Practice Management

From Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Abstract

• Objective: We previously reported that training medical faculty to teach mental health care to residents was effective. We here describe the faculty’s training curriculum and their responses to learning and teaching mental health care, a unique focus in the educational literature.
• Design: Qualitative researchers assessed the experiences of medical faculty trainees in learning and teaching mental health care.
• Setting: Internal medicine residency training program at Michigan State University.
• Participants: One early career medicine faculty learner and another faculty learner at mid-career, 4 faculty trainers, and 2 qualitative researchers.
• Measurements: Typed qualitative research reports were evaluated by the authors from 4 time periods: (1) following didactic and interviewing training; (2) following training in a mental health clinic; (3) following training to teach residents mental health care; and (4) 8 months after training.
• Results: Faculty expressed anxiety and low confidence at each of 3 levels of training, but progressively developed confidence and satisfaction during training at each level. They rated didactic experiences as least valuable, seeing these experiences as lacking practical application. Experiential training in interviewing and mental health care were positively viewed, as was the benefit from mentoring. Teaching mental health skills to residents was initially difficult, but faculty became comfortable with experience, which solidified the faculty’s confidence in their own skills.
• Conclusion: A new curriculum for training medical faculty to teach mental health care was demonstrated to be acceptable to the faculty, based on findings from multiple focus groups.

Keywords: psychiatry; primary care mental health; medical education; curriculum; formative evaluation.

We previously trained general medicine faculty intensively in 3 evidence-based models essential for mental health care.^1-4 They, in turn, trained medical residents in the models over all 3 years of residency training.⁵ The results of this quasi-experimental trial demonstrated highly significant learning by residents on all 3 models.⁶ To address the mental health care crisis caused by the severe shortage of psychiatrists in the United States,^7-14 we propose this train-the-trainer intervention as a model for widescale training of medical faculty in mental health care, thus enabling them to then train their own residents and students indefinitely.⁶

This brief report details the faculty training curriculum in mental health care and its teaching, along with the responses of medical faculty to the training; no similar training experiences have been reported in the medical or psychiatric literature. While the residency training curriculum has been published,⁵ the faculty training curriculum has not. Additionally, faculty responses to the training are important because they can provide key information about what did and did not work. Even though demonstrated to be effective for teaching mental health care to residents,⁶ the training must also be acceptable to its new teachers.¹⁵

Methods

Design, Setting, and Participants

This descriptive study was conducted by 2 experienced qualitative researchers in the setting of a 5-year quantitative study of residents’ learning of mental health care.^5,6 They interviewed 2 general medicine faculty undergoing training in mental health care on 4 occasions: 3 times during training and once following training. Learners were taught by 4 faculty trainers (2 general medicine, 2 psychiatry). The setting was the internal medicine residency program at Michigan State University. The project was approved by the local Institutional Review Board.

Faculty Training Intervention

The 2 training faculty evaluated in this study were taught in a predominantly experiential way.⁵ Learning objectives were behaviorally defined (see Table 1, which also presents the teaching methods). Teaching occurred in 3 segments over 15 months, with a 10% weekly commitment to training supported by a research grant.

First 6 Months. For 1 half-day (4 hours) every week, teaching sessions were divided into 2 parts:

1. Experiential learning of the objectives, particularly patient-centered interviewing (Table 2)¹⁶ and mental health care models (Table 3).^3,17 This initially involved role playing and was followed by using the models with hospital and clinic patients, sometimes directly observed, other times evaluated via audiotaped recordings.

2. Lecture and reading series, which occurred in 2 parts: (a) For the first 3 months, a biopsychosocial and patient-centered medicine seminar was guided by readings from a patient-centered interviewing textbook and 4 articles.^3,16,18-20 These readings were supplemented by a large collection of material on our website that was utilized in a learner-centered fashion, depending on learners’ interests (these are available from the authors, along with a detailed outline we followed for each teaching session). (b) For the last 3 months, a psychiatry lecture series addressed the material needed for primary care mental health. The lectures were guided by a psychiatry textbook (the schedule and content of presentations is available from the authors).²¹

Beginning in the first 6 months, faculty also participated as co-teachers with their trainers in a long-standing psychosocial rotation, a 1-month full-time rotation for PGY-1 residents that occurred twice yearly during training. This initially helped them learn the models, and they later received experience in how to teach the models.

Middle 4 Months. During this period, faculty learners were supervised by trainers as they transitioned to learn mental health care in a Complex Patient Clinic (CPC). Training was guided by a syllabus now contained in a textbook.¹⁷ The CPC is a unique mental health care clinic located in the clinic area where faculty and residents observe other patients. Rooms resemble other exam rooms, except they have a computer attached to an audio-video camera that delivers the physician-patient interaction live to another room, where faculty observe it via a software program (Vidyo, Hackensack, NJ)^22,23; no recordings are made of the live interactions. The details of patient recruitment and the CPC are described elsewhere.²² CPC patients had an average of 2.3 DSM-V diagnoses and 3.3 major medical diagnoses. Faculty trainees evaluated 2 or 3 patients each day.

Final 5 Months. Supervision continued for faculty learners as they taught mental health care to postgraduate year (PGY) 2 and 3 residents in the CPC. Residents had between 6 and 8 sessions in each of their last 2 years of training; 2 residents were assigned for each half-day CPC session and each evaluated 2 or 3 patients under faculty-learner supervision.

 

 

Data Collection

The qualitative interviewers were independent of the study. The research team members did not see the transcripts until preparing this report in conjunction with the interviewers. Data were collected from faculty at 4 points: following the initial 6 months of training in the models; following training in mental health care in the CPC; following supervision of faculty training of residents; and 8 months following completion of training, during which time they independently taught residents.

Data were collected in a systematic way over 1 hour, beginning and continuing open-endedly for about 30 minutes and concluding with closed-ended inquiry to pin down details and to ask any pre-planned questions that had not been answered. The protocol that guided focus group interviews is available from the authors.

Audio recordings were made from each group, and a 500- to 1000-word report was written by the interviewers, which served as the basis of the present descriptive evaluation. The authors independently analyzed the data at each collection point and then came to the consensus that follows.

Results

Lectures/Didactic Training

The training sessions involved 2 parts: lectures and didactic material around interviewing, general system theory, and psychiatry diagnoses; and skills practice in interviewing and the mental health care models. The trainers and faculty met weekly for 4 hours, and the first 2 hours of these sessions were spent reviewing the background of what would become the mainstay of the teaching, the models for interviewing and mental health care (Table 2 and Table 3). These readings differed in content and style from the typical clinical readings that physicians use, and they required considerable outside time and preparation, beyond that anticipated by the trainees. Digging into these theoretical concepts was described as interesting and “refreshing,” but the trainees at first found the readings disconnected from their clinical work. Faculty trainees later recognized the importance of understanding the models as they prepared for their roles as teachers. All told, however, the trainees believed there was too much didactic material.

Receiving education on diagnosis and management of common psychiatric disorders from academic psychiatrists was appreciated, but the trainees also expressed the greatest frustrations about this part of the curriculum. They felt that the level of these sessions was not always appropriately gauged—ranging from too simplistic, as in medical school, to too detailed, especially around neurochemical and neurobiological mechanisms. Although they appreciated learning about advanced psychiatric illness and treatments (eg, electroconvulsive treatment, especially), they did not believe the information was necessary in primary care. Trainees were experienced primary care providers and were more interested in case-based education that could highlight the types of patients seen in their office every day. One trainee indicated that these sessions were lacking “the patient voice.” Abstract discussion of diagnoses and treatments made it challenging to apply this new knowledge to the trainees’ practices. Trainees also suggested trying to integrate this section of the training with the interviewing skills training to better highlight that interplay. The trainees believed that their understanding and familiarity with the diagnosis and management of mental disorders occurred primarily in later CPC training. The trainees recommended that all didactic material be reduced by half or more in future teaching.

 

 

Skills Practice

The patient-centered interviewing skills practice, which occurred in the second 2-hour period during the first 6 months, was lauded by the faculty trainees. It was considered the “most immediately relevant component” of this period of training. Because the trainees were experienced physicians when they began this project, they felt this part of training made the “…material more accessible to myself, more germane to what I do day in and day out.” The insight of modifying the interviewing techniques to connect with different patient personality types was particularly helpful. One trainee described an “aha moment” of “getting patients to open up in a way I had not been able to do before.” As time went on, the trainees felt empowered to adapt “the interviewing script” modestly to fit their already developed “rhythm and style with their patients.”

Wellness/Mentoring

The 2 trainees were at different stages of their careers, 1 early-career faculty and 1 mid-career faculty. This academic diversity within the small training group provided varied perspectives not only on the concepts presented and discussed, but also on a more personal level. In an otherwise hectic academic medicine environment, this group had a weekly chance to stop, “check in” with each other, and truly connect on a personal level. To be asked “about your week and actually mean it and want to hear the answer” is an unusual opportunity, one noted. It also offered time and support for purposeful self-reflection, which “often brought some emotions to the surface…at different times.” These connections were perhaps one of the most valuable parts of the experience. With burnout among physicians rampant,²⁴ establishing these networks is invaluable. In addition to introspection and personal connections, there was a strong element of mentoring during these weekly meetings. The opportunity to meet in a small group with senior faculty was highly valued by the trainees.

Mental Health Care: Complex Patient Clinic

The faculty were eager, but very apprehensive, in beginning the second segment of training, where work shifted from lectures and practicing skills to mental health care training in the CPC. The trainees expressed anxiety about several areas. These included additional clinical workload, patient referral/selection, and transition of patient care back to the primary care provider. Of note, they did not particularly express worries about the care they would be providing, because a psychiatrist would be available to them on site. In reflection, after spending 4 months in the clinic, trainees noted “how important observing live interviews for evaluation/feedback was to their learning.” The CPC provided “learning in the moment on specific patients [which] was without question the most powerful teaching tool.” The support of the training faculty who were present at each clinic was invaluable. Whereas the earlier didactics given by psychiatrists were received by trainees with lukewarm enthusiasm, the point-of-care, case-by-case learning and feedback truly advanced the trainees’ knowledge, as well as skills, and improved their confidence in providing mental health care.

One of the tenets of the mental health care models is collaborative care.²⁵ Recognizing this critical component of patient care, the CPC experience integrated a clinical social worker. The faculty noted the critical role she played in the patient care experience. They described her as “fabulous and awesome.” Her grasp of the health care system and community resources (particularly for an underserved population) was indispensable. Additionally, she was able to serve as a steady contact to follow patients through multiple visits and improve their feelings of continuity.

Teaching: Psychosocial Rotation

The first psychosocial teaching occurred after the interviewing skills and didactic experiences in the first 6 months. The trainees expressed great doubt about tackling this initial teaching experience. From residents challenging the need for interviewing and other aspects of “touchy-feely” teaching, to patients expressing raw emotions, the trainees lacked confidence in their ability to handle these moments. At this early stage of their training, one trainee said, “I feel like I am becoming a better interrogator, but I haven’t learned the skills to be a better healer yet.” Over time, this concern disappeared. As training evolved, the trainees began to thrive in their role as educator. At the final focus group, it was noted that “teaching has enhanced [my] confidence in the framework and in turn has made it easier to teach.”

Teaching: Complex Patient Clinic

This powerful teaching tool to train residents was the centerpiece of training. The faculty trainees had some hesitation about their role as teacher before it began. The faculty trainees were at different stages of their careers, and their confidence in their own teaching skills was not uniform. Importantly, the initial structure of the CPC, which included psychiatrists and senior faculty supervision, provided strong and continued support for the faculty trainees. Later work in the CPC as teacher, rather than trainee, further bolstered the faculty’s confidence in the treatment models. As confidence with their own skills grew, faculty noted that it became “easier to teach” as well. Faculty also recognized the unique opportunity that the CPC provided in directly observing a resident’s patient interaction. This allows them to “monitor progress, provide specific feedback, and address issues.” The time spent debriefing after each patient encounter was noted to be particularly important. When they became too busy to adequately provide this debriefing, changes to the schedule were made to accommodate it (follow-up visits were lengthened from 30 to 60 minutes). In addition to giving an opportunity to provide feedback, this extra time available for residents to interact with a patient—to utilize and practice the interviewing skills, for example—was quite valuable, independent of actual mental health care training. Finally, the faculty were able to create a “relaxed and comfortable” space in the CPC. Indeed, the faculty felt comfortable sharing some of their struggles and reflections on caring for a mental health patient population, and residents were able, in turn, to engage in some self-reflection and debriefing as well.

Discussion

Faculty trainees demonstrated a striking evolution as they progressed through this curriculum. At each of the 3 stages of training, they endorsed a broad range of feelings, from anxiety and uncertainty initially, to confidence and growth and appreciation later. They felt satisfied with having participated in the project and are engaged in exploring next steps.

