Search

The June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision on Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization resulted in state-specific differences in abortion care access across the country. The primary concern in the obstetrics and gynecology education community has been the impact on resident and fellowship training programs. However, the impact on undergraduate medical education and the broad implications for future generations of physicians are crucial to address. An estimated that 48% of matriculants to MD-granting medical schools will receive their medical education in the 26 states with significant abortion restrictions or bans. Undergraduate medical educators need to continue to adequately teach the basic science, clinical care, and population health outcomes of reproductive medicine, including pregnancy and abortion. In addition, students in states with more restrictions on abortion will have less or no clinical exposure, and those in states with few restrictions may be excluded due to overcrowding of learners from restricted states. Students' own health care also needs to be considered, as access to abortion care for themselves or their partners may create applicant pool demographic shifts by state as applicants consider options for where to pursue their medical education. It is important to ensure that teaching of foundational science of pregnancy, abortion, and reproductive health continues throughout the United States. Undergraduate and graduate medical educators will need to closely monitor the downstream impact of decreased clinical exposure of abortion. Further study of the personal health impact of abortion care access for medical students and awareness of the changing applicant pool demographics by state is needed.

ImportanceIn order to equitably improve the residency application process, it is essential to understand the problems we need to address.ObjectiveTo 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 ParticipantsThis 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.ExposuresSurveys 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 MeasuresWhether 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.ResultsA total of 726 of 2781 applicants (26.1%), 79 of 249 (31.7%) clerkship directors, and 200 of 280 (71.4%) programs responded to the surveys and were included in the analysis. 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 (12.5%) did not indicate race and 17 (2.3%) preferred 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 RelevanceThe 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.

Obstetrician-gynecologists can improve the learning environment and patient care by addressing implicit bias. Accumulating evidence demonstrates racial and gender-based discrimination are woven throughout medical education, in formal curricula, patient/provider/trainee interactions in the clinical workspace, and all aspects of learner assessment. Implicit bias negatively impacts our learners in every space. Strategies to address implicit bias at the individual, interpersonal, institutional, and structural level to improve the well-being of learners and patients are needed. The authors review an approach to addressing implicit bias in obstetrics and gynecology education, which includes 1) curricular design using an educational framework of anti-racism and social justice theories 2) bias awareness and management pedagogy throughout the curriculum, 3) elimination of stereotypical patient descriptions from syllabi and exam questions 4) critical review of epidemiology and evidence-based medicine for underlying assumptions based on discriminatory practices or structural racism which unintentionally reinforce stereotypes and bias. The movement toward competency-based medical education and holistic evaluations may result in decreased bias in learner assessment. Educators may wish to monitor grades and narratives for bias as a form of continuous educational equity improvement. As practicing physicians may have little training in this area, faculty development efforts in bias awareness and mitigation strategies may have significant impacts on learner well-being.

This Viewpoint discusses the need for the leadership of hospital systems and graduate medical education programs to address the effects of abortion restrictions on medical residents’ health, well-being, and training.

Health systems science addresses the complex interactions in healthcare delivery. At its core, health systems science describes the intricate details required to provide high-quality care to individual patients by assisting them in navigating the multifaceted and often complicated US healthcare delivery system. With advances in technology, informatics, and communication, the modern physician is required to have a strong working knowledge of health systems science to provide effective, low-cost, high-quality care to patients. Medical educators are poised to introduce health systems science concepts alongside the basic science and clinical science courses already being taught in medical school. Because of the common overlap of women's healthcare subject matter with health systems science topics, such as interprofessional collaboration, ethics, advocacy, and quality improvement, women's health medical educators are at the forefront of incorporating health systems science into the current medical school educational model. Here, the authors have described the concept of health systems science and discussed both why and how it should be integrated into the undergraduate medical education curriculum. Medical educators must develop physicians of the future who can not only provide excellent patient care but also actively participate in the advancement and improvement of the healthcare delivery system.

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: Current efforts incompletely address the educational, social, and developmental aspects of a learner’s transition from medical school to residency. Objective: To determine the feasibility and acceptability of a transition to residency (TTR) coaching program. Designs: In March 2019, we designed, implemented, and evaluated a TTR coaching program for students who matched into residency programs at our institution. Goals were to stimulate reflection on successes and challenges encountered during medical school, develop strategies to problem-solve barriers and address concerns, identify professional and personal resources, improve confidence, and make an action plan. Results: Of eligible learners, 42% (10/24) enrolled in TTR coaching. Learners were most interested in coaching in the following areas: wellbeing (70%, 7/10), interpersonal/communication skills (60%, 6/10), and learning plan development (50%, 5/10). The majority (90%; 9/10) expressed satisfaction with the program and would recommend participation. One month after starting internship, 90% (9/10) of learners stated the program helped facilitate their transition. Learners who did not enroll in TTR cited concerns around the coach selection process (72%, 8/11), upcoming travel (45%, 5/11), insufficient time/competing demands (27%, 3/11), and lack of perceived benefit (18%, 2/11). Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrated preliminary feasibility and acceptability for TTR coaching.

Holistic review of residency applications is touted as the gold standard for selection, yet vast application numbers leave programs reliant on screening using filters such as United States Medical Licensing Examination scores that do not reliably predict resident performance and may threaten diversity. Applicants struggle to identify which programs to apply to, and devote attention to these processes throughout most of the fourth year, distracting from their clinical education. In this perspective, educators across the undergraduate and graduate medical education continuum propose new models for student-program compatibility based on design thinking sessions with stakeholders in obstetrics and gynecology education from a broad range of training environments. First, we describe a framework for applicant-program compatibility based on applicant priorities and program offerings, including clinical training, academic training, practice setting, residency culture, personal life, and professional goals. Second, a conceptual model for applicant screening based on metrics, experiences, attributes, and alignment with program priorities is presented that might facilitate holistic review. We call for design and validation of novel metrics, such as situational judgment tests for professionalism. Together, these steps could improve the transparency, efficiency and fidelity of the residency application process. The models presented can be adapted to the priorities and values of other specialties.