Search

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare maternity leave satisfaction between physicians and nonphysicians. Currently, paid maternal leave is not guaranteed in the United States, resulting in palpable dissatisfaction among parents. Previous studies have shown associations between length of paid leave and career satisfaction and maternal happiness. Materials and Methods: A Qualtrics ® electronic survey was distributed to female professionals through email and social media from April 2019 to March 2020. Inclusion criterion was ≥1 child by birth or adoption, or active pregnancy. Continuous and categorical data were analyzed using two-sample t -test and chi-square, respectively. Results: Of 808 respondents, 77% were physicians. Mean age at birth/adoption of first child was higher in physicians versus nonphysicians (32.1 years vs. 29.7 years; p  < 0.001). Physicians took shorter maternity leave than nonphysicians (10.9 weeks vs. 12.0 weeks, p  = 0.017) with half of that time paid by employers (5.4 weeks vs. 5.9 weeks, p  = 0.2). Dissatisfaction was high among physicians (85.1%) and nonphysicians (92.4%) that correlates with maternity leave compensation dissatisfaction (49% vs. 71.3%, p  < 0.001). Thirty-four percent of physicians versus 41% of nonphysicians stated that their health was negatively impacted by maternity leave length. Physicians and nonphysicians reported similar incidences of depression, and breastfeeding, delivery, and other postpartum complications. When queried, 38.8% of physicians and 57% of nonphysicians said they would desire >16 weeks of paid maternity leave ( p  < 0.001). Conclusions: In conclusion, dissatisfaction among professional women on maternity leave duration and compensation is high in the United States. Given health implications for both mother and child, this should invite further discussion and changes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unprecedented challenges and opportunities for medical schools in the United States. In this Invited Commentary, the authors describe a unique collaboration between the University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS), the only public medical school in the state; the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center (UMMMC); and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Through this partnership, UMMS was able to graduate fourth-year medical students 2 months early and deploy them to UMMMC to care for patients and alleviate workforce shortages during the COVID-19 surge, which peaked in Massachusetts in April 2020. The authors describe how they determined if students had fulfilled graduation requirements to graduate early, what commencement and the accompanying awards ceremony looked like this year as virtual events, the special emergency 90-day limited license these new graduates were given to practice at UMMMC during this time, and the impact these new physicians had in the hospital allowing residents and attendings to be redeployed to care for COVID-19 patients.

Introduction: Leadership is an area of education and training that is critical to the development of medical providers as health care professionals, yet few medical school curricula offer formal training in this area., Methods: We designed and implemented a course to develop and enhance the leadership and teamwork skills of first-year medical students to better prepare them for medical practice. Following a systematic literature review to identify leadership core competencies, the Leadership in Medicine Optional Enrichment Elective (OEE) was developed in accordance with the University of Massachusetts Medical School's course guidelines. The elective included six interactive sessions to advance skills in the areas of recognizing and utilizing effective leadership styles, communication within the health care team, giving and receiving feedback, delegating responsibilities, and direction setting. We designed a robust, evidence-based, scholarly evaluation plan for the OEE that was integral to ongoing quality improvement of the course., Results: Outcomes were assessed in alignment with the Kirkpatrick method of standardized evaluation. A total of 26 participants completed the course. At completion, participants demonstrated learning and advancement of skills in all five leadership domains. Furthermore, participants found meaning in the course and planned to utilize their skills in future medical practice., Discussion: The development, implementation, and evaluation of this program can serve as a model for future course development, and the program can be adapted and implemented by other institutions in an effort to address the learning gap regarding leadership education., Competing Interests: None to report., (Copyright © 2019 Richard et al.)