Of note, these faculty members had some exposure to the skills models prior to starting the program because the residency program has integrated patient-centered interviewing into its program for many years. The faculty were supportive of the models prior to engaging in the curriculum, and they volunteered to participate. Similarly, the residents were familiar with the expectations as they went through the psychosocial rotation and the CPC. It is conceivable that the interviewing and mental health material may not be received as easily at an institution where the culture has had less exposure to such teaching.

While describing a faculty curriculum for mental health training is unique⁵ and the primary intent of this paper, we wanted to present its formative evaluation even though only 2 faculty trainees were involved. Simply put, the grant for this project supported only 2 trainees, and no more were required. Nevertheless, we propose that this only reported experience of medical faculty with mental health training is an important addition to the literature in mental health education. It will be a critical guide for others who choose the new direction of training medical faculty to teach mental health care.

As the research team looks to foster dissemination of the curriculum, it continues to be streamlined to highlight the components most useful and germane to learners. The early didactic readings on subjects such as general system theory were less engaging. (In later training of new medical faculty learners, the focus on theory and other didactics was reduced.) In contrast, the trainees clearly valued the interviewing skills experience (both learning and teaching). While the mental health curriculum and the CPC were associated with much greater anxiety in the trainees, with practical, respectful, and supervised teaching, they became confident and satisfied—as well as effective.⁶ Future teachers will benefit from slowly and understandingly addressing trainees’ personal issues, particularly during the initial phases of training.²⁶ It appeared to us to be the key factor enabling the faculty to successfully learn and teach mental health care. Once they overcame their personal reactions to mental health material, they learned mental health skills just as they learn the more familiar physical disease material.

Conclusion

In a new direction in medical education, a curriculum for training medical faculty to teach mental health care is presented. Not only did prior research demonstrate that the faculty effectively trained residents, but we also demonstrated here that the training was acceptable to and valued by faculty. With mental health often an alien dimension of medicine, acceptability is especially important when we recommend disseminating the curriculum as a way to offset the national mental health care crisis.

Corresponding author: Robert C. Smith, 788 Service Road, B314 Clinical Center, East Lansing, MI 48824; smithrr@msu.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding support: The authors are grateful for the generous support from the Health Resources and Services Administration (D58HP23259).

From Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Abstract

• Objective: We previously reported that training medical faculty to teach mental health care to residents was effective. We here describe the faculty’s training curriculum and their responses to learning and teaching mental health care, a unique focus in the educational literature.
• Design: Qualitative researchers assessed the experiences of medical faculty trainees in learning and teaching mental health care.
• Setting: Internal medicine residency training program at Michigan State University.
• Participants: One early career medicine faculty learner and another faculty learner at mid-career, 4 faculty trainers, and 2 qualitative researchers.
• Measurements: Typed qualitative research reports were evaluated by the authors from 4 time periods: (1) following didactic and interviewing training; (2) following training in a mental health clinic; (3) following training to teach residents mental health care; and (4) 8 months after training.
• Results: Faculty expressed anxiety and low confidence at each of 3 levels of training, but progressively developed confidence and satisfaction during training at each level. They rated didactic experiences as least valuable, seeing these experiences as lacking practical application. Experiential training in interviewing and mental health care were positively viewed, as was the benefit from mentoring. Teaching mental health skills to residents was initially difficult, but faculty became comfortable with experience, which solidified the faculty’s confidence in their own skills.
• Conclusion: A new curriculum for training medical faculty to teach mental health care was demonstrated to be acceptable to the faculty, based on findings from multiple focus groups.

Keywords: psychiatry; primary care mental health; medical education; curriculum; formative evaluation.

We previously trained general medicine faculty intensively in 3 evidence-based models essential for mental health care.^1-4 They, in turn, trained medical residents in the models over all 3 years of residency training.⁵ The results of this quasi-experimental trial demonstrated highly significant learning by residents on all 3 models.⁶ To address the mental health care crisis caused by the severe shortage of psychiatrists in the United States,^7-14 we propose this train-the-trainer intervention as a model for widescale training of medical faculty in mental health care, thus enabling them to then train their own residents and students indefinitely.⁶

This brief report details the faculty training curriculum in mental health care and its teaching, along with the responses of medical faculty to the training; no similar training experiences have been reported in the medical or psychiatric literature. While the residency training curriculum has been published,⁵ the faculty training curriculum has not. Additionally, faculty responses to the training are important because they can provide key information about what did and did not work. Even though demonstrated to be effective for teaching mental health care to residents,⁶ the training must also be acceptable to its new teachers.¹⁵

Methods

Design, Setting, and Participants

This descriptive study was conducted by 2 experienced qualitative researchers in the setting of a 5-year quantitative study of residents’ learning of mental health care.^5,6 They interviewed 2 general medicine faculty undergoing training in mental health care on 4 occasions: 3 times during training and once following training. Learners were taught by 4 faculty trainers (2 general medicine, 2 psychiatry). The setting was the internal medicine residency program at Michigan State University. The project was approved by the local Institutional Review Board.

Faculty Training Intervention

The 2 training faculty evaluated in this study were taught in a predominantly experiential way.⁵ Learning objectives were behaviorally defined (see Table 1, which also presents the teaching methods). Teaching occurred in 3 segments over 15 months, with a 10% weekly commitment to training supported by a research grant.

First 6 Months. For 1 half-day (4 hours) every week, teaching sessions were divided into 2 parts:

1. Experiential learning of the objectives, particularly patient-centered interviewing (Table 2)¹⁶ and mental health care models (Table 3).^3,17 This initially involved role playing and was followed by using the models with hospital and clinic patients, sometimes directly observed, other times evaluated via audiotaped recordings.

2. Lecture and reading series, which occurred in 2 parts: (a) For the first 3 months, a biopsychosocial and patient-centered medicine seminar was guided by readings from a patient-centered interviewing textbook and 4 articles.^3,16,18-20 These readings were supplemented by a large collection of material on our website that was utilized in a learner-centered fashion, depending on learners’ interests (these are available from the authors, along with a detailed outline we followed for each teaching session). (b) For the last 3 months, a psychiatry lecture series addressed the material needed for primary care mental health. The lectures were guided by a psychiatry textbook (the schedule and content of presentations is available from the authors).²¹

Beginning in the first 6 months, faculty also participated as co-teachers with their trainers in a long-standing psychosocial rotation, a 1-month full-time rotation for PGY-1 residents that occurred twice yearly during training. This initially helped them learn the models, and they later received experience in how to teach the models.

Middle 4 Months. During this period, faculty learners were supervised by trainers as they transitioned to learn mental health care in a Complex Patient Clinic (CPC). Training was guided by a syllabus now contained in a textbook.¹⁷ The CPC is a unique mental health care clinic located in the clinic area where faculty and residents observe other patients. Rooms resemble other exam rooms, except they have a computer attached to an audio-video camera that delivers the physician-patient interaction live to another room, where faculty observe it via a software program (Vidyo, Hackensack, NJ)^22,23; no recordings are made of the live interactions. The details of patient recruitment and the CPC are described elsewhere.²² CPC patients had an average of 2.3 DSM-V diagnoses and 3.3 major medical diagnoses. Faculty trainees evaluated 2 or 3 patients each day.

Final 5 Months. Supervision continued for faculty learners as they taught mental health care to postgraduate year (PGY) 2 and 3 residents in the CPC. Residents had between 6 and 8 sessions in each of their last 2 years of training; 2 residents were assigned for each half-day CPC session and each evaluated 2 or 3 patients under faculty-learner supervision.

 

 

Data Collection

The qualitative interviewers were independent of the study. The research team members did not see the transcripts until preparing this report in conjunction with the interviewers. Data were collected from faculty at 4 points: following the initial 6 months of training in the models; following training in mental health care in the CPC; following supervision of faculty training of residents; and 8 months following completion of training, during which time they independently taught residents.

Data were collected in a systematic way over 1 hour, beginning and continuing open-endedly for about 30 minutes and concluding with closed-ended inquiry to pin down details and to ask any pre-planned questions that had not been answered. The protocol that guided focus group interviews is available from the authors.

Audio recordings were made from each group, and a 500- to 1000-word report was written by the interviewers, which served as the basis of the present descriptive evaluation. The authors independently analyzed the data at each collection point and then came to the consensus that follows.

Results

Lectures/Didactic Training

The training sessions involved 2 parts: lectures and didactic material around interviewing, general system theory, and psychiatry diagnoses; and skills practice in interviewing and the mental health care models. The trainers and faculty met weekly for 4 hours, and the first 2 hours of these sessions were spent reviewing the background of what would become the mainstay of the teaching, the models for interviewing and mental health care (Table 2 and Table 3). These readings differed in content and style from the typical clinical readings that physicians use, and they required considerable outside time and preparation, beyond that anticipated by the trainees. Digging into these theoretical concepts was described as interesting and “refreshing,” but the trainees at first found the readings disconnected from their clinical work. Faculty trainees later recognized the importance of understanding the models as they prepared for their roles as teachers. All told, however, the trainees believed there was too much didactic material.

Receiving education on diagnosis and management of common psychiatric disorders from academic psychiatrists was appreciated, but the trainees also expressed the greatest frustrations about this part of the curriculum. They felt that the level of these sessions was not always appropriately gauged—ranging from too simplistic, as in medical school, to too detailed, especially around neurochemical and neurobiological mechanisms. Although they appreciated learning about advanced psychiatric illness and treatments (eg, electroconvulsive treatment, especially), they did not believe the information was necessary in primary care. Trainees were experienced primary care providers and were more interested in case-based education that could highlight the types of patients seen in their office every day. One trainee indicated that these sessions were lacking “the patient voice.” Abstract discussion of diagnoses and treatments made it challenging to apply this new knowledge to the trainees’ practices. Trainees also suggested trying to integrate this section of the training with the interviewing skills training to better highlight that interplay. The trainees believed that their understanding and familiarity with the diagnosis and management of mental disorders occurred primarily in later CPC training. The trainees recommended that all didactic material be reduced by half or more in future teaching.

 

 

Skills Practice

The patient-centered interviewing skills practice, which occurred in the second 2-hour period during the first 6 months, was lauded by the faculty trainees. It was considered the “most immediately relevant component” of this period of training. Because the trainees were experienced physicians when they began this project, they felt this part of training made the “…material more accessible to myself, more germane to what I do day in and day out.” The insight of modifying the interviewing techniques to connect with different patient personality types was particularly helpful. One trainee described an “aha moment” of “getting patients to open up in a way I had not been able to do before.” As time went on, the trainees felt empowered to adapt “the interviewing script” modestly to fit their already developed “rhythm and style with their patients.”

Wellness/Mentoring

The 2 trainees were at different stages of their careers, 1 early-career faculty and 1 mid-career faculty. This academic diversity within the small training group provided varied perspectives not only on the concepts presented and discussed, but also on a more personal level. In an otherwise hectic academic medicine environment, this group had a weekly chance to stop, “check in” with each other, and truly connect on a personal level. To be asked “about your week and actually mean it and want to hear the answer” is an unusual opportunity, one noted. It also offered time and support for purposeful self-reflection, which “often brought some emotions to the surface…at different times.” These connections were perhaps one of the most valuable parts of the experience. With burnout among physicians rampant,²⁴ establishing these networks is invaluable. In addition to introspection and personal connections, there was a strong element of mentoring during these weekly meetings. The opportunity to meet in a small group with senior faculty was highly valued by the trainees.

Mental Health Care: Complex Patient Clinic

The faculty were eager, but very apprehensive, in beginning the second segment of training, where work shifted from lectures and practicing skills to mental health care training in the CPC. The trainees expressed anxiety about several areas. These included additional clinical workload, patient referral/selection, and transition of patient care back to the primary care provider. Of note, they did not particularly express worries about the care they would be providing, because a psychiatrist would be available to them on site. In reflection, after spending 4 months in the clinic, trainees noted “how important observing live interviews for evaluation/feedback was to their learning.” The CPC provided “learning in the moment on specific patients [which] was without question the most powerful teaching tool.” The support of the training faculty who were present at each clinic was invaluable. Whereas the earlier didactics given by psychiatrists were received by trainees with lukewarm enthusiasm, the point-of-care, case-by-case learning and feedback truly advanced the trainees’ knowledge, as well as skills, and improved their confidence in providing mental health care.

One of the tenets of the mental health care models is collaborative care.²⁵ Recognizing this critical component of patient care, the CPC experience integrated a clinical social worker. The faculty noted the critical role she played in the patient care experience. They described her as “fabulous and awesome.” Her grasp of the health care system and community resources (particularly for an underserved population) was indispensable. Additionally, she was able to serve as a steady contact to follow patients through multiple visits and improve their feelings of continuity.

Teaching: Psychosocial Rotation

The first psychosocial teaching occurred after the interviewing skills and didactic experiences in the first 6 months. The trainees expressed great doubt about tackling this initial teaching experience. From residents challenging the need for interviewing and other aspects of “touchy-feely” teaching, to patients expressing raw emotions, the trainees lacked confidence in their ability to handle these moments. At this early stage of their training, one trainee said, “I feel like I am becoming a better interrogator, but I haven’t learned the skills to be a better healer yet.” Over time, this concern disappeared. As training evolved, the trainees began to thrive in their role as educator. At the final focus group, it was noted that “teaching has enhanced [my] confidence in the framework and in turn has made it easier to teach.”

