Faculty Bibliography

Separation of patients by insurance status in ambulatory care settings is a long-standing practice in academic medicine. This payer-based segregation of patients between resident and faculty outpatient practices may lead to inequitable quality of care. Informed by replies to a free-response text question for residents and program directors within the 2023 U.S. obstetrics and gynecology in-service examination, we provide commentary on this structural inequity within obstetrics and gynecology. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss the differences in patient population served, gaps in resources in resident clinics, quality of care and moral injury, limited continuity of care, and training and supervision. Further work is needed to guide systemic integration efforts and to explore the effects of program integration on patient health outcomes. We nonetheless urge academic medical centers to consider organizational shifts toward payer-integrated care.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate implementation of a patient decision aid for symptomatic uterine fibroid management to improve shared decision-making at five clinical settings across the United States. METHODS:We used a type 3 hybrid effectiveness-implementation stepped-wedge design and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) planning and evaluation framework. We conducted clinician training, monthly reach tracking with feedback to site clinical leads, patient and clinician surveys, and visit audio-recordings. Implementation strategies included assessment of organizational readiness for shared decision-making, synchronous clinician training, audit and feedback of decision aid reach, and access to multiple decision aid formats. Outcomes and analyses included patient-level reach, clinician-level adoption, and associations of patient-reported decision aid exposure (as treated) and setting-level implementation (intention-to-treat) with patient-reported (collaboRATE measure) and observed (OPTION-5 measure) shared decision-making. We also designed and assessed setting-level plans for sustainability and other factors impacting sustained decision aid use. RESULTS:The decision aid was adopted by 72 of the 74 eligible gynecologists (97%) and reached 2553 patients across five settings. CollaboRATE scores improved among patients who reported receiving the decision aid (as-treated analysis, 69% vs. 59%; OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.16-2.27). CollaboRATE scores remained consistent before and after setting-level decision aid implementation (intention-to-treat analysis, 64% vs. 63%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61-1.22). Participants would prefer to receive a decision aid at multiple time points (91.9% before the visit, 90.7% during the visit, 86.5% after the visit). Shared decision-making experiences did not improve when comparing pre vs. post-implementation collaboRATE scores across included settings (intention-to-treat, 64% vs. 63%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61-1.22). CONCLUSION:When patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids are given decision aids, they report higher shared decision-making scores. However, the differences we observed between the as-treated and intention-to-treat results suggest that unaddressed implementation challenges continue to limit the extent to which patients receive decision aids and likely hinder their overall impact. Future efforts to implement decision aids should explore enhancing their integration into clinical workflows and standard operating procedures, supported by organizational incentives that prioritize shared decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03985449; registered 6 June 2019.

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.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Medical education should prepare learners for complex and evolving work, and should ideally include the Master Adaptive Learner (MAL) model-meta-learning skills for continuous self-regulated learning. This study aimed to measure obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) residents' MAL attributes, assess associations with burnout and resilience, and explore learning task associations with MAL. METHOD/METHODS:OB/GYN residents were surveyed electronically at an in-training examination in January 2022. The survey included demographic information, the 2-item Maslach Burnout Inventory, the 2-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, 4 MAL items (e.g., "I take every opportunity to learn new things"), and questions about training and learning experiences. RESULTS:Of 5,761 residents, 3,741 respondents (65%) were included. A total of 1,478 of 3,386 (39%) demonstrated burnout (responded positive for burnout on emotional exhaustion or depersonalization items). The mean (SD) Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale score was 6.4 (1.2) of a total possible score of 8. The mean (SD) MAL score was 16.3 (2.8) of a total possible score of 20. The MAL score was inversely associated with burnout, with lower MAL scores for residents with (mean [SD] MAL score, 16.5 [2.4]) vs without (mean [SD], 16.0 [2.3]) burnout (P < .001). Higher MAL scores were associated with higher resilience (R = 0.29, P < .001). Higher MAL scores were associated with the statement, "I feel that I was well prepared for my first year of residency" (R = 0.19, P < .001) and a plan to complete subspecialty training after residency (mean [SD] of 16.6 [2.4] for "yes" and 16.2 [2.4] for "no," P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:Residents who scored higher on MAL showed more resilience and less burnout. Whether less resilient, burned-out residents did not have the agency to achieve MAL status or whether MAL behaviors filled the resiliency reservoir and protected against burnout is not clear.