training opportunities and including this content on their websites.

Project description:ImportanceThe 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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsSurveys 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.ExposuresRespondents 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 measuresApplicants 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.ResultsRespondents 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 relevanceStakeholders 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.