Teaching: Complex Patient Clinic

This powerful teaching tool to train residents was the centerpiece of training. The faculty trainees had some hesitation about their role as teacher before it began. The faculty trainees were at different stages of their careers, and their confidence in their own teaching skills was not uniform. Importantly, the initial structure of the CPC, which included psychiatrists and senior faculty supervision, provided strong and continued support for the faculty trainees. Later work in the CPC as teacher, rather than trainee, further bolstered the faculty’s confidence in the treatment models. As confidence with their own skills grew, faculty noted that it became “easier to teach” as well. Faculty also recognized the unique opportunity that the CPC provided in directly observing a resident’s patient interaction. This allows them to “monitor progress, provide specific feedback, and address issues.” The time spent debriefing after each patient encounter was noted to be particularly important. When they became too busy to adequately provide this debriefing, changes to the schedule were made to accommodate it (follow-up visits were lengthened from 30 to 60 minutes). In addition to giving an opportunity to provide feedback, this extra time available for residents to interact with a patient—to utilize and practice the interviewing skills, for example—was quite valuable, independent of actual mental health care training. Finally, the faculty were able to create a “relaxed and comfortable” space in the CPC. Indeed, the faculty felt comfortable sharing some of their struggles and reflections on caring for a mental health patient population, and residents were able, in turn, to engage in some self-reflection and debriefing as well.

Discussion

Faculty trainees demonstrated a striking evolution as they progressed through this curriculum. At each of the 3 stages of training, they endorsed a broad range of feelings, from anxiety and uncertainty initially, to confidence and growth and appreciation later. They felt satisfied with having participated in the project and are engaged in exploring next steps.

Of note, these faculty members had some exposure to the skills models prior to starting the program because the residency program has integrated patient-centered interviewing into its program for many years. The faculty were supportive of the models prior to engaging in the curriculum, and they volunteered to participate. Similarly, the residents were familiar with the expectations as they went through the psychosocial rotation and the CPC. It is conceivable that the interviewing and mental health material may not be received as easily at an institution where the culture has had less exposure to such teaching.

While describing a faculty curriculum for mental health training is unique⁵ and the primary intent of this paper, we wanted to present its formative evaluation even though only 2 faculty trainees were involved. Simply put, the grant for this project supported only 2 trainees, and no more were required. Nevertheless, we propose that this only reported experience of medical faculty with mental health training is an important addition to the literature in mental health education. It will be a critical guide for others who choose the new direction of training medical faculty to teach mental health care.

As the research team looks to foster dissemination of the curriculum, it continues to be streamlined to highlight the components most useful and germane to learners. The early didactic readings on subjects such as general system theory were less engaging. (In later training of new medical faculty learners, the focus on theory and other didactics was reduced.) In contrast, the trainees clearly valued the interviewing skills experience (both learning and teaching). While the mental health curriculum and the CPC were associated with much greater anxiety in the trainees, with practical, respectful, and supervised teaching, they became confident and satisfied—as well as effective.⁶ Future teachers will benefit from slowly and understandingly addressing trainees’ personal issues, particularly during the initial phases of training.²⁶ It appeared to us to be the key factor enabling the faculty to successfully learn and teach mental health care. Once they overcame their personal reactions to mental health material, they learned mental health skills just as they learn the more familiar physical disease material.

Conclusion

In a new direction in medical education, a curriculum for training medical faculty to teach mental health care is presented. Not only did prior research demonstrate that the faculty effectively trained residents, but we also demonstrated here that the training was acceptable to and valued by faculty. With mental health often an alien dimension of medicine, acceptability is especially important when we recommend disseminating the curriculum as a way to offset the national mental health care crisis.

Corresponding author: Robert C. Smith, 788 Service Road, B314 Clinical Center, East Lansing, MI 48824; smithrr@msu.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding support: The authors are grateful for the generous support from the Health Resources and Services Administration (D58HP23259).

From Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Abstract

• Objective: We previously reported that training medical faculty to teach mental health care to residents was effective. We here describe the faculty’s training curriculum and their responses to learning and teaching mental health care, a unique focus in the educational literature.
• Design: Qualitative researchers assessed the experiences of medical faculty trainees in learning and teaching mental health care.
• Setting: Internal medicine residency training program at Michigan State University.
• Participants: One early career medicine faculty learner and another faculty learner at mid-career, 4 faculty trainers, and 2 qualitative researchers.
• Measurements: Typed qualitative research reports were evaluated by the authors from 4 time periods: (1) following didactic and interviewing training; (2) following training in a mental health clinic; (3) following training to teach residents mental health care; and (4) 8 months after training.
• Results: Faculty expressed anxiety and low confidence at each of 3 levels of training, but progressively developed confidence and satisfaction during training at each level. They rated didactic experiences as least valuable, seeing these experiences as lacking practical application. Experiential training in interviewing and mental health care were positively viewed, as was the benefit from mentoring. Teaching mental health skills to residents was initially difficult, but faculty became comfortable with experience, which solidified the faculty’s confidence in their own skills.
• Conclusion: A new curriculum for training medical faculty to teach mental health care was demonstrated to be acceptable to the faculty, based on findings from multiple focus groups.

Keywords: psychiatry; primary care mental health; medical education; curriculum; formative evaluation.

We previously trained general medicine faculty intensively in 3 evidence-based models essential for mental health care.^1-4 They, in turn, trained medical residents in the models over all 3 years of residency training.⁵ The results of this quasi-experimental trial demonstrated highly significant learning by residents on all 3 models.⁶ To address the mental health care crisis caused by the severe shortage of psychiatrists in the United States,^7-14 we propose this train-the-trainer intervention as a model for widescale training of medical faculty in mental health care, thus enabling them to then train their own residents and students indefinitely.⁶

This brief report details the faculty training curriculum in mental health care and its teaching, along with the responses of medical faculty to the training; no similar training experiences have been reported in the medical or psychiatric literature. While the residency training curriculum has been published,⁵ the faculty training curriculum has not. Additionally, faculty responses to the training are important because they can provide key information about what did and did not work. Even though demonstrated to be effective for teaching mental health care to residents,⁶ the training must also be acceptable to its new teachers.¹⁵

Methods

Design, Setting, and Participants

This descriptive study was conducted by 2 experienced qualitative researchers in the setting of a 5-year quantitative study of residents’ learning of mental health care.^5,6 They interviewed 2 general medicine faculty undergoing training in mental health care on 4 occasions: 3 times during training and once following training. Learners were taught by 4 faculty trainers (2 general medicine, 2 psychiatry). The setting was the internal medicine residency program at Michigan State University. The project was approved by the local Institutional Review Board.

Faculty Training Intervention

The 2 training faculty evaluated in this study were taught in a predominantly experiential way.⁵ Learning objectives were behaviorally defined (see Table 1, which also presents the teaching methods). Teaching occurred in 3 segments over 15 months, with a 10% weekly commitment to training supported by a research grant.

First 6 Months. For 1 half-day (4 hours) every week, teaching sessions were divided into 2 parts:

1. Experiential learning of the objectives, particularly patient-centered interviewing (Table 2)¹⁶ and mental health care models (Table 3).^3,17 This initially involved role playing and was followed by using the models with hospital and clinic patients, sometimes directly observed, other times evaluated via audiotaped recordings.

2. Lecture and reading series, which occurred in 2 parts: (a) For the first 3 months, a biopsychosocial and patient-centered medicine seminar was guided by readings from a patient-centered interviewing textbook and 4 articles.^3,16,18-20 These readings were supplemented by a large collection of material on our website that was utilized in a learner-centered fashion, depending on learners’ interests (these are available from the authors, along with a detailed outline we followed for each teaching session). (b) For the last 3 months, a psychiatry lecture series addressed the material needed for primary care mental health. The lectures were guided by a psychiatry textbook (the schedule and content of presentations is available from the authors).²¹

Beginning in the first 6 months, faculty also participated as co-teachers with their trainers in a long-standing psychosocial rotation, a 1-month full-time rotation for PGY-1 residents that occurred twice yearly during training. This initially helped them learn the models, and they later received experience in how to teach the models.

Middle 4 Months. During this period, faculty learners were supervised by trainers as they transitioned to learn mental health care in a Complex Patient Clinic (CPC). Training was guided by a syllabus now contained in a textbook.¹⁷ The CPC is a unique mental health care clinic located in the clinic area where faculty and residents observe other patients. Rooms resemble other exam rooms, except they have a computer attached to an audio-video camera that delivers the physician-patient interaction live to another room, where faculty observe it via a software program (Vidyo, Hackensack, NJ)^22,23; no recordings are made of the live interactions. The details of patient recruitment and the CPC are described elsewhere.²² CPC patients had an average of 2.3 DSM-V diagnoses and 3.3 major medical diagnoses. Faculty trainees evaluated 2 or 3 patients each day.

Final 5 Months. Supervision continued for faculty learners as they taught mental health care to postgraduate year (PGY) 2 and 3 residents in the CPC. Residents had between 6 and 8 sessions in each of their last 2 years of training; 2 residents were assigned for each half-day CPC session and each evaluated 2 or 3 patients under faculty-learner supervision.

 

 

Data Collection

The qualitative interviewers were independent of the study. The research team members did not see the transcripts until preparing this report in conjunction with the interviewers. Data were collected from faculty at 4 points: following the initial 6 months of training in the models; following training in mental health care in the CPC; following supervision of faculty training of residents; and 8 months following completion of training, during which time they independently taught residents.

Data were collected in a systematic way over 1 hour, beginning and continuing open-endedly for about 30 minutes and concluding with closed-ended inquiry to pin down details and to ask any pre-planned questions that had not been answered. The protocol that guided focus group interviews is available from the authors.

Audio recordings were made from each group, and a 500- to 1000-word report was written by the interviewers, which served as the basis of the present descriptive evaluation. The authors independently analyzed the data at each collection point and then came to the consensus that follows.

Results

Lectures/Didactic Training

The training sessions involved 2 parts: lectures and didactic material around interviewing, general system theory, and psychiatry diagnoses; and skills practice in interviewing and the mental health care models. The trainers and faculty met weekly for 4 hours, and the first 2 hours of these sessions were spent reviewing the background of what would become the mainstay of the teaching, the models for interviewing and mental health care (Table 2 and Table 3). These readings differed in content and style from the typical clinical readings that physicians use, and they required considerable outside time and preparation, beyond that anticipated by the trainees. Digging into these theoretical concepts was described as interesting and “refreshing,” but the trainees at first found the readings disconnected from their clinical work. Faculty trainees later recognized the importance of understanding the models as they prepared for their roles as teachers. All told, however, the trainees believed there was too much didactic material.

Receiving education on diagnosis and management of common psychiatric disorders from academic psychiatrists was appreciated, but the trainees also expressed the greatest frustrations about this part of the curriculum. They felt that the level of these sessions was not always appropriately gauged—ranging from too simplistic, as in medical school, to too detailed, especially around neurochemical and neurobiological mechanisms. Although they appreciated learning about advanced psychiatric illness and treatments (eg, electroconvulsive treatment, especially), they did not believe the information was necessary in primary care. Trainees were experienced primary care providers and were more interested in case-based education that could highlight the types of patients seen in their office every day. One trainee indicated that these sessions were lacking “the patient voice.” Abstract discussion of diagnoses and treatments made it challenging to apply this new knowledge to the trainees’ practices. Trainees also suggested trying to integrate this section of the training with the interviewing skills training to better highlight that interplay. The trainees believed that their understanding and familiarity with the diagnosis and management of mental disorders occurred primarily in later CPC training. The trainees recommended that all didactic material be reduced by half or more in future teaching.

 

 

Skills Practice

The patient-centered interviewing skills practice, which occurred in the second 2-hour period during the first 6 months, was lauded by the faculty trainees. It was considered the “most immediately relevant component” of this period of training. Because the trainees were experienced physicians when they began this project, they felt this part of training made the “…material more accessible to myself, more germane to what I do day in and day out.” The insight of modifying the interviewing techniques to connect with different patient personality types was particularly helpful. One trainee described an “aha moment” of “getting patients to open up in a way I had not been able to do before.” As time went on, the trainees felt empowered to adapt “the interviewing script” modestly to fit their already developed “rhythm and style with their patients.”

Wellness/Mentoring

The 2 trainees were at different stages of their careers, 1 early-career faculty and 1 mid-career faculty. This academic diversity within the small training group provided varied perspectives not only on the concepts presented and discussed, but also on a more personal level. In an otherwise hectic academic medicine environment, this group had a weekly chance to stop, “check in” with each other, and truly connect on a personal level. To be asked “about your week and actually mean it and want to hear the answer” is an unusual opportunity, one noted. It also offered time and support for purposeful self-reflection, which “often brought some emotions to the surface…at different times.” These connections were perhaps one of the most valuable parts of the experience. With burnout among physicians rampant,²⁴ establishing these networks is invaluable. In addition to introspection and personal connections, there was a strong element of mentoring during these weekly meetings. The opportunity to meet in a small group with senior faculty was highly valued by the trainees.

