Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Many teaching hospitals in the US segregate patients by insurance status, with resident clinics primarily composed of publicly insured or uninsured patients and faculty practices seeing privately insured patients. The prevalence of this model in obstetrics and gynecology residencies is unknown. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:To examine the prevalence of payer-based segregation in obstetrics and gynecology residency ambulatory care sites nationally and to compare residents' and program directors' perceptions of differences in quality of care between payer-segregated and integrated sites. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This national survey study included all 6060 obstetrics and gynecology residents and 293 obstetrics and gynecology residency program directors in the US as of January 2023. The proportion of program directors reporting payer segregation was calculated to characterize the national prevalence of this model in obstetrics and gynecology. Perceived differences in care quality were compared between residents and program directors at payer-segregated sites. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:The primary measure was prevalence of payer-based segregation in obstetrics and gynecology residency programs in the US as reported by residency program directors. The secondary measure was resident and program director perceptions of care quality in these ambulatory care settings. Before study initiation, the study hypothesis was that residents and program directors at ambulatory sites with payer-based segregation would report more disparity in perceived health care quality between resident and faculty practices compared with those from integrated sites. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:A total of 251 residency program directors (response rate, 85.7%) and 3471 residents (response rate, 57.3%) were included in the study. Resident respondent demographics reflected demographics of obstetrics and gynecology residents nationally in terms of racial and ethnic distribution (6 [0.2%] American Indian or Alaska Native; 425 [13.0%] Asian; 239 [7.3%] Black or African American; 290 [8.9%] Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish; 7 [0.2%] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 2052 [62.7%] non-Hispanic White; 49 [1.5%] multiracial; 56 [1.7%] other [any race not listed]; and 137 [4.2%] preferred not to say) and geographic distribution (regional prevalence of payer-based segregation: 36 of 53 [67.9%] in the Northeast, 35 of 44 [79.5%] in the Midwest, 43 of 67 [64.2%] in the South, and 13 of 22 [59.1%] in the West), with 2837 respondents (86.9%) identifying as female. Among program directors, 127 (68.3%) reported payer-based segregation in ambulatory care. University programs were more likely to report payer-based segregation compared with community, hybrid, and military programs (63 of 85 [74.1%] vs 31 of 46 [67.4%], 32 of 51 [62.7%], and 0, respectively; P = .04). Residents at payer-segregated programs were less likely than their counterparts at integrated programs to report equal or higher care quality from residents compared with faculty (1662 [68.7%] vs 692 [81.6%] at segregated and integrated programs, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:In this survey study of residents and residency program directors, payer-based segregation was prevalent in obstetrics and gynecology residency programs, particularly at university programs. These findings reveal an opportunity for structural reform to promote more equitable care in residency training programs.

OBJECTIVE:Although approximately one-fifth of obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) residents matriculate from osteopathic or international medical schools, most literature regarding the transition to residency focuses on allopathic medical school graduates. To create comprehensive interventions for this educational transition, we must understand the needs of all incoming residents. Our objective was to examine OBGYN residents' perceptions of their transition to residency, and to understand how residents' background and medical school environment influence their perceived sense of readiness. DESIGN/METHODS:A 16-item survey asked questions about demographics, the transition to residency, resident well-being, burnout, and the transition to fellowship. Perception of preparedness was assessed with the question "I felt that I was well-prepared for the first year of residency" (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree). Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests and logistic regression explored association of perceived preparedness with residents' backgrounds. SETTING/METHODS:Survey administered at time of the in-training examination in 2022. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:All OBGYN residents. RESULTS:Of 5761 eligible participants, 3741 (64.9%) provided consent and completed the survey. Of the 3687 participants who answered the question, 2441 (66.2%) either agreed or strongly agreed that they felt well-prepared. Fewer osteopathic graduates reported feeling prepared compared to allopathic graduates (379/610, 62.1% vs 1,924/2,766, 69.6%) (OR 0.72, 95%CI 0.60-0.86, p < 0.01). International medical school graduates were seven times less likely to report feeling prepared compared to those from allopathic institutions (137/304, 45.1% vs 1924/2776, 69.6%) (OR 0.60, 95%CI 0.53-0.68, p < 0.01). Respondents from underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds were less likely to report feeling prepared compared to White respondents (276/535, 51.6% vs 1738/2387, 72.8%) (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.33-0.48, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Differences in residents' perceptions of their transition to residency highlight the need to begin offsetting pervasive inequities with comprehensive and accessible resources.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:State-specific abortion restrictions currently affect the training of approximately 44% of obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) residents in the US. Examination of where future trainees apply for residency is important. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To assess changes in the percentage of applicants to OBGYN residency programs by state based on abortion restrictions in place after the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (hereafter, Dobbs v Jackson) US Supreme Court decision and examine whether applicants' preference for programs, as suggested by the distribution of application signals that express higher interest, was associated with abortion bans. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This serial cross-sectional study used anonymized data for all applicants to OBGYN residency programs in the US during September and October from 2019 to 2023. Data were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges Electronic Residency Application Service. EXPOSURES/UNASSIGNED:Applications and program preference signals sent to OBGYN residency programs, analyzed by applicants' self-reported demographics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome was differences in the percentage of unique applicants to OBGYN residency programs from 2019 to 2023, with programs categorized by state-based abortion restrictions after the Dobbs v Jackson decision. Secondary outcomes included the distribution of program signals by state abortion ban status. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:A total of 2463 applicants (2104 [85.4%] women) who applied to OBGYN programs for the 2023 residency match cycle were the focal sample of this study. While overall applicant numbers remained stable between 2019 and 2023, the number of applicants differed significantly by state abortion ban status in the 2022 (F2,1087 = 10.82; P < .001) and the 2023 (F2,1087 = 14.31; P < .001) match cycles. There were no differences in the number of signals received by programs in states with bans after controlling for known covariates such as number of applications received and program size, and there were no differences in the percentage of signals sent by out-of-state applicants to programs in states with different abortion laws than their home states (F2,268 = 2.41; P = .09). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:In this cross-sectional study, there was a small but statistically significant decrease in the number of applicants to OBGYN residency programs in states with abortion bans in 2023 compared with 2022. However, applicant signaling data did not vary by states' abortion ban status. While OBGYN residency programs almost completely filled in 2023, continued monitoring for the potential consequences of state abortion bans for OBGYN training is needed.

The objectives of this study were to evaluate how obstetrics and gynecology residency program directors used applicant signaling and to understand how two tiers of signals influenced interviews, ranking, and matching into programs. A multimethod, deductive-sequential design was employed using a national survey of residency program directors and a convenience sampling of programs to study how obstetrics and gynecology program directors used program signals in the 2022-2023 residency-application cycle. A total of 80.5% (236/293) of program directors receiving the survey provided information about signaling, and 20 programs provided application outcome data for applicants who signaled them. The majority of program directors (86.9%) opted into signaling, 43.4% used signals as part of their initial screening, and 33.1% used it as a tiebreaker after reviewing applications, with 45.4% feeling it improved their ability to conduct a holistic review and 41.5% inviting applicants they may not have invited previously. Among programs providing applicant data, the influence of signals on the chances of an applicant being interviewed varied, but an overall strong positive effect of signaling was observed across the sample. The mean rank was 42 for gold signals, 45 for silver, and 38 for no signal (F(3)=5.97, P<.001). Signaling was widely used by programs and was an effective tool to allow applicants to communicate real interest in a program. Signaling was associated with an increased likelihood of an applicant's being interviewed but did not influence an applicant's position on the rank list.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate perceived gaps in preparedness, current on-boarding practices, and need for specialty wide resources in the transition to residency training in obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional survey of current U.S. OB/GYN residents and program directors (PDs) at the time of the resident in-training exam was conducted in 2022. Both groups provide demographic information and identified specific knowledge, skills, and abilities in need of more preparation at the start of residency. PDs were queried on perceptions of readiness for their current first year class, educational on-boarding practices, and their preference for standardized curricular materials and assessment tools. Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare perceptions of skills deficits between PDs and residents, and the relationship of preparedness to program type and resident year in training. RESULTS:Response rates for residents and program directors were 64.9% and 72.6% respectively. A majority (115/200, 57.5%) of program directors agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, "In general, I feel that my new interns are well prepared for residency when they arrive at my program." Both groups agreed that basic suturing and ultrasound skills were deficits. Residents identified a need for better preparation in management of inpatient issues while PDs identified time management skills as lacking. There was considerable heterogeneity of program on-boarding practices across the specialty. Most PDs agreed or strongly agreed that a standardized curriculum (80.5%, 161/200) and assessment tools (75.3%, 150/199) would be helpful. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:OBGYN PDs feel that not all residents arrive prepared for residency and overwhelmingly support the development of standardized transition curricular and assessment tools, similar to the curriculum developed in general surgery. Based on input from PDs and residents, early curricular efforts should focus on basic surgical, ultrasound, and time management skills and on management of inpatient issues.

