The Relationship Between Applicant Gender and Internal Medicine Residency Interview Scores

ABSTRACT Background Gender inequity is widespread in academic medicine, including in the promotion, academic recognition, and compensation of female faculty. Objective To assess whether these inequities extend to the GME intern selection process, this study examines differences in the interview scores assigned to male and female applicants at one large internal medicine residency program. Methods Subjects include 1399 applicants who completed 3099 interviews for internship positions for the Brigham and Women's Hospital internal medicine residency in Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) cycles 2015–2016, 2017–2018, 2018–2019, and 2019–2020. Unadjusted and multivariable linear regressions were used to assess the simultaneous effect of applicant gender, interviewer gender, and applicant academic characteristics on pre-interview, post-interview, and change in interview scores. Results Our analysis included 3027 interviews (97.7%) of 1359 applicants (97.1%). There were no statistically significant differences in the interview scores assigned to female versus male applicants. This was true across pre-interview scores (difference = 0.03, P = .61), post-interview scores (difference = 0.00, P = .98), and change in interview scores (difference = 0.01, P = .24) as well as when adjusting for the baseline academic characteristics of both male and female applicants. This was also true when analyzing individual application years, individual residency tracks, and accounting for the gender of the faculty interviewers. Conclusions The findings do not support the presence of gender inequity in the interview scores assigned to male and female applicants included in this study.

Interdisciplinary Ethics Certificate Program for Graduate Medical Education Trainees

ABSTRACT Background Ethics education is an essential component of developing physician competency and professionalism. Although prior studies have shown both a wide interest and a need for ethics education during residency, structured learning opportunities are not widely available at the graduate medical education (GME) level. Objective Through the Vanderbilt Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, we developed a 1-year certificate program offering a Distinction in Biomedical Ethics, open to all active trainees in GME programs at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center. This certificate program provides advanced education in biomedical ethics and can be completed without additional cost to the trainee or time away from training. Methods This certificate program has been offered each academic year since 2017–2018. The program curriculum includes case-based seminars, a rotation on the Ethics Consultation Service, participation on the hospital ethics committee, and a capstone project. Outcomes were assessed using a post-course evaluation. Results During the first 4 years of the program, 65 trainees participated from 19 different specialties. Course evaluations were obtained from 58 participants (89.4% response rate) and were strongly favorable in most domains. All participants agreed that this program enhanced their knowledge of biomedical ethics and they would use something they learned in their future practice. Most participants (57 of 58, 98.3%) would recommend this course to a friend. Conclusions We designed and implemented a Distinction in Biomedical Ethics program to provide advanced training in clinical Bioethics, which has been favorably received by participants.

Resident Well-Being Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

ABSTRACT Background Preliminary studies reveal challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to the well-being of health care workers. Little is known about the effects of the pandemic on the well-being of graduate medical education (GME) residents or about protective factors and post-traumatic growth. Through deeper examination of resident well-being during this unique crisis, we can identify trends and associated lessons to apply broadly to resident well-being. Objective To characterize resident burnout, resilience, and loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods All residents in any specialty at a single institution were anonymously surveyed semiannually for 2 years (2019–2020), including the time period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Surveys included demographics, the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, the Maslach Burnout Inventory, and the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Results Overall response rates were 53% (508 of 964) in spring 2019, 55% (538 of 982) in fall 2019, 51% (498 of 984) in spring 2020, and 57% (563 of 985) in fall 2020. The overall rates of burnout were stable across all time periods and did not change during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among frontline residents, burnout rates were higher than other resident populations in both the pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic time periods. Resilience and loneliness measures were similar for frontline and non-frontline residents and remained stable during the pandemic. Conclusions Initial data from this single institution survey of all GME residents in the first 8 months of the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated burnout and loneliness did not increase and resilience was preserved.