Mental Health Care: Complex Patient Clinic

The faculty were eager, but very apprehensive, in beginning the second segment of training, where work shifted from lectures and practicing skills to mental health care training in the CPC. The trainees expressed anxiety about several areas. These included additional clinical workload, patient referral/selection, and transition of patient care back to the primary care provider. Of note, they did not particularly express worries about the care they would be providing, because a psychiatrist would be available to them on site. In reflection, after spending 4 months in the clinic, trainees noted “how important observing live interviews for evaluation/feedback was to their learning.” The CPC provided “learning in the moment on specific patients [which] was without question the most powerful teaching tool.” The support of the training faculty who were present at each clinic was invaluable. Whereas the earlier didactics given by psychiatrists were received by trainees with lukewarm enthusiasm, the point-of-care, case-by-case learning and feedback truly advanced the trainees’ knowledge, as well as skills, and improved their confidence in providing mental health care.

One of the tenets of the mental health care models is collaborative care.²⁵ Recognizing this critical component of patient care, the CPC experience integrated a clinical social worker. The faculty noted the critical role she played in the patient care experience. They described her as “fabulous and awesome.” Her grasp of the health care system and community resources (particularly for an underserved population) was indispensable. Additionally, she was able to serve as a steady contact to follow patients through multiple visits and improve their feelings of continuity.

Teaching: Psychosocial Rotation

The first psychosocial teaching occurred after the interviewing skills and didactic experiences in the first 6 months. The trainees expressed great doubt about tackling this initial teaching experience. From residents challenging the need for interviewing and other aspects of “touchy-feely” teaching, to patients expressing raw emotions, the trainees lacked confidence in their ability to handle these moments. At this early stage of their training, one trainee said, “I feel like I am becoming a better interrogator, but I haven’t learned the skills to be a better healer yet.” Over time, this concern disappeared. As training evolved, the trainees began to thrive in their role as educator. At the final focus group, it was noted that “teaching has enhanced [my] confidence in the framework and in turn has made it easier to teach.”

Teaching: Complex Patient Clinic

This powerful teaching tool to train residents was the centerpiece of training. The faculty trainees had some hesitation about their role as teacher before it began. The faculty trainees were at different stages of their careers, and their confidence in their own teaching skills was not uniform. Importantly, the initial structure of the CPC, which included psychiatrists and senior faculty supervision, provided strong and continued support for the faculty trainees. Later work in the CPC as teacher, rather than trainee, further bolstered the faculty’s confidence in the treatment models. As confidence with their own skills grew, faculty noted that it became “easier to teach” as well. Faculty also recognized the unique opportunity that the CPC provided in directly observing a resident’s patient interaction. This allows them to “monitor progress, provide specific feedback, and address issues.” The time spent debriefing after each patient encounter was noted to be particularly important. When they became too busy to adequately provide this debriefing, changes to the schedule were made to accommodate it (follow-up visits were lengthened from 30 to 60 minutes). In addition to giving an opportunity to provide feedback, this extra time available for residents to interact with a patient—to utilize and practice the interviewing skills, for example—was quite valuable, independent of actual mental health care training. Finally, the faculty were able to create a “relaxed and comfortable” space in the CPC. Indeed, the faculty felt comfortable sharing some of their struggles and reflections on caring for a mental health patient population, and residents were able, in turn, to engage in some self-reflection and debriefing as well.

Discussion

Faculty trainees demonstrated a striking evolution as they progressed through this curriculum. At each of the 3 stages of training, they endorsed a broad range of feelings, from anxiety and uncertainty initially, to confidence and growth and appreciation later. They felt satisfied with having participated in the project and are engaged in exploring next steps.

Of note, these faculty members had some exposure to the skills models prior to starting the program because the residency program has integrated patient-centered interviewing into its program for many years. The faculty were supportive of the models prior to engaging in the curriculum, and they volunteered to participate. Similarly, the residents were familiar with the expectations as they went through the psychosocial rotation and the CPC. It is conceivable that the interviewing and mental health material may not be received as easily at an institution where the culture has had less exposure to such teaching.

While describing a faculty curriculum for mental health training is unique⁵ and the primary intent of this paper, we wanted to present its formative evaluation even though only 2 faculty trainees were involved. Simply put, the grant for this project supported only 2 trainees, and no more were required. Nevertheless, we propose that this only reported experience of medical faculty with mental health training is an important addition to the literature in mental health education. It will be a critical guide for others who choose the new direction of training medical faculty to teach mental health care.

As the research team looks to foster dissemination of the curriculum, it continues to be streamlined to highlight the components most useful and germane to learners. The early didactic readings on subjects such as general system theory were less engaging. (In later training of new medical faculty learners, the focus on theory and other didactics was reduced.) In contrast, the trainees clearly valued the interviewing skills experience (both learning and teaching). While the mental health curriculum and the CPC were associated with much greater anxiety in the trainees, with practical, respectful, and supervised teaching, they became confident and satisfied—as well as effective.⁶ Future teachers will benefit from slowly and understandingly addressing trainees’ personal issues, particularly during the initial phases of training.²⁶ It appeared to us to be the key factor enabling the faculty to successfully learn and teach mental health care. Once they overcame their personal reactions to mental health material, they learned mental health skills just as they learn the more familiar physical disease material.

Conclusion

In a new direction in medical education, a curriculum for training medical faculty to teach mental health care is presented. Not only did prior research demonstrate that the faculty effectively trained residents, but we also demonstrated here that the training was acceptable to and valued by faculty. With mental health often an alien dimension of medicine, acceptability is especially important when we recommend disseminating the curriculum as a way to offset the national mental health care crisis.

Corresponding author: Robert C. Smith, 788 Service Road, B314 Clinical Center, East Lansing, MI 48824; smithrr@msu.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding support: The authors are grateful for the generous support from the Health Resources and Services Administration (D58HP23259).

From the Multi-County eConsult Initiative, Rancho Cucamonga, CA.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many health care professionals and their patients to use telehealth and virtual care to address care needs in new ways.¹ To shed light on care coordination decisions with respect to specialty resource access, we analyzed data collected from the Multi-County eConsult Initiative (MCeI)—the second-largest electronic consultation (eConsult) program in the United States—before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our analysis of these data suggests opportunities for improving access to care and reducing unnecessary costs in the health system nationally.

The Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP) launched MCeI (econsultie.com) in 2018. The initiative is a partnership between IEHP, Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, and Riverside University Health System aimed at improving access to specialty care for the safety-net population across San Bernardino and Riverside counties. IEHP is 1 of the 10 largest Medicaid health plans and the largest not-for-profit Medicare-Medicaid plan in the country, serving more than 1.2 million members.² Data from MCel reveal the impacts of COVID-19 on eConsult use and offer insights into specialty resource availability during and outside of a crisis.

At the time of this analysis, 86 IEHP clinics in rural and urban settings across 38 specialties used the eConsult process to provide and obtain virtual specialty care, as well as timely appointments for in-person specialty care.³ eConsults are facilitated through a HIPAA-secure web-based portal that enables communication and sharing of information between the primary care provider (PCP) and a specialist. eConsult gives PCPs virtual access to specialists to coordinate care for their patients and determine the need for in-person specialty visits. Through the PCP-specialist eConsult dialogue, patients gain virtual access to specialty care. If a PCP-specialist care team determines the patient needs an in-person visit, that specialty referral is automatically authorized by IEHP, without the need for further review. At IEHP, eConsult is the primary method used for obtaining outpatient specialty referrals.

To analyze eConsult utilization before and during the pandemic, we gathered data from the MCeI program for the periods February 20–March 19, 2020, and March 20–April 19, 2020. Measures included eConsult volume and outcomes of eConsults (eConsults closed as referrals for face-to-face specialist visits versus eConsults closed without resulting in referrals for face-to-face specialist visits). Statistical analysis using chi-square tests for independence was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 (IBM, Armonk, NY).

The data show that after California’s stay-at-home order, issued on March 19, 2020,⁴ eConsult volumes initially decreased, reflecting a similar decrease in clinic visits and authorization requests submitted to IEHP. We observed a 4-week average of 1100 eConsults processed before the pandemic, and then a steep drop to a 4-week average of 500 eConsults processed after the stay-at-home order was issued. Despite the overall drop in the volume of eConsults submitted, demand for specialties like hematology and neurology remained high throughout the pandemic.

During the pandemic, certain specialties displayed rising rates of eConsults completed with specialists providing care recommendations to the PCP instead of resulting in a recommendation for a face-to-face (in-person or via telehealth) visit with a specialist (see Figure and Table). The trend of increasing eConsults that concluded without a face-to-face visit suggests newfound clinical consideration of limited medical resources, along with the desire to eliminate unnecessary risks of infection.

eConsults between PCPs and specialist reviewers via the IEHP portal resulted in higher rates of non-face-to-face recommendations. The specialist reviewers were able to provide treatment plans for PCPs to take care of patients without having to refer their patients to a specialist. This increase was significant across most of the specialties live on the MCeI program.

We believe that clinicians’ heightened awareness of the limitations of the US health care system should remain a key consideration and factor in medical decision-making about appropriate referrals after the pandemic has passed. The data demonstrate that the pandemic drove clinicians to make different decisions about referrals and care coordination. Physicians scrutinized individual cases more keenly and were not as quick to recommend a face-to-face visit. This awareness and consideration of specialty access before making a referral provides a valuable lesson. If this approach is applied to health care delivery post-pandemic, eConsults will help reduce unnecessary in-person specialist visits and will free up space and time for patients who genuinely do need in-person specialty care. In this way, eConsult will improve appropriate access to care for everyone and reduce unnecessary costs to the health care system at large.

An examination of eConsult utilization trends across Riverside and San Bernardino counties before and during the COVID-19 pandemic provides useful insights into how to reduce costs and improve access to care. Although the risk of exposure to COVID-19 currently presents a significant obstacle to obtaining in-person specialty care, pre-existing and long-standing barriers, such as long wait times and scarcity of specialists, remain critical issues to receiving care during and after the pandemic. The pandemic has proven eConsult’s value as a tool for effective care coordination. Leveraging provider-to-provider asynchronous communication offers an opportunity to reduce unnecessary utilization of scarce resources during and beyond the pandemic.

Corresponding author: Lisa Aubry, Aubry-L@iehp.org.

Financial disclosures: None.

Keywords: electronic consultation; care coordination; telehealth; telemedicine; virtual care.

From the Multi-County eConsult Initiative, Rancho Cucamonga, CA.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many health care professionals and their patients to use telehealth and virtual care to address care needs in new ways.¹ To shed light on care coordination decisions with respect to specialty resource access, we analyzed data collected from the Multi-County eConsult Initiative (MCeI)—the second-largest electronic consultation (eConsult) program in the United States—before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our analysis of these data suggests opportunities for improving access to care and reducing unnecessary costs in the health system nationally.

The Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP) launched MCeI (econsultie.com) in 2018. The initiative is a partnership between IEHP, Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, and Riverside University Health System aimed at improving access to specialty care for the safety-net population across San Bernardino and Riverside counties. IEHP is 1 of the 10 largest Medicaid health plans and the largest not-for-profit Medicare-Medicaid plan in the country, serving more than 1.2 million members.² Data from MCel reveal the impacts of COVID-19 on eConsult use and offer insights into specialty resource availability during and outside of a crisis.

At the time of this analysis, 86 IEHP clinics in rural and urban settings across 38 specialties used the eConsult process to provide and obtain virtual specialty care, as well as timely appointments for in-person specialty care.³ eConsults are facilitated through a HIPAA-secure web-based portal that enables communication and sharing of information between the primary care provider (PCP) and a specialist. eConsult gives PCPs virtual access to specialists to coordinate care for their patients and determine the need for in-person specialty visits. Through the PCP-specialist eConsult dialogue, patients gain virtual access to specialty care. If a PCP-specialist care team determines the patient needs an in-person visit, that specialty referral is automatically authorized by IEHP, without the need for further review. At IEHP, eConsult is the primary method used for obtaining outpatient specialty referrals.

To analyze eConsult utilization before and during the pandemic, we gathered data from the MCeI program for the periods February 20–March 19, 2020, and March 20–April 19, 2020. Measures included eConsult volume and outcomes of eConsults (eConsults closed as referrals for face-to-face specialist visits versus eConsults closed without resulting in referrals for face-to-face specialist visits). Statistical analysis using chi-square tests for independence was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 (IBM, Armonk, NY).

The data show that after California’s stay-at-home order, issued on March 19, 2020,⁴ eConsult volumes initially decreased, reflecting a similar decrease in clinic visits and authorization requests submitted to IEHP. We observed a 4-week average of 1100 eConsults processed before the pandemic, and then a steep drop to a 4-week average of 500 eConsults processed after the stay-at-home order was issued. Despite the overall drop in the volume of eConsults submitted, demand for specialties like hematology and neurology remained high throughout the pandemic.

