Faculty Bibliography

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.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Application inflation in the current residency application process leads to congestion, inefficiency, and perceptions of inequity. The authors aimed to assess the interest of key stakeholders on the topic of capping applications and interviews, and their perceptions regarding equity of the process. METHODS:An anonymous survey was electronically distributed in March 2021 to Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN) residency applicants, clerkship directors, program directors, and student affairs deans after the submission of the rank order list for the 2021 application cycle and prior to the release of final Match results. Participants answered questions regarding the perceived equity of the current process (no limits on applications submitted or interviews completed) compared with limiting the number of applications and interviews students could submit or complete. Respondents supporting caps reported the number they considered a reasonable cap for applications and interviews. Associations between the profiles of applicants and program directors and their interest in application and interview caps were explored using chi-squared tests for non-parametric statistics and t-tests for normally distributed interval data. The University of Michigan determined the study exempt from IRB review. RESULTS:The overall response rate was 36.0% (1167/3243), including 34.0% of applicants (879/2579), 50.3% of program directors (143/284), 41.8% of clerkship directors (94/225) and 32.9% of student affairs deans (51/155). All groups reported application caps for either all applicants or the most competitive applicants to be more equitable than the current process, and suggested a median application cap ranging from 25 (clerkship directors and program directors) to 40 (applicants). All groups also believed interview caps to be more equitable than the current process, and suggested a median interview cap ranging from 12 (clerkship directors) to 15 (applicants, program directors, and student affairs deans). CONCLUSIONS:Stakeholders in the OBGYN application process consider caps to applications and interviews a promising means to improve equity in the Match.

Objective: To analyze physician opinions of, and experiences with patients who take a temporary break from treatment in the setting of metastatic primary or recurrent gynecologic cancer.
Method(s): An electronic survey was sent to the members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO). A treatment holiday was defined as a planned temporary break from systemic treatment in a patient with recurrent or metastatic gynecologic malignancy. Descriptive statistics were calculated using Microsoft Excel, and continuous variables were compared using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. Free text responses were qualitatively analyzed.
Result(s): Of the 1314 individuals invited to participate, 74 responded (5.6% response rate). Ninety-six percent of respondents had a patient take a treatment holiday. Ninety-five percent of respondents would offer a treatment holiday for ovarian cancer, 90% for endometrial cancer, 70% for cervical cancer, 57% for vulvar cancer, 52% for vaginal cancer, and 49% for sarcoma. Using a Likert scale, respondents identified life events (86.6%), fatigue from side effects (77.9%), schedule fatigue (67.6%) and desire for ''life off treatment'' (64.7%) as ''very important'' reasons for offering a treatment holiday. Patients resumed treatment for return of symptoms (62.9%), progression of disease (60.0%), end of pre-specified break (50%), patient anxiety (45.7%) and recommendation of the physician (11%). 6.8% of physicians experienced regret after a patient underwent a treatment holiday. Ninety-eight percent of respondents agreed that a treatment holiday can be valuable.
Conclusion(s): The gynecologic and medical oncologists who responded to this survey almost uniformly offered their patients treatment holidays, were more likely to offer treatment holidays for ovarian and endometrial cancer, and were unlikely to express regret after the experience.
Copyright

Importance:The 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. Objective:To 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 Participants:Surveys 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. Exposures:Respondents 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 Measures:Applicants 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. Results:Respondents 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 Relevance:Stakeholders 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.

