Search

ImportanceA growing body of literature has been developed with the goal of attempting to understand the experiences of female surgeons. While it has helped to address inequities and promote important programmatic improvements, work remains to be done.ObjectiveTo explore how practicing male and female surgeons’ experiences with gender compare across 5 qualitative/quantitative domains: career aspirations, gender-based discrimination, mentor-mentee relationships, perceived barriers, and recommendations for change.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis national concurrent mixed-methods survey of Fellows of the American College of Surgeons (FACS) compared differences between male and female FACS. Differences between female FACS and female members of the Association of Women Surgeons (AWS) were also explored. A randomly selected 3:1 sample of US-based male and female FACS was surveyed between January and June 2020. Female AWS members were surveyed in May 2020.ExposureSelf-reported gender.Main Outcomes and MeasuresSelf-reported experiences with career aspirations (quantitative), gender-based discrimination (quantitative), mentor-mentee relationships (quantitative), perceived barriers (qualitative), and recommendations for change (qualitative).ResultsA total of 2860 male FACS (response rate: 38.1% [2860 of 7500]) and 1070 female FACS (response rate: 42.8% [1070 of 2500]) were included, in addition to 536 female AWS members. Demographic characteristics were similar between randomly selected male and female FACS, with the notable exception that female FACS were less likely to be married (720 [67.3%] vs 2561 [89.5%]; nonresponse-weighted P P Conclusions and RelevanceExperiences with gender are not limited to supportive female surgeons. The results of this study emphasize the importance of recognizing the voices of all stakeholders involved when striving to promote workforce diversity and the related need to develop quality improvement/surgical education initiatives that enhance inclusion through open, honest discourse.

Importance Under the current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services guidelines, there is incentivization to optimize posttransplant outcomes regardless of mortality among patients on the waitlist and transplant rates; few data exist with regard to transplant center acceptance practices and survival to heart transplant. Objectives To evaluate the extent of variability in organ acceptance practices in the US and whether this center-level behavior is associated with heart transplant candidate survival. Design, Setting, and Participants In this retrospective cohort study, the US National Transplant Registry was queried for all match runs of adult candidates listed for isolated heart transplant between May 1, 2007, and March 31, 2017. Data analysis was conducted from October 30, 2018, to May 1, 2019. The final cohort included 93 transplant centers, 19 703 donors, and 9628 candidates. Main Outcomes and Measures Center acceptance rates for heart allografts offered to the highest-priority candidates, association between center acceptance rate and mortality among patients on the waitlist, and posttransplant outcomes between candidates who accepted their first-rank offers vs those who accepted previously declined offers. Results Among 19 703 unique organ offers, 6302 hearts (32.0%) were accepted for first-rank candidates. After adjustment for donor, candidate, and geographic covariates, transplant centers varied in acceptance rates (12.3%-61.5%) of offers made to first-rank candidates. Higher acceptance rates were associated with lower cumulative incidence of 1-year mortality among patients on the waitlist. For every 10% increase in adjusted center acceptance rate, the risk of mortality decreased by 27% (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.80). No statistically significant difference was observed in 5-year adjusted posttransplant patient survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.11) and graft failure (subdistribution hazard ratio; 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.09) between hearts accepted at the first-rank compared with lower-rank positions. Conclusions and Relevance Variability in heart allograft acceptance rates appears to exist among transplant centers, with candidates listed at lower acceptance rate centers being more likely to experience mortality while on the waitlist. Comparable posttransplant survival suggests that allografts that were declined as a first offer perform as well as those that were accepted at their first offer. These findings suggest that organ acceptance rate or time to transplant from being added to the waitlist may be an additional measure of heart transplant program performance.