During the pandemic, certain specialties displayed rising rates of eConsults completed with specialists providing care recommendations to the PCP instead of resulting in a recommendation for a face-to-face (in-person or via telehealth) visit with a specialist (see Figure and Table). The trend of increasing eConsults that concluded without a face-to-face visit suggests newfound clinical consideration of limited medical resources, along with the desire to eliminate unnecessary risks of infection.

eConsults between PCPs and specialist reviewers via the IEHP portal resulted in higher rates of non-face-to-face recommendations. The specialist reviewers were able to provide treatment plans for PCPs to take care of patients without having to refer their patients to a specialist. This increase was significant across most of the specialties live on the MCeI program.

We believe that clinicians’ heightened awareness of the limitations of the US health care system should remain a key consideration and factor in medical decision-making about appropriate referrals after the pandemic has passed. The data demonstrate that the pandemic drove clinicians to make different decisions about referrals and care coordination. Physicians scrutinized individual cases more keenly and were not as quick to recommend a face-to-face visit. This awareness and consideration of specialty access before making a referral provides a valuable lesson. If this approach is applied to health care delivery post-pandemic, eConsults will help reduce unnecessary in-person specialist visits and will free up space and time for patients who genuinely do need in-person specialty care. In this way, eConsult will improve appropriate access to care for everyone and reduce unnecessary costs to the health care system at large.

An examination of eConsult utilization trends across Riverside and San Bernardino counties before and during the COVID-19 pandemic provides useful insights into how to reduce costs and improve access to care. Although the risk of exposure to COVID-19 currently presents a significant obstacle to obtaining in-person specialty care, pre-existing and long-standing barriers, such as long wait times and scarcity of specialists, remain critical issues to receiving care during and after the pandemic. The pandemic has proven eConsult’s value as a tool for effective care coordination. Leveraging provider-to-provider asynchronous communication offers an opportunity to reduce unnecessary utilization of scarce resources during and beyond the pandemic.

Corresponding author: Lisa Aubry, Aubry-L@iehp.org.

Financial disclosures: None.

Keywords: electronic consultation; care coordination; telehealth; telemedicine; virtual care.

From the Multi-County eConsult Initiative, Rancho Cucamonga, CA.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many health care professionals and their patients to use telehealth and virtual care to address care needs in new ways.¹ To shed light on care coordination decisions with respect to specialty resource access, we analyzed data collected from the Multi-County eConsult Initiative (MCeI)—the second-largest electronic consultation (eConsult) program in the United States—before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our analysis of these data suggests opportunities for improving access to care and reducing unnecessary costs in the health system nationally.

The Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP) launched MCeI (econsultie.com) in 2018. The initiative is a partnership between IEHP, Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, and Riverside University Health System aimed at improving access to specialty care for the safety-net population across San Bernardino and Riverside counties. IEHP is 1 of the 10 largest Medicaid health plans and the largest not-for-profit Medicare-Medicaid plan in the country, serving more than 1.2 million members.² Data from MCel reveal the impacts of COVID-19 on eConsult use and offer insights into specialty resource availability during and outside of a crisis.

At the time of this analysis, 86 IEHP clinics in rural and urban settings across 38 specialties used the eConsult process to provide and obtain virtual specialty care, as well as timely appointments for in-person specialty care.³ eConsults are facilitated through a HIPAA-secure web-based portal that enables communication and sharing of information between the primary care provider (PCP) and a specialist. eConsult gives PCPs virtual access to specialists to coordinate care for their patients and determine the need for in-person specialty visits. Through the PCP-specialist eConsult dialogue, patients gain virtual access to specialty care. If a PCP-specialist care team determines the patient needs an in-person visit, that specialty referral is automatically authorized by IEHP, without the need for further review. At IEHP, eConsult is the primary method used for obtaining outpatient specialty referrals.

To analyze eConsult utilization before and during the pandemic, we gathered data from the MCeI program for the periods February 20–March 19, 2020, and March 20–April 19, 2020. Measures included eConsult volume and outcomes of eConsults (eConsults closed as referrals for face-to-face specialist visits versus eConsults closed without resulting in referrals for face-to-face specialist visits). Statistical analysis using chi-square tests for independence was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 (IBM, Armonk, NY).

The data show that after California’s stay-at-home order, issued on March 19, 2020,⁴ eConsult volumes initially decreased, reflecting a similar decrease in clinic visits and authorization requests submitted to IEHP. We observed a 4-week average of 1100 eConsults processed before the pandemic, and then a steep drop to a 4-week average of 500 eConsults processed after the stay-at-home order was issued. Despite the overall drop in the volume of eConsults submitted, demand for specialties like hematology and neurology remained high throughout the pandemic.

During the pandemic, certain specialties displayed rising rates of eConsults completed with specialists providing care recommendations to the PCP instead of resulting in a recommendation for a face-to-face (in-person or via telehealth) visit with a specialist (see Figure and Table). The trend of increasing eConsults that concluded without a face-to-face visit suggests newfound clinical consideration of limited medical resources, along with the desire to eliminate unnecessary risks of infection.

eConsults between PCPs and specialist reviewers via the IEHP portal resulted in higher rates of non-face-to-face recommendations. The specialist reviewers were able to provide treatment plans for PCPs to take care of patients without having to refer their patients to a specialist. This increase was significant across most of the specialties live on the MCeI program.

We believe that clinicians’ heightened awareness of the limitations of the US health care system should remain a key consideration and factor in medical decision-making about appropriate referrals after the pandemic has passed. The data demonstrate that the pandemic drove clinicians to make different decisions about referrals and care coordination. Physicians scrutinized individual cases more keenly and were not as quick to recommend a face-to-face visit. This awareness and consideration of specialty access before making a referral provides a valuable lesson. If this approach is applied to health care delivery post-pandemic, eConsults will help reduce unnecessary in-person specialist visits and will free up space and time for patients who genuinely do need in-person specialty care. In this way, eConsult will improve appropriate access to care for everyone and reduce unnecessary costs to the health care system at large.

An examination of eConsult utilization trends across Riverside and San Bernardino counties before and during the COVID-19 pandemic provides useful insights into how to reduce costs and improve access to care. Although the risk of exposure to COVID-19 currently presents a significant obstacle to obtaining in-person specialty care, pre-existing and long-standing barriers, such as long wait times and scarcity of specialists, remain critical issues to receiving care during and after the pandemic. The pandemic has proven eConsult’s value as a tool for effective care coordination. Leveraging provider-to-provider asynchronous communication offers an opportunity to reduce unnecessary utilization of scarce resources during and beyond the pandemic.

Corresponding author: Lisa Aubry, Aubry-L@iehp.org.

Financial disclosures: None.

Keywords: electronic consultation; care coordination; telehealth; telemedicine; virtual care.

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its financial impact, the number of physician recruitment searches conducted by Merritt Hawkins has dropped by 30% since March 31, the firm reported.

“Rather than having many practice opportunities to choose from, physicians now may have to compete to secure practice opportunities that meet their needs,” the authors wrote in Merritt Hawkins’ report on the impact of COVID-19.

Most of the report concerns physician recruitment from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The data were mostly derived from searches that Merritt Hawkins conducted before the effects of the pandemic was fully felt.

Family medicine was again the most sought-after specialty, as it has been for the past 14 years. But demand for primary care doctors – including family physicians, internists, and pediatricians – leveled off, and average starting salaries for primary care doctors dropped during 2019-2020. In contrast, the number of searches conducted for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) increased by 54%, and their salaries increased slightly.

To explain the lackluster prospects for primary care before the pandemic, the authors cited research showing that patients were turning away from the traditional office visit model. At the same time, there was a rise in visits to NPs and PAs, including those in urgent care centers and retail clinics.

As a result of decreased demand for primary care physicians and the rising prevalence of telehealth, Merritt Hawkins expects primary care salaries to drop overall. With telehealth generating a larger portion of revenues, “it is uncertain whether primary care physicians will be able to sustain levels of reimbursement that were prevalent pre-COVID even at such time as the economy is improved and utilization increases,” the authors reported.

Demand for specialists was increasing prior to the COVID-19 crisis, partly as a result of the aging of the population. Seventy-eight percent of all searches were for medical specialists, compared with 67% 5 years ago. However, the pandemic has set back specialist searches. “Demand and compensation for specialists also will change as a result of COVID-19 in response to declines in the volume of medical procedures,” according to the authors.

In contrast, the recruitment of doctors who are on the front line of COVID-19 care is expected to increase. Among the fields anticipated to be in demand are emergency department specialists, infectious disease specialists, and pulmonology/critical care physicians. Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, said in an interview that this trend is already happening and will accelerate as COVID-19 hot spots arise across the country.

Specialists in different fields received either higher or lower offers than during the previous year. Starting salaries for noninvasive cardiologists, for example, dropped 7.3%; gastroenterologists earned 7.7% less; and neurologists, 6.9% less. In contrast, orthopedic surgeons saw offers surge 16.7%; radiologists, 9.3%; and pulmonologists/critical care specialists, 7.7%.

Physicians were offered salaries plus bonuses in three-quarters of searches. Relative value unit–based production remained the most common basis for bonuses. Quality/value-based metrics were used in computing 64% of bonuses – up from 56% the previous year – but still determined only 11% of total physician compensation.
 

Pandemic outlook

Whereas health care helped drive the U.S. economy in 2018-2019, the pace of job growth in health care has decreased since March. As a result of the pandemic, health care spending in the United States declined by 18% in the first quarter of 2020. Physician practice revenue dropped by 55% during the first quarter, and many small and solo practices are still struggling.

In a 2018 Merritt Hawkins survey, 18% of physicians said they had used telehealth to treat patients. Because of the pandemic, that percentage jumped to 48% in April 2020. But telehealth hasn’t made up for the loss of patient revenue from in-office procedures, tests, and other services, and it still isn’t being reimbursed at the same level as in-office visits.

With practices under severe financial strain, the authors explained, “A majority of private practices have curtailed most physician recruiting activity since the virus emerged.”

In some states, many specialty practices have been adversely affected by the suspension of elective procedures, and specialty practices that rely on nonessential procedures are unlikely to recruit additional physicians.
 

One-third of practices could close

The survival of many private practices is now in question. “Based on the losses physician practices have sustained as a result of COVID-19, some markets could lose up to 35% or more of their most vulnerable group practices while a large percent of others will be acquired,” the authors wrote.

Hospitals and health systems will acquire the bulk of these practices, in many cases at fire-sale prices, Mr. Singleton predicted. This enormous shift from private practice to employment, he added, “will have as much to do with the [physician] income levels we’re going to see as the demand for the specialties themselves.”

Right now, he said, Merritt Hawkins is fielding a huge number of requests from doctors seeking employment, but there aren’t many jobs out there. “We haven’t seen an employer-friendly market like this since the 1970s,” he noted. “Before the pandemic, a physician might have had five to 10 jobs to choose from. Now it’s the opposite: We have one job, and 5 to 10 physicians are applying for it.”

Singleton believes the market will adjust by the second quarter of next year. Even if the pandemic worsens, he said, the system will have made the necessary corrections and adjustments “because we have to start seeing patients again, both in terms of demand and economics. So these doctors will be in demand again and will have work.”
 

Contingent employment

Although the COVID-related falloff in revenue has hit private practices the hardest, some employed physicians have also found themselves in a bind. According to a Merritt Hawkins/Physicians Foundation survey conducted in April, 21% of physicians said they had been furloughed or had taken a pay cut.

Mr. Singleton views this trend as part of hospitals’ reassessment of how they’re going to deal with labor going forward. To cope with utilization ebbs and flows in response to the virus, hospitals are now considering what the report calls a “contingent labor/flex staffing model.”

Under this type of arrangement, which some hospitals have already adopted, physicians may no longer work full time in a single setting, Mr. Singleton said. They may be asked to conduct telehealth visits on nights and weekends and work 20 hours a week in the clinic, or they may have shifts in multiple hospitals or clinics.

“You can make as much or more on a temporary basis as on a permanent basis,” he said. “But you have to be more flexible. You may have to travel or do a different scope of work, or work in different settings.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its financial impact, the number of physician recruitment searches conducted by Merritt Hawkins has dropped by 30% since March 31, the firm reported.

“Rather than having many practice opportunities to choose from, physicians now may have to compete to secure practice opportunities that meet their needs,” the authors wrote in Merritt Hawkins’ report on the impact of COVID-19.

Most of the report concerns physician recruitment from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The data were mostly derived from searches that Merritt Hawkins conducted before the effects of the pandemic was fully felt.

Family medicine was again the most sought-after specialty, as it has been for the past 14 years. But demand for primary care doctors – including family physicians, internists, and pediatricians – leveled off, and average starting salaries for primary care doctors dropped during 2019-2020. In contrast, the number of searches conducted for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) increased by 54%, and their salaries increased slightly.