Context: Research suggests that pharmaceutical marketing influences prescribing and may cause cognitive dissonance for prescribers. This work has primarily been with physicians and physician-trainees. Questions remain regarding why prescribers continue to meet with pharmaceutical representatives (PRs)., Objective: To describe the reasons that prescribers from various health professions continue to interact with PRs despite growing evidence of the influence of these interactions., Design, Setting, and Participants: Multi-disciplinary focus groups with 61 participants held in practice settings and at society meetings., Results: Most prescribers participating in our focus groups believe that overall PR interactions are beneficial to patient care and practice health. They either trust the information from PRs or feel that they are equipped to evaluate it independently. Despite acknowledgement of study findings to the contrary, prescribers state that they are able to effectively manage PR interactions such that their own prescribing is not adversely impacted. Prescribers describe few specific strategies or policies for these interactions, and report that policies are not consistently implemented with all members of a clinic or institution. Some prescribers perceive an inherent contradiction between academic centers and national societies receiving money from pharmaceutical companies, and then recommending restriction at the level of the individual prescriber. Prescribers with different training backgrounds present a few novel reasons for these meetings., Conclusions: Despite evidence that PR detailing influences prescribing, providers from several health professions continue to believe that PR interactions improve patient care, and that they can adequately evaluate and filter information presented to them by PRs. Focus group comments suggest that cultural change is necessary to break the norms that exist in many settings. Applying policies consistently, considering non-physician members of the healthcare team, working with trainees, restructuring the current primary care model and offering convenient, individualized, non-biased educational options may aid success.

Context: Research suggests that pharmaceutical marketing influences prescribing and may cause cognitive dissonance for prescribers. This work has primarily been with physicians and physician-trainees. Questions remain regarding why prescribers continue to meet with pharmaceutical representatives (PRs).Objective: To describe the reasons that prescribers from various health professions continue to interact with PRs despite growing evidence of the influence of these interactions.Design, Setting, and Participants: Multi-disciplinary focus groups with 61 participants held in practice settings and at society meetings.Results: Most prescribers participating in our focus groups believe that overall PR interactions are beneficial to patient care and practice health. They either trust the information from PRs or feel that they are equipped to evaluate it independently. Despite acknowledgement of study findings to the contrary, prescribers state that they are able to effectively manage PR interactions such that their own prescribing is not adversely impacted. Prescribers describe few specific strategies or policies for these interactions, and report that policies are not consistently implemented with all members of a clinic or institution. Some prescribers perceive an inherent contradiction between academic centers and national societies receiving money from pharmaceutical companies, and then recommending restriction at the level of the individual prescriber. Prescribers with different training backgrounds present a few novel reasons for these meetings.Conclusions: Despite evidence that PR detailing influences prescribing, providers from several health professions continue to believe that PR interactions improve patient care, and that they can adequately evaluate and filter information presented to them by PRs. Focus group comments suggest that cultural change is necessary to break the norms that exist in many settings. Applying policies consistently, considering non-physician members of the healthcare team, working with trainees, restructuring the current primary care model and offering convenient, individualized, non-biased educational options may aid success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Morbidity and mortality conferences in residency programs are intended to discuss adverse events and errors with a goal to improve patient care. Little is known about whether residency training programs are accomplishing this goal. Objective: To determine the frequency at which morbidity and mortality conference case presentations include adverse events and errors and whether the errors are discussed and attributed to a particular cause. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective survey conducted by trained physician observers from July 2000 through April 2001 on 332 morbidity and mortality conference case presentations and discussions in internal medicine (n = 100) and surgery (n = 232) at 4 US academic hospitals. Main Outcome Measures: Frequencies of presentation of adverse events and errors, discussion of errors, and attribution of errors. Results: In internal medicine morbidity and mortality conferences, case presentations and discussions were 3 times longer than in surgery conferences (34.1 minutes vs 11.7 minutes; P = .001), more time was spent listening to invited speakers (43.1% vs 0%; P<.001), and less time was spent in audience discussion (15.2% vs 36.6%; P<.001). Fewer internal medicine case presentations included adverse events (37 [37%] vs 166 surgery case presentations [72%]; P<.001) or errors causing an adverse event (18 [18%] vs 98 [42%], respectively; P = .001). When an error caused an adverse event, the error was discussed as an error less often in internal medicine (10 errors [48%] vs 85 errors in surgery [77%]; P = .02). Errors were attributed to a particular cause less often in medicine than in surgery conferences (8 [38%] of 21 medicine errors vs 88 [79%] of 112 surgery errors; P<.001). In discussions of cases with errors, conference leaders in both internal medicine and surgery infrequently used explicit language to signal that an error was being discussed and infrequently acknowledged having made an error. Conclusions: Our findings call into question whether adverse events and errors are routinely discussed in internal medicine training programs. Although adverse events and errors were discussed frequently in surgery cases, teachers in both surgery and internal medicine missed opportunities to model recognition of error and to use explicit language in error discussion by acknowledging their personal experiences with error. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]