BACKGROUND: The transition from medical school to residency is characterized by an abrupt transition of learning needs and goals. Coaching is a promising intervention to support individual learning and growth trajectories of learners. It is uncommon for medical school faculty to have undergone training as coaches. We explored our faculty's perceptions and skills after instituting a new coaching program.
METHOD(S): Faculty advisors (N=12) and GME (N=16) participated in a coaching development program and in community of practice meetings where challenging coaching scenarios were shared. GME faculty also participated in a Group Objective Structured Clinical Exam (GOSCE) to practice and receive feedback on their skills. Peer-faculty observers and resident raters used behaviorally grounded checklists to assess faculty performance. We conducted 2 focus groups: 1) UME advisors engaged in longitudinal coaching (n=9) and 2) GME faculty participating in the coaching development program (n=8) to better understand how faculty make sense of and put into practice these new coaching roles and skills.
RESULT(S): Simple thematic coding showed that both groups emphasized the blurring of the many roles they serve when interacting with trainees and struggled with recognizing both which hat to wear (role to adopt) and which skills to call upon in specific situations. UME advisors who have dedicated advising/coaching roles reported assuming multiple roles at different times with their same students. Many of the GME coaches serve as Associate Program Directors, and described adopting a coaching frame of reference (mentality) and requiring external reinforcement for coaching skills. Some reported realizing after the fact that coaching would have been a valuable approach. Faculty newer to their role felt more successful in engaging in coaching mindset and coaching. Faculty were curious about how trainees would feel about this approach and anticipated that some would appreciate this more than others. 12 faculty participated in a three station Coaching GOSCE. Both resident raters and faculty peer raters suggested faculty coaches were able to establish trust and engage in authentic listening. Coaches negotiated the tension between empathetic listening with supporting goal-setting. Residents provided slightly lower ratings than peer observers on coaches' ability to ask questions and assume a coachee- focused agenda.
CONCLUSION(S): Medical educators may benefit from obtaining coaching skills, but deliberate training in how these skills complement, and differ, from existing skills requires both didactic and experiential learning. Cultivating a community of practice and offering opportunities for deliberate practice, observation and feedback is essential for medical educators to achieve mastery as coaches. LEARNING OBJECTIVE #1: Identify and perform appropriate learning activities to guide personal and professional development (PBL) LEARNING OBJECTIVE #2: Understand and apply core longitudinal coaching skills (Professionalism)

In the setting of long-standing structural racism in health care, it is imperative to highlight inequities in the medical school-to-residency transition. In obstetrics and gynecology, the percentage of Black residents has decreased in the past decade. The etiology for this troubling decrease is unknown, but racial and ethnic biases inherent in key residency application metrics are finally being recognized, while the use of these metrics to filter applicants is increasing. Now is the time for action and for transformational change to rectify the factors that are detrimentally affecting the racial diversity of our residents. This will benefit our patients and learners with equitable health care and better outcomes.

BACKGROUND:In response to high rates of burnout among trainees, educators in obstetrics and gynaecology introduced a six-session wellness curriculum that improved professional fulfilment and resident burnout in participants with greater attendance. The implementation of the curriculum varied based on local variables and contextual factors. OBJECTIVE:To analyse the reactions of participants and curriculum leaders across the diverse settings of the pilot experience in order to identify the best practices for implementation of a wellness curriculum. METHODS:Twenty-five US OBGYN residency programmes completed the curriculum in the 2017-2018 academic year. OBGYN residents in all the years of training participated. Faculty members and fellows were workshop facilitators and course leaders. All participants completed post-intervention surveys. A qualitative, descriptive thematic analysis explored free-text responses from residents and workshop facilitators. RESULTS:Among 592 eligible resident participants, 387 (65%) responded to the post-intervention survey. Workshop facilitators submitted 65 surveys (47% response) on curriculum elements, rating the activities as 'good' or 'excellent' in 90.8% of cases. Qualitative analysis of workshop facilitators' and resident comments pointed to three themes, namely disagreement about the purpose of the curriculum, the social value of the curriculum in the residency programme and the need to open a broader discussion and take action to address structural barriers to wellness. CONCLUSIONS:Residents and faculty members involved in a wellness curriculum pilot had polarised reactions. While participants found value in learning skills and connecting to colleagues, efforts to promote wellness skills should be accompanied by communication and action to address drivers of burnout.

BACKGROUND:Gender disparities exist in the careers of women in medicine. This review explores the qualitative literature to understand how gender influences professional trajectories, and identify opportunities for intervention. METHODS:A systematic review and thematic synthesis included articles obtained from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), APA PsycInfo (Ovid), and GenderWatch (ProQuest) on June 26 2020, updated on September 10, 2020. Included studies explored specialty choice, leadership roles, practice setting, burnout, promotion, stigma, mentoring, and organizational culture. Studies taking place outside of the USA, using only quantitative data, conducted prior to 2000, or focused on other health professions were excluded. Data were extracted using a standardized extraction tool and assessed for rigor and quality using a 9-item appraisal tool. A three-step process for thematic synthesis was used to generate analytic themes and construct a conceptual model. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020199999). FINDINGS/RESULTS:Among 1524 studies identified, 64 were eligible for analysis. Five themes contributed to a conceptual model for the influence of gender on women's careers in medicine that resembles a developmental socio-ecological model. Gender influences career development externally through culture which valorizes masculine stereotypes and internally shapes women's integration of personal and professional values. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Medical culture and structures are implicitly biased against women. Equitable environments in education, mentoring, hiring, promotion, compensation, and support for work-life integration are needed to address gender disparities in medicine. Explicit efforts to create inclusive institutional cultures and policies are essential to support a diverse workforce.