To explain the lackluster prospects for primary care before the pandemic, the authors cited research showing that patients were turning away from the traditional office visit model. At the same time, there was a rise in visits to NPs and PAs, including those in urgent care centers and retail clinics.

As a result of decreased demand for primary care physicians and the rising prevalence of telehealth, Merritt Hawkins expects primary care salaries to drop overall. With telehealth generating a larger portion of revenues, “it is uncertain whether primary care physicians will be able to sustain levels of reimbursement that were prevalent pre-COVID even at such time as the economy is improved and utilization increases,” the authors reported.

Demand for specialists was increasing prior to the COVID-19 crisis, partly as a result of the aging of the population. Seventy-eight percent of all searches were for medical specialists, compared with 67% 5 years ago. However, the pandemic has set back specialist searches. “Demand and compensation for specialists also will change as a result of COVID-19 in response to declines in the volume of medical procedures,” according to the authors.

In contrast, the recruitment of doctors who are on the front line of COVID-19 care is expected to increase. Among the fields anticipated to be in demand are emergency department specialists, infectious disease specialists, and pulmonology/critical care physicians. Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, said in an interview that this trend is already happening and will accelerate as COVID-19 hot spots arise across the country.

Specialists in different fields received either higher or lower offers than during the previous year. Starting salaries for noninvasive cardiologists, for example, dropped 7.3%; gastroenterologists earned 7.7% less; and neurologists, 6.9% less. In contrast, orthopedic surgeons saw offers surge 16.7%; radiologists, 9.3%; and pulmonologists/critical care specialists, 7.7%.

Physicians were offered salaries plus bonuses in three-quarters of searches. Relative value unit–based production remained the most common basis for bonuses. Quality/value-based metrics were used in computing 64% of bonuses – up from 56% the previous year – but still determined only 11% of total physician compensation.
 

Pandemic outlook

Whereas health care helped drive the U.S. economy in 2018-2019, the pace of job growth in health care has decreased since March. As a result of the pandemic, health care spending in the United States declined by 18% in the first quarter of 2020. Physician practice revenue dropped by 55% during the first quarter, and many small and solo practices are still struggling.

In a 2018 Merritt Hawkins survey, 18% of physicians said they had used telehealth to treat patients. Because of the pandemic, that percentage jumped to 48% in April 2020. But telehealth hasn’t made up for the loss of patient revenue from in-office procedures, tests, and other services, and it still isn’t being reimbursed at the same level as in-office visits.

With practices under severe financial strain, the authors explained, “A majority of private practices have curtailed most physician recruiting activity since the virus emerged.”

In some states, many specialty practices have been adversely affected by the suspension of elective procedures, and specialty practices that rely on nonessential procedures are unlikely to recruit additional physicians.
 

One-third of practices could close

The survival of many private practices is now in question. “Based on the losses physician practices have sustained as a result of COVID-19, some markets could lose up to 35% or more of their most vulnerable group practices while a large percent of others will be acquired,” the authors wrote.

Hospitals and health systems will acquire the bulk of these practices, in many cases at fire-sale prices, Mr. Singleton predicted. This enormous shift from private practice to employment, he added, “will have as much to do with the [physician] income levels we’re going to see as the demand for the specialties themselves.”

Right now, he said, Merritt Hawkins is fielding a huge number of requests from doctors seeking employment, but there aren’t many jobs out there. “We haven’t seen an employer-friendly market like this since the 1970s,” he noted. “Before the pandemic, a physician might have had five to 10 jobs to choose from. Now it’s the opposite: We have one job, and 5 to 10 physicians are applying for it.”

Singleton believes the market will adjust by the second quarter of next year. Even if the pandemic worsens, he said, the system will have made the necessary corrections and adjustments “because we have to start seeing patients again, both in terms of demand and economics. So these doctors will be in demand again and will have work.”
 

Contingent employment

Although the COVID-related falloff in revenue has hit private practices the hardest, some employed physicians have also found themselves in a bind. According to a Merritt Hawkins/Physicians Foundation survey conducted in April, 21% of physicians said they had been furloughed or had taken a pay cut.

Mr. Singleton views this trend as part of hospitals’ reassessment of how they’re going to deal with labor going forward. To cope with utilization ebbs and flows in response to the virus, hospitals are now considering what the report calls a “contingent labor/flex staffing model.”

Under this type of arrangement, which some hospitals have already adopted, physicians may no longer work full time in a single setting, Mr. Singleton said. They may be asked to conduct telehealth visits on nights and weekends and work 20 hours a week in the clinic, or they may have shifts in multiple hospitals or clinics.

“You can make as much or more on a temporary basis as on a permanent basis,” he said. “But you have to be more flexible. You may have to travel or do a different scope of work, or work in different settings.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its financial impact, the number of physician recruitment searches conducted by Merritt Hawkins has dropped by 30% since March 31, the firm reported.

“Rather than having many practice opportunities to choose from, physicians now may have to compete to secure practice opportunities that meet their needs,” the authors wrote in Merritt Hawkins’ report on the impact of COVID-19.

Most of the report concerns physician recruitment from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The data were mostly derived from searches that Merritt Hawkins conducted before the effects of the pandemic was fully felt.

Family medicine was again the most sought-after specialty, as it has been for the past 14 years. But demand for primary care doctors – including family physicians, internists, and pediatricians – leveled off, and average starting salaries for primary care doctors dropped during 2019-2020. In contrast, the number of searches conducted for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) increased by 54%, and their salaries increased slightly.

To explain the lackluster prospects for primary care before the pandemic, the authors cited research showing that patients were turning away from the traditional office visit model. At the same time, there was a rise in visits to NPs and PAs, including those in urgent care centers and retail clinics.

As a result of decreased demand for primary care physicians and the rising prevalence of telehealth, Merritt Hawkins expects primary care salaries to drop overall. With telehealth generating a larger portion of revenues, “it is uncertain whether primary care physicians will be able to sustain levels of reimbursement that were prevalent pre-COVID even at such time as the economy is improved and utilization increases,” the authors reported.

Demand for specialists was increasing prior to the COVID-19 crisis, partly as a result of the aging of the population. Seventy-eight percent of all searches were for medical specialists, compared with 67% 5 years ago. However, the pandemic has set back specialist searches. “Demand and compensation for specialists also will change as a result of COVID-19 in response to declines in the volume of medical procedures,” according to the authors.

In contrast, the recruitment of doctors who are on the front line of COVID-19 care is expected to increase. Among the fields anticipated to be in demand are emergency department specialists, infectious disease specialists, and pulmonology/critical care physicians. Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, said in an interview that this trend is already happening and will accelerate as COVID-19 hot spots arise across the country.

Specialists in different fields received either higher or lower offers than during the previous year. Starting salaries for noninvasive cardiologists, for example, dropped 7.3%; gastroenterologists earned 7.7% less; and neurologists, 6.9% less. In contrast, orthopedic surgeons saw offers surge 16.7%; radiologists, 9.3%; and pulmonologists/critical care specialists, 7.7%.

Physicians were offered salaries plus bonuses in three-quarters of searches. Relative value unit–based production remained the most common basis for bonuses. Quality/value-based metrics were used in computing 64% of bonuses – up from 56% the previous year – but still determined only 11% of total physician compensation.
 

Pandemic outlook

Whereas health care helped drive the U.S. economy in 2018-2019, the pace of job growth in health care has decreased since March. As a result of the pandemic, health care spending in the United States declined by 18% in the first quarter of 2020. Physician practice revenue dropped by 55% during the first quarter, and many small and solo practices are still struggling.

In a 2018 Merritt Hawkins survey, 18% of physicians said they had used telehealth to treat patients. Because of the pandemic, that percentage jumped to 48% in April 2020. But telehealth hasn’t made up for the loss of patient revenue from in-office procedures, tests, and other services, and it still isn’t being reimbursed at the same level as in-office visits.

With practices under severe financial strain, the authors explained, “A majority of private practices have curtailed most physician recruiting activity since the virus emerged.”

In some states, many specialty practices have been adversely affected by the suspension of elective procedures, and specialty practices that rely on nonessential procedures are unlikely to recruit additional physicians.
 

One-third of practices could close

The survival of many private practices is now in question. “Based on the losses physician practices have sustained as a result of COVID-19, some markets could lose up to 35% or more of their most vulnerable group practices while a large percent of others will be acquired,” the authors wrote.

Hospitals and health systems will acquire the bulk of these practices, in many cases at fire-sale prices, Mr. Singleton predicted. This enormous shift from private practice to employment, he added, “will have as much to do with the [physician] income levels we’re going to see as the demand for the specialties themselves.”

Right now, he said, Merritt Hawkins is fielding a huge number of requests from doctors seeking employment, but there aren’t many jobs out there. “We haven’t seen an employer-friendly market like this since the 1970s,” he noted. “Before the pandemic, a physician might have had five to 10 jobs to choose from. Now it’s the opposite: We have one job, and 5 to 10 physicians are applying for it.”

Singleton believes the market will adjust by the second quarter of next year. Even if the pandemic worsens, he said, the system will have made the necessary corrections and adjustments “because we have to start seeing patients again, both in terms of demand and economics. So these doctors will be in demand again and will have work.”
 

Contingent employment

Although the COVID-related falloff in revenue has hit private practices the hardest, some employed physicians have also found themselves in a bind. According to a Merritt Hawkins/Physicians Foundation survey conducted in April, 21% of physicians said they had been furloughed or had taken a pay cut.

Mr. Singleton views this trend as part of hospitals’ reassessment of how they’re going to deal with labor going forward. To cope with utilization ebbs and flows in response to the virus, hospitals are now considering what the report calls a “contingent labor/flex staffing model.”

Under this type of arrangement, which some hospitals have already adopted, physicians may no longer work full time in a single setting, Mr. Singleton said. They may be asked to conduct telehealth visits on nights and weekends and work 20 hours a week in the clinic, or they may have shifts in multiple hospitals or clinics.

“You can make as much or more on a temporary basis as on a permanent basis,” he said. “But you have to be more flexible. You may have to travel or do a different scope of work, or work in different settings.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Let me start with these 3 words that really should never have to be said: Black Lives Matter.

It was hard to sit down to write this piece—not just because it’s a sunny Sunday morning, but because I’m still afraid I’ll get it wrong, show my white privilege, offend someone. George Floyd’s murder has been a reckoning for Black Americans, for the police, for the nation (maybe the world), and for me. I live in a multi-racial household, and we have redoubled our efforts to talk about racism and bias and question our assumptions as part of our daily conversations. After Mr. Floyd was killed, I decided that I would try to be less afraid of getting it wrong and be more outspoken about my support for Black Lives Matter and for the work that we need to do in this country, and in ourselves, to become more antiracist.

Here are some things that I know: I know that study after study has shown that health care and health outcomes are worse for Black people than for White people. I know that people of color are sickening and dying with COVID-19 before our eyes, just as other pandemics, such as HIV, differentially affect communities of color. I know, too, that a Black physician executive who lives around the corner from me has been stopped by our local police more than 10 times; I have been stopped by our local police exactly once.

I don’t know how to fix it. But I do know that my silence won’t help. Here are some things I am trying to do at home and at work: I am educating myself about race and racism. I’m not asking my Black peers, patients, or colleagues to teach me, but I am listening to what they tell me, when they want to tell me. I am reading books like Ibram Kendi’s How to Be Antiracist and Bernadine Evaristo’s Girl, Woman, Other. I challenge myself to read articles that I might have skipped over—because they were simply too painful. People of color don’t have a choice about facing their pain. I have that choice—it’s a privilege—and I choose to be an ally.

I’m speaking up even when I’m afraid that I might say the wrong thing. This can take several forms—questioning assumptions about race and racism when it comes up, which is often, in medicine. It also means amplifying the voices that don’t always get heard—asking a young person of color her opinion in a meeting, retweeting the thoughts of a Black colleague, thanking someone publicly or personally for a comment, an idea, or the kernel of something important. I ask people to correct me, and I try to be humble in accepting criticism or correction.

Being a better ally also means putting our money where our mouth is, supporting Black-owned businesses and restaurants, and donating to causes that support equality and justice. We can diversify our social media feeds. We have to be willing to be excluded from the conversation—if you’re white or straight or cis-gendered, it’s not about you—and be ready to feel uncomfortable. We can encourage our organizations to do better. I’m proud of my organization, which had already started working to make our organizational culture even more inclusive.

Black Lives Matter. I’m looking forward to a day when that is so obvious that we don’t have to say it. Until then, I’m going to be hard at work with my head, my ears, and my whole heart.

Let me start with these 3 words that really should never have to be said: Black Lives Matter.

It was hard to sit down to write this piece—not just because it’s a sunny Sunday morning, but because I’m still afraid I’ll get it wrong, show my white privilege, offend someone. George Floyd’s murder has been a reckoning for Black Americans, for the police, for the nation (maybe the world), and for me. I live in a multi-racial household, and we have redoubled our efforts to talk about racism and bias and question our assumptions as part of our daily conversations. After Mr. Floyd was killed, I decided that I would try to be less afraid of getting it wrong and be more outspoken about my support for Black Lives Matter and for the work that we need to do in this country, and in ourselves, to become more antiracist.

