Faculty Bibliography

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.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate residency program director views on the purpose and value of an away rotation for students applying to a residency application in Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:The Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology administered a 28-question survey to current U.S. program directors in OBGYN in 2022. Program directors were asked if they offered away rotations to visiting medical students and if so, what the purpose the rotation played in their application process and whether rotating students were automatically offered a residency interview. Program characteristics such as program size, geographic location, and program type (university, community, or military based) were ascertained. A test of proportions was utilized to understand the relationship between program description and survey responses. RESULTS:Seventy-nine percent (224/285) of OBGYN PDs responded to the survey and consented to participation. Programs were representative of the types of training program, size of programs, and geographic location. Of respondents, 77.2% (173/224) of PDs indicated that away rotations were offered at their institution, but only 26.6% (46/173) of residency PDs assessed prospective candidates for away electives. The opportunity to provide students an audition for a residency position was the most common reason to offer an elective. Only 34.7% (60/173) of OBGYN PDs guaranteed an interview to students who completed away electives at their institution. The majority (118/173, 68.2%) of PDs indicated less than 25% of their current residents had completed an away rotation with their program. CONCLUSIONS:Many residency programs offered away electives to prospective applicants, but the majority did not personally assess applicants for competitiveness or guarantee interviews to students completing electives. To increase transparency in the application process, programs should publicize the purpose of away rotations and provide information on the number of interviews granted to students who complete away rotations.

OBJECTIVE:Surgical clerkships frequently include oral exams to assess students' ability to critically analyze data and utilize clinical judgment during common scenarios. Limited guidance exists for the interpretation of oral exam score validity, thus making improvements difficult to target. We examined the development, administration, and scoring of a clerkship oral exam from a validity evidence framework. DESIGN/METHODS:This was a retrospective study of a third-year, end-of-clerkship oral exam in obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN). Content, response process, internal structure, and relationship to other variables validity evidence was collected and evaluated for 5 versions of the oral exam. SETTING/METHODS:Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York City. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Participants were 186 third-year medical students who completed the OBGYN clerkship in the academic year 2020 to 2021. RESULTS:The average number of objectives assessed per oral exam version were uniform, but the distribution of questions per Bloom's level of cognition was uneven. Student scores on all questions regardless of Bloom's level of cognition were >87%, and reliability (Cronbach's alpha) of item scores varied from 0.58 to 0.74. There was a moderate, positive correlation (Spearman's rho) between the oral exam scores and national shelf exam scores (0.35). There were low correlations between oral exam scores and (a) clinical performance ratings (0.14) and (b) formal presentation scores (-0.19). CONCLUSIONS:This study provides an example of how to examine the validity of oral exam scores for targeted improvements. Further modifications are needed before using scores for high stakes decisions. The authors provide recommendations for additional sources of validity evidence to collect in order to better meet the goals of any surgical clerkship oral exam.

Importance:In order to equitably improve the residency application process, it is essential to understand the problems we need to address. Objective:To determine how obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) applicants and faculty communicate applicants' interest to residency programs, and how program directors report being influenced by these communications. Design, Setting, and Participants:This survey study was conducted with email surveys of OBGYN application stakeholders in 2022. Included participants were OBGYN applicants, clerkship directors, and residency program directors in medical education associations' email listservs. Exposures:Surveys sent by the American Association of Medical Colleges, Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Main Outcomes and Measures:Whether applicants themselves, or faculty on their behalf, communicated to residency programs, and the influence program directors reported placing on these communications for their decision-making. Descriptive statistics and χ2 tests were used to analyze differences. Results:A total 726 of 2781 applicants (26.1%) responded to the survey and were included in analysis (79 of 249 [31.7%] clerkship directors; 200 of 280 [71.4%] program directors). The self-reported racial and ethnic demographics of the 726 applicant respondents were 86 Asian (11.8%), 54 Black (7.4%), 41 Latinx (5.6%), 1 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (0.1%), 369 White (52.2%), 45 with multiple racial identities (6.2%), and 91 (21.5%) preferring not to answer. The majority of applicants (590 [82.9%]) sent communications at some point in the application process. Applicants who identified as White (336 [88.7%]) or Asian (75 [87.2%]) were more likely than those who identified as Black (40 [74.1%]) or Latinx (33 [80.5%]) to reach out to programs (P = .02). There were also differences in type of medical school, with 377 of 427 MD applicants (88.3%), 109 of 125 DO applicants (87.2%), and 67 of 87 International Medical Graduate applicants (77.7%) reporting sending communications (P = .02). Approximately one-third (254 applicants [35.7%]) had faculty reach out to programs on their behalf. White (152 [40.1%]) and Asian (37 [43.0%]) applicants were more likely to have faculty reach out compared with Black (6 [11.1%]) and Latinx (12 [29.3%]) applicants (P = .01). Program directors reported that preinterview communications from faculty they knew (64 [32.2%]) and other program directors (25 [12.6%]) strongly influenced their decisions, and otherwise rarely reported that communications strongly influenced their decisions. Conclusions and Relevance:The current state of communications may increase inequities in residency application processes; differences between faculty communications for applicants from different racial and ethnic backgrounds are particularly concerning given that program directors are more likely to weigh communications from faculty in their decision-making. A centralized, equitable means for applicants to signal their interest to programs is urgently needed.