INTRODUCTION:The Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) program tests basic knowledge and skills required to perform laparoscopic surgery. Educational experiences in laparoscopic training and development of associated competencies have evolved since FLS inception, making it important to review the definition of fundamental laparoscopic skills. The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) assigned an FLS Technical Skills Working Group to characterize technical skills used in basic laparoscopic surgery in current practice contexts and their possible application to future FLS tests. METHODS:A group of subject matter experts defined an inventory of 65 laparoscopic skills using a Nominal Group Technique. From these, a survey was developed rating these items for importance, frequency of use, and priority for testing for FLS certification. This survey was distributed to SAGES members, recent recipients of FLS certification, and members of the Association of Program Directors in Surgery (APDS). Results were collected using a secure web-based survey platform. RESULTS:Complete data were available for 1742 surveys. Of these, 1143 comprised results for post-residency participants who performed advanced procedures. Seventeen competencies were identified for FLS testing prioritization by determining the proportion of respondents who identified them of highest priority, at median (50th percentile) of the maximum survey scale rating. These included basic peritoneal access, laparoscope and instrument use, tissue manipulation, and specific problem management skills. Sixteen could be used to show appropriateness of the domain construct by confirmatory factor analysis. Of these 8 could be characterized as manipulative tasks. Of these 5 mapped to current FLS tasks. CONCLUSIONS:This survey-identified competencies, some of which are currently assessed in FLS, with a high level of priority for testing. Further work is needed to determine if this should prompt consideration of changes or additions to the FLS technical skills test component.

Systems of care have been established for obstetrics, trauma, and neonatology. An American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Presidential Task Force was established to develop a care system for gynecologic surgery. A group of experts who represent diverse perspectives in gynecologic practice proposed definitions of levels of gynecologic care using the Delphi method. The goal is to improve the quality of gynecologic surgical care performed in the United States by providing a framework of minimal institutional requirements for each level. Subgroups developed draft criteria for each level of care. The entire Task Force then met to reach consensus regarding the levels of care final definitions and parameters. The levels of gynecologic care framework focuses on systems of care by considering institutional resources and expertise, providing guidance on the provision of care in appropriate level facilities. These levels were defined by the ability to care for patients of increasing risk, complexity, and comorbidities, organizing gynecologic care around hospital capability. This framework can also be used to inform the escalation of care to appropriate facilities by identifying patients at risk and guiding them to facilities with the skills, expertise, and capabilities to safely and effectively meet their needs. The levels of gynecologic care framework is intended for use by patients, hospitals, and clinicians in the United States to guide where elective surgery can be done most safely and effectively by specialists and subspecialists in obstetrics and gynecology. The key features of the levels of gynecologic care include ensuring provision of risk-appropriate care and regionalization of care by facility capabilities.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate residents planning fellowship, their preferences for fellowship start date, and the acceptability of resultant gaps in pay and insurance coverage. METHODS:A survey was conducted during the 2022 in-service training examination querying obstetrics and gynecology residents about their desire to pursue fellowship, their preferred fellowship start date (understanding the salary gap), and the acceptability of a medical insurance gap. RESULTS:Survey analysis of respondents planning to pursue fellowship demonstrated that, acknowledging the pay gap that would occur, 93.9% preferred a fellowship start date after July 1, with the majority (65.1%, 593/911) preferring an August 1 fellowship start date. Most respondents (87.7%, 798/910) found the potential resultant gap in medical insurance coverage acceptable. Survey data showed that racial and ethnic identity was not a determining factor in either of these issues. CONCLUSION:The majority of current residents planning to pursue fellowship prefer a delayed fellowship start date, even if it means a gap in salary and insurance coverage. The results of this study, requested by a specialty-wide, consensus-building workgroup, informed a statement signed by the majority (88.9%) of workgroup constituents supporting an August 1 clinical fellowship start date.