Here are some things that I know: I know that study after study has shown that health care and health outcomes are worse for Black people than for White people. I know that people of color are sickening and dying with COVID-19 before our eyes, just as other pandemics, such as HIV, differentially affect communities of color. I know, too, that a Black physician executive who lives around the corner from me has been stopped by our local police more than 10 times; I have been stopped by our local police exactly once.

I don’t know how to fix it. But I do know that my silence won’t help. Here are some things I am trying to do at home and at work: I am educating myself about race and racism. I’m not asking my Black peers, patients, or colleagues to teach me, but I am listening to what they tell me, when they want to tell me. I am reading books like Ibram Kendi’s How to Be Antiracist and Bernadine Evaristo’s Girl, Woman, Other. I challenge myself to read articles that I might have skipped over—because they were simply too painful. People of color don’t have a choice about facing their pain. I have that choice—it’s a privilege—and I choose to be an ally.

I’m speaking up even when I’m afraid that I might say the wrong thing. This can take several forms—questioning assumptions about race and racism when it comes up, which is often, in medicine. It also means amplifying the voices that don’t always get heard—asking a young person of color her opinion in a meeting, retweeting the thoughts of a Black colleague, thanking someone publicly or personally for a comment, an idea, or the kernel of something important. I ask people to correct me, and I try to be humble in accepting criticism or correction.

Being a better ally also means putting our money where our mouth is, supporting Black-owned businesses and restaurants, and donating to causes that support equality and justice. We can diversify our social media feeds. We have to be willing to be excluded from the conversation—if you’re white or straight or cis-gendered, it’s not about you—and be ready to feel uncomfortable. We can encourage our organizations to do better. I’m proud of my organization, which had already started working to make our organizational culture even more inclusive.

Black Lives Matter. I’m looking forward to a day when that is so obvious that we don’t have to say it. Until then, I’m going to be hard at work with my head, my ears, and my whole heart.

Let me start with these 3 words that really should never have to be said: Black Lives Matter.

It was hard to sit down to write this piece—not just because it’s a sunny Sunday morning, but because I’m still afraid I’ll get it wrong, show my white privilege, offend someone. George Floyd’s murder has been a reckoning for Black Americans, for the police, for the nation (maybe the world), and for me. I live in a multi-racial household, and we have redoubled our efforts to talk about racism and bias and question our assumptions as part of our daily conversations. After Mr. Floyd was killed, I decided that I would try to be less afraid of getting it wrong and be more outspoken about my support for Black Lives Matter and for the work that we need to do in this country, and in ourselves, to become more antiracist.

Here are some things that I know: I know that study after study has shown that health care and health outcomes are worse for Black people than for White people. I know that people of color are sickening and dying with COVID-19 before our eyes, just as other pandemics, such as HIV, differentially affect communities of color. I know, too, that a Black physician executive who lives around the corner from me has been stopped by our local police more than 10 times; I have been stopped by our local police exactly once.

I don’t know how to fix it. But I do know that my silence won’t help. Here are some things I am trying to do at home and at work: I am educating myself about race and racism. I’m not asking my Black peers, patients, or colleagues to teach me, but I am listening to what they tell me, when they want to tell me. I am reading books like Ibram Kendi’s How to Be Antiracist and Bernadine Evaristo’s Girl, Woman, Other. I challenge myself to read articles that I might have skipped over—because they were simply too painful. People of color don’t have a choice about facing their pain. I have that choice—it’s a privilege—and I choose to be an ally.

I’m speaking up even when I’m afraid that I might say the wrong thing. This can take several forms—questioning assumptions about race and racism when it comes up, which is often, in medicine. It also means amplifying the voices that don’t always get heard—asking a young person of color her opinion in a meeting, retweeting the thoughts of a Black colleague, thanking someone publicly or personally for a comment, an idea, or the kernel of something important. I ask people to correct me, and I try to be humble in accepting criticism or correction.

Being a better ally also means putting our money where our mouth is, supporting Black-owned businesses and restaurants, and donating to causes that support equality and justice. We can diversify our social media feeds. We have to be willing to be excluded from the conversation—if you’re white or straight or cis-gendered, it’s not about you—and be ready to feel uncomfortable. We can encourage our organizations to do better. I’m proud of my organization, which had already started working to make our organizational culture even more inclusive.

Black Lives Matter. I’m looking forward to a day when that is so obvious that we don’t have to say it. Until then, I’m going to be hard at work with my head, my ears, and my whole heart.

For the fifth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, claimed the number one spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published today by US News & World Report.

This year’s rankings include special recognition of the “herculean efforts” by the nation’s healthcare professionals in fighting COVID-19, often at great personal risk.

“The US News Hospital Heroes series is a cornerstone of this year’s rankings package, profiling more than 65 health care heroes from across the country, along with commentary from top executives at hospitals who faced the pandemic head on,” a news release from the magazine explains.

“The pandemic has altered, perhaps permanently, how patients get care and from whom they get it. Amid the disruption, we are steadfastly committed to providing the public with authoritative data for comparing hospital quality,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis at US News, said in the release.

“No hospital’s clinical team came through this unprecedented health crisis unscathed. Our Hospital Heroes series is a tribute to recognizing individuals at urban and rural hospitals in communities across the country who have gone above and beyond during this unparalleled time in history,” said Harder.

Mayo Clinic Still Number One

Following Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio takes the number two spot this year (up from number four last year) in the magazine’s annual honor roll, which highlights hospitals that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, holds the number three spot, while New York-Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell in New York City and UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, tie for the number four spot.

Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which held the number two spot last year, has fallen to number six. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York City; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois.

2020–2021 Best Hospitals Honor Roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

2. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

3. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

4. (tie) New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York City

4. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

7. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

8. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

9. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York, New York City

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor

12. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

13. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, California

14. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City

15. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

16. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix

17. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

18. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Saint Louis

18. (tie) Keck Hospital of USC, Los Angeles

20. Houston Methodist Hospital, Texas

In the 2020–2021 Best Hospitals: Specialty Rankings, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the number one spot in cancer, the Hospital for Special Surgery is number one in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic is number one in cardiology and heart surgery.

For this year’s rankings, US News developed a new cardiac rating that measures the quality of hospitals› transcatheter aortic valve replacement, which is rapidly being adopted as a minimally invasive alternative to aortic valve surgery.

Top Five for Cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

5. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

 

Top Five for Cardiology and Heart Surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, NYC

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

 

Top Five for Orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York City

5. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the 2020–2021 rankings and ratings, US News compared more than 4500 medical centers across the country in 16 specialties and 10 procedures and conditions. Of these, 563 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals on the basis of their strong performance in multiple areas of care. The top 20 hospitals, which deliver exceptional treatment across many areas of care, were also named to the honor roll.

The magazine notes that data for the 2020–2021 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings come from a period predating the COVID-19 pandemic and were not affected by the pandemic’s impact on hospitals. The methodologies are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival and discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report on hospital ranking is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the fifth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, claimed the number one spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published today by US News & World Report.

This year’s rankings include special recognition of the “herculean efforts” by the nation’s healthcare professionals in fighting COVID-19, often at great personal risk.

“The US News Hospital Heroes series is a cornerstone of this year’s rankings package, profiling more than 65 health care heroes from across the country, along with commentary from top executives at hospitals who faced the pandemic head on,” a news release from the magazine explains.

“The pandemic has altered, perhaps permanently, how patients get care and from whom they get it. Amid the disruption, we are steadfastly committed to providing the public with authoritative data for comparing hospital quality,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis at US News, said in the release.

“No hospital’s clinical team came through this unprecedented health crisis unscathed. Our Hospital Heroes series is a tribute to recognizing individuals at urban and rural hospitals in communities across the country who have gone above and beyond during this unparalleled time in history,” said Harder.

Mayo Clinic Still Number One

Following Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio takes the number two spot this year (up from number four last year) in the magazine’s annual honor roll, which highlights hospitals that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, holds the number three spot, while New York-Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell in New York City and UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, tie for the number four spot.

Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which held the number two spot last year, has fallen to number six. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York City; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois.

2020–2021 Best Hospitals Honor Roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

2. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

3. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

4. (tie) New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York City

4. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

7. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

8. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

9. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York, New York City

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor

12. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

13. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, California

14. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City

15. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

16. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix

17. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

18. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Saint Louis

18. (tie) Keck Hospital of USC, Los Angeles

20. Houston Methodist Hospital, Texas

In the 2020–2021 Best Hospitals: Specialty Rankings, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the number one spot in cancer, the Hospital for Special Surgery is number one in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic is number one in cardiology and heart surgery.

For this year’s rankings, US News developed a new cardiac rating that measures the quality of hospitals› transcatheter aortic valve replacement, which is rapidly being adopted as a minimally invasive alternative to aortic valve surgery.

Top Five for Cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

5. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

 

Top Five for Cardiology and Heart Surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, NYC

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

 

Top Five for Orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York City

5. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the 2020–2021 rankings and ratings, US News compared more than 4500 medical centers across the country in 16 specialties and 10 procedures and conditions. Of these, 563 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals on the basis of their strong performance in multiple areas of care. The top 20 hospitals, which deliver exceptional treatment across many areas of care, were also named to the honor roll.

The magazine notes that data for the 2020–2021 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings come from a period predating the COVID-19 pandemic and were not affected by the pandemic’s impact on hospitals. The methodologies are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival and discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report on hospital ranking is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the fifth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, claimed the number one spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published today by US News & World Report.

This year’s rankings include special recognition of the “herculean efforts” by the nation’s healthcare professionals in fighting COVID-19, often at great personal risk.

“The US News Hospital Heroes series is a cornerstone of this year’s rankings package, profiling more than 65 health care heroes from across the country, along with commentary from top executives at hospitals who faced the pandemic head on,” a news release from the magazine explains.

“The pandemic has altered, perhaps permanently, how patients get care and from whom they get it. Amid the disruption, we are steadfastly committed to providing the public with authoritative data for comparing hospital quality,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis at US News, said in the release.

“No hospital’s clinical team came through this unprecedented health crisis unscathed. Our Hospital Heroes series is a tribute to recognizing individuals at urban and rural hospitals in communities across the country who have gone above and beyond during this unparalleled time in history,” said Harder.

Mayo Clinic Still Number One

Following Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio takes the number two spot this year (up from number four last year) in the magazine’s annual honor roll, which highlights hospitals that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, holds the number three spot, while New York-Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell in New York City and UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, tie for the number four spot.

Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which held the number two spot last year, has fallen to number six. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York City; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois.

2020–2021 Best Hospitals Honor Roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

2. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

3. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

4. (tie) New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York City

4. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

7. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

8. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

9. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York, New York City

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor

12. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

13. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, California

14. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City

15. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

16. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix

17. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

18. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Saint Louis

18. (tie) Keck Hospital of USC, Los Angeles

20. Houston Methodist Hospital, Texas

In the 2020–2021 Best Hospitals: Specialty Rankings, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the number one spot in cancer, the Hospital for Special Surgery is number one in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic is number one in cardiology and heart surgery.

For this year’s rankings, US News developed a new cardiac rating that measures the quality of hospitals› transcatheter aortic valve replacement, which is rapidly being adopted as a minimally invasive alternative to aortic valve surgery.

Top Five for Cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

5. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

 

Top Five for Cardiology and Heart Surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, NYC

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

 

Top Five for Orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York City

5. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the 2020–2021 rankings and ratings, US News compared more than 4500 medical centers across the country in 16 specialties and 10 procedures and conditions. Of these, 563 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals on the basis of their strong performance in multiple areas of care. The top 20 hospitals, which deliver exceptional treatment across many areas of care, were also named to the honor roll.

The magazine notes that data for the 2020–2021 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings come from a period predating the COVID-19 pandemic and were not affected by the pandemic’s impact on hospitals. The methodologies are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival and discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report on hospital ranking is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Since the early 2000s, approximately half of medical students in the United States – and in many years, more than half – have been women, but the proportion of women occupying leadership roles in medicine remains low, according to an update provided at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

In pediatrics, a specialty in which approximately 70% of physicians are now women, there has been progress, but still less than 30% of pediatric department chairs are female, said Vincent Chiang, MD, chief medical officer of Boston Children’s Hospital, during a presentation at the virtual meeting sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

Citing published data and a survey he personally conducted of the top children’s hospitals identified by the U.S. News and World Report, Dr. Chiang said a minority of division chiefs, chief medical officers, chief financial officers, and other leaders are female. At his institution, only 2 of 16 division chiefs are female.

“No matter how you slice it, women are underrepresented in leadership positions,” he noted.

The problem is certainly not confined to medicine. Dr. Chiang cited data showing that women and men have reached “near parity” in workforce participation in the United States even though the 20% earnings gap has changed little over time.

According to 2020 data from the World Economic Forum, the United States ranked 51 for the gender gap calculated on the basis of economic, political, educational, and health attainment. Even if this places the United States in the top third of the rankings, it is far behind Iceland and the Scandinavian countries that lead the list.