The transition to residency in obstetrics and gynecology is difficult, threatening the well-being of residents as well as their preparedness to care for patients. In addition to essential foundational knowledge and skills, obstetrics and gynecology interns must develop professional identity and a growth mindset toward learning to acquire the self-directed learning skills required of physicians throughout their careers. The transition to residency is a critical opportunity for learning and development. A group of educators and learners from around the country created a preparedness program building on available resources. The result is a national curriculum for improving the transition to obstetrics and gynecology residency on three levels: self-directed learning, facilitated small-group workshops, and coaching. Sharing tools for preparing matched applicants for residency in obstetrics and gynecology ensures adequate residency preparation for all interns, independent of medical school attended. This program aims to address potential threats to equity in the training of our future workforce and to ensure that all obstetrics and gynecology interns are prepared to thrive in residency training.

BACKGROUND:Operative vaginal delivery is used to expedite a safe vaginal delivery in the second stage of labor and is considered an essential part of residency training in obstetrics and gynecology. OBJECTIVE:To assess the self-reported readiness of obstetrics and gynecology residents in the United States to perform vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery and forceps-assisted vaginal delivery compared with the perceptions of program directors. STUDY DESIGN:The Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology surveyed the residents in all US training programs about their readiness to perform forceps-assisted and vacuum-assisted deliveries. The program directors were simultaneously surveyed about the readiness of their cohort to perform operative deliveries with and without attending oversight. The primary outcome of the survey was the residents' self-reported confidence in their ability to autonomously and independently perform operative deliveries. RESULTS:Α total of 5084 out of 5514 (92.9%) resident physicians and 241 out of the 292 (83%) residency program directors completed the survey. Eighty-seven percent (95% confidence interval, 84.9-88.9) of the graduating residents reported feeling that they could autonomously perform a vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery, compared with 49.5% (95% confidence interval, 46.6-52.4) for forceps-assisted vaginal delivery (P<.01). Similarly, whereas 95.9% (95% confidence interval, 94.6-97.0) of the residents felt that they could confidently perform an emergency vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery, only 42.3% (95% confidence interval, 39.4-45.2) felt confident performing an emergency forceps-assisted vaginal delivery (P<.01). The residency program directors significantly overestimated their residents' confidence in independently performing an emergency forceps-assisted vaginal delivery or vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery than the residents themselves (54% [95% confidence interval, 47.1-60.5] vs 24% [95% confidence interval, 22.5-24.9] and 98.6% [95% confidence interval, 97.0-100] vs 71.9 [95% confidence interval, 70.6-73.2] respectively P<.01). Trainees in military-based residency programs and those interested in pursuing a career as generalists or maternal-fetal medicine specialists reported significantly higher preparedness to perform a forceps-assisted vaginal delivery. CONCLUSION:Graduating obstetrics and gynecology residents report feeling less prepared to independently perform a forceps-assisted vaginal delivery than a vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery. The program directors had more confidence in the ability of their residents to perform an operative vaginal delivery than the residents themselves.

OBJECTIVE:To describe the perspectives of obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) residency applicants regarding new standards for the 2019 to 2020 application cycle. DESIGN/METHODS:An anonymous electronic survey was sent to all OBGYN residency applicants to US programs retrospectively evaluating 5 new recommended standards for the application process. This 15-item survey assessed the importance of the proposed standards and their impact on applicants' anxiety. SETTING/METHODS:The OBGYN residency application process is marked by increasing application numbers and no standardization for managing interview offers. The Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics (APGO) received a 5-year Reimagining Residency grant from the American Medical Association to improve the transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education (GME) within OBGYN. The multiphase project, "Transforming the UME to GME Transition for Obstetrics and Gynecology- Right Resident, Right Program, Ready Day One (RRR)," began with Standardizing the OBGYN Application and Interview Process (SOAIP). This group recommended 5 new standards for all US OBGYN residency programs and applicants. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Applicants for US OBGYN residency programs for the 2019 to 2020 application cycle completed the survey, with a 904/2508 (36.0%) response rate, including 762 complete responses (30.4%). RESULTS:Applicants reported that all 5 of the new standards would cause the least self-perceived anxiety (range 76.8% - 96.5%). The impact of the standards on perceived anxiety varied by student group, with International Medical Graduates (IMGs) and students with USMLE Step I scores <200 describing lesser impact compared to others. Despite these differences, all 5 standards were consistently noted to cause the least anxiety for all groups. Despite varying degrees of effects in different groups, the new OBGYN residency application standards caused the least anxiety for all subgroups of applicants. CONCLUSIONS:Implementing universal standards for the OBGYN residency application process was favorably perceived by applicants and caused the least anxiety for applicants.