Efforts to reduce structural biases are part of the fix, but Dr. Chiang cautioned that fundamental changes might never occur if the plan is to wait for an approach based on meritocracy. He said that existing structural biases are “slanted away from women,” who are not necessarily granted the opportunities that are readily available to men.

“A meritocracy only works if the initial playing field was level. Otherwise, it just perpetuates the inequalities,” he said.

The problem is not a shortage of women with the skills to lead. In a study by Zenger/Folkman, a consulting company that works on leadership skill development, women performed better than men in 16 of 18 leadership categories, according to Dr. Chiang.

“There is certainly no shortage of capable women,” he noted.

Of the many issues, Dr. Chiang highlighted two. The first is the challenge of placing women on leadership pathways. This is likely to require proactive strategies, such as fast-track advancement programs that guide female candidates toward leadership roles.

The second is more nuanced. According to Dr. Chiang, women who want to assume a leadership role should think more actively about how and who is making decisions at their institution so they can position themselves appropriately. This is nuanced because “there is a certain amount of gamesmanship,” he said. The rise to leadership “has never been a pure meritocracy.”

Importantly, many of the key decisions in any institution involve money, according to Dr. Chiang. As a result, he advised those seeking leadership roles to join audit committees or otherwise take on responsibility for profit-and-loss management. Even in a nonprofit institution, “you need to make the numbers work,” he said, citing the common catchphrase: “No margin, no mission.”

However, Dr. Chiang acknowledged the many obstacles that prevent women from working their way into positions of leadership. For example, networking is important, but women are not necessarily attracted or invited to some of the social engagements, such as golf outings, where strong relationships are created.

In a survey of 100,000 people working at Fortune 500 companies, “82% of women say they feel excluded at work and much of that comes from that informal networking,” Dr. Chiang said. “Whereas 92% of men think they are not excluding women in their daily work.”

There is no single solution, but Dr. Chiang believes that concrete structural changes are needed. Female doctors remain grossly underrepresented in leadership roles even as they now represent more than half of the workforce for many specialties. Based on the need for proactive approaches outlined by Dr. Chiang, it appears unlikely that gender inequality will ever resolve itself.

Lisa S. Rotenstein, MD, who has written on fixing the gender imbalance in health care, including for the Harvard Business Review, said she agreed during an interview that structural changes are critical.

“In order to address current disparities, leaders should be thinking about how to remove both the formal and informal obstacles that prevent women and minorities from getting into the rooms where these decisions are being made,” said Dr. Rotenstein, who is an instructor in medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School in Boston.

“This will need to involve sponsorship that gets women invited to the right committees or in positions with responsibility for profit-and-loss management,” she added.

Dr. Rotenstein spoke about improving “access to the pipeline” that leads to leadership roles. The ways in which women are excluded from opportunities is often subtle and difficult to penetrate without fundamental changes, she explained.

“Institutions need to understand the processes that lead to leadership roles and make the changes that allow women and minorities to participate,” she said. It is not enough to recognize the problem, according to Dr. Rotenstein.

Like Dr. Chiang, she noted that changes are needed in the methods that move underrepresented groups into leadership roles.

Dr. Chiang reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

Since the early 2000s, approximately half of medical students in the United States – and in many years, more than half – have been women, but the proportion of women occupying leadership roles in medicine remains low, according to an update provided at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

In pediatrics, a specialty in which approximately 70% of physicians are now women, there has been progress, but still less than 30% of pediatric department chairs are female, said Vincent Chiang, MD, chief medical officer of Boston Children’s Hospital, during a presentation at the virtual meeting sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

Citing published data and a survey he personally conducted of the top children’s hospitals identified by the U.S. News and World Report, Dr. Chiang said a minority of division chiefs, chief medical officers, chief financial officers, and other leaders are female. At his institution, only 2 of 16 division chiefs are female.

“No matter how you slice it, women are underrepresented in leadership positions,” he noted.

The problem is certainly not confined to medicine. Dr. Chiang cited data showing that women and men have reached “near parity” in workforce participation in the United States even though the 20% earnings gap has changed little over time.

According to 2020 data from the World Economic Forum, the United States ranked 51 for the gender gap calculated on the basis of economic, political, educational, and health attainment. Even if this places the United States in the top third of the rankings, it is far behind Iceland and the Scandinavian countries that lead the list.

Efforts to reduce structural biases are part of the fix, but Dr. Chiang cautioned that fundamental changes might never occur if the plan is to wait for an approach based on meritocracy. He said that existing structural biases are “slanted away from women,” who are not necessarily granted the opportunities that are readily available to men.

“A meritocracy only works if the initial playing field was level. Otherwise, it just perpetuates the inequalities,” he said.

The problem is not a shortage of women with the skills to lead. In a study by Zenger/Folkman, a consulting company that works on leadership skill development, women performed better than men in 16 of 18 leadership categories, according to Dr. Chiang.

“There is certainly no shortage of capable women,” he noted.

Of the many issues, Dr. Chiang highlighted two. The first is the challenge of placing women on leadership pathways. This is likely to require proactive strategies, such as fast-track advancement programs that guide female candidates toward leadership roles.

The second is more nuanced. According to Dr. Chiang, women who want to assume a leadership role should think more actively about how and who is making decisions at their institution so they can position themselves appropriately. This is nuanced because “there is a certain amount of gamesmanship,” he said. The rise to leadership “has never been a pure meritocracy.”

Importantly, many of the key decisions in any institution involve money, according to Dr. Chiang. As a result, he advised those seeking leadership roles to join audit committees or otherwise take on responsibility for profit-and-loss management. Even in a nonprofit institution, “you need to make the numbers work,” he said, citing the common catchphrase: “No margin, no mission.”

However, Dr. Chiang acknowledged the many obstacles that prevent women from working their way into positions of leadership. For example, networking is important, but women are not necessarily attracted or invited to some of the social engagements, such as golf outings, where strong relationships are created.

In a survey of 100,000 people working at Fortune 500 companies, “82% of women say they feel excluded at work and much of that comes from that informal networking,” Dr. Chiang said. “Whereas 92% of men think they are not excluding women in their daily work.”

There is no single solution, but Dr. Chiang believes that concrete structural changes are needed. Female doctors remain grossly underrepresented in leadership roles even as they now represent more than half of the workforce for many specialties. Based on the need for proactive approaches outlined by Dr. Chiang, it appears unlikely that gender inequality will ever resolve itself.

Lisa S. Rotenstein, MD, who has written on fixing the gender imbalance in health care, including for the Harvard Business Review, said she agreed during an interview that structural changes are critical.

“In order to address current disparities, leaders should be thinking about how to remove both the formal and informal obstacles that prevent women and minorities from getting into the rooms where these decisions are being made,” said Dr. Rotenstein, who is an instructor in medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School in Boston.

“This will need to involve sponsorship that gets women invited to the right committees or in positions with responsibility for profit-and-loss management,” she added.

Dr. Rotenstein spoke about improving “access to the pipeline” that leads to leadership roles. The ways in which women are excluded from opportunities is often subtle and difficult to penetrate without fundamental changes, she explained.

“Institutions need to understand the processes that lead to leadership roles and make the changes that allow women and minorities to participate,” she said. It is not enough to recognize the problem, according to Dr. Rotenstein.

Like Dr. Chiang, she noted that changes are needed in the methods that move underrepresented groups into leadership roles.

Dr. Chiang reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

Since the early 2000s, approximately half of medical students in the United States – and in many years, more than half – have been women, but the proportion of women occupying leadership roles in medicine remains low, according to an update provided at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

In pediatrics, a specialty in which approximately 70% of physicians are now women, there has been progress, but still less than 30% of pediatric department chairs are female, said Vincent Chiang, MD, chief medical officer of Boston Children’s Hospital, during a presentation at the virtual meeting sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

Citing published data and a survey he personally conducted of the top children’s hospitals identified by the U.S. News and World Report, Dr. Chiang said a minority of division chiefs, chief medical officers, chief financial officers, and other leaders are female. At his institution, only 2 of 16 division chiefs are female.

“No matter how you slice it, women are underrepresented in leadership positions,” he noted.

The problem is certainly not confined to medicine. Dr. Chiang cited data showing that women and men have reached “near parity” in workforce participation in the United States even though the 20% earnings gap has changed little over time.

According to 2020 data from the World Economic Forum, the United States ranked 51 for the gender gap calculated on the basis of economic, political, educational, and health attainment. Even if this places the United States in the top third of the rankings, it is far behind Iceland and the Scandinavian countries that lead the list.

Efforts to reduce structural biases are part of the fix, but Dr. Chiang cautioned that fundamental changes might never occur if the plan is to wait for an approach based on meritocracy. He said that existing structural biases are “slanted away from women,” who are not necessarily granted the opportunities that are readily available to men.

“A meritocracy only works if the initial playing field was level. Otherwise, it just perpetuates the inequalities,” he said.

The problem is not a shortage of women with the skills to lead. In a study by Zenger/Folkman, a consulting company that works on leadership skill development, women performed better than men in 16 of 18 leadership categories, according to Dr. Chiang.

“There is certainly no shortage of capable women,” he noted.

Of the many issues, Dr. Chiang highlighted two. The first is the challenge of placing women on leadership pathways. This is likely to require proactive strategies, such as fast-track advancement programs that guide female candidates toward leadership roles.

The second is more nuanced. According to Dr. Chiang, women who want to assume a leadership role should think more actively about how and who is making decisions at their institution so they can position themselves appropriately. This is nuanced because “there is a certain amount of gamesmanship,” he said. The rise to leadership “has never been a pure meritocracy.”

Importantly, many of the key decisions in any institution involve money, according to Dr. Chiang. As a result, he advised those seeking leadership roles to join audit committees or otherwise take on responsibility for profit-and-loss management. Even in a nonprofit institution, “you need to make the numbers work,” he said, citing the common catchphrase: “No margin, no mission.”

However, Dr. Chiang acknowledged the many obstacles that prevent women from working their way into positions of leadership. For example, networking is important, but women are not necessarily attracted or invited to some of the social engagements, such as golf outings, where strong relationships are created.

In a survey of 100,000 people working at Fortune 500 companies, “82% of women say they feel excluded at work and much of that comes from that informal networking,” Dr. Chiang said. “Whereas 92% of men think they are not excluding women in their daily work.”

There is no single solution, but Dr. Chiang believes that concrete structural changes are needed. Female doctors remain grossly underrepresented in leadership roles even as they now represent more than half of the workforce for many specialties. Based on the need for proactive approaches outlined by Dr. Chiang, it appears unlikely that gender inequality will ever resolve itself.

Lisa S. Rotenstein, MD, who has written on fixing the gender imbalance in health care, including for the Harvard Business Review, said she agreed during an interview that structural changes are critical.

“In order to address current disparities, leaders should be thinking about how to remove both the formal and informal obstacles that prevent women and minorities from getting into the rooms where these decisions are being made,” said Dr. Rotenstein, who is an instructor in medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School in Boston.

“This will need to involve sponsorship that gets women invited to the right committees or in positions with responsibility for profit-and-loss management,” she added.

Dr. Rotenstein spoke about improving “access to the pipeline” that leads to leadership roles. The ways in which women are excluded from opportunities is often subtle and difficult to penetrate without fundamental changes, she explained.

“Institutions need to understand the processes that lead to leadership roles and make the changes that allow women and minorities to participate,” she said. It is not enough to recognize the problem, according to Dr. Rotenstein.

Like Dr. Chiang, she noted that changes are needed in the methods that move underrepresented groups into leadership roles.

Dr. Chiang reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

Most U.S. oncologists live within in their means and save their money, and a large proportion have a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, according to the new Medscape Oncologist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

The average annual income for oncologists surveyed was $377,000, which was 5% higher than the $359,000 reported for 2018. This put oncologists in eleventh place among 29 specialties.

However, this information was obtained prior to February 11, 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the United States, and the financial situation has changed for many physicians.

For example, primary care physicians have reported a 55% decrease in revenue along with a 20% to 30% reduction in patient volume. The decline has even led some to shutter their physical offices, according to the larger survey of all physicians, the Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020. This full survey included 17, 461 physicians and represented 30 specialties.

Physicians in specialty practices may be facing even greater reductions. “Specialists are currently having more troubles than PCPs because they’re largely dependent on elective cases, which can’t be directly addressed by telemedicine,” commented Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, in the survey.

Community oncology clinics and practices have reported a substantial decline in office visits and new patients because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even before the pandemic, clinics had been closing in recent years as a result of being acquired, merging, or because of financial struggles, although that trend has been plateauing, according to the latest report from the Community Oncology Alliance.
 

Oncologists’ net worth

With regard to net worth, 42% of the oncologists surveyed reported having assets totaling from $1 million to $5 million, which is about the same for physicians in general. Only 15% reported a net worth of $5 million or higher; a quarter reported a net worth of less than $500,000.

Wealth is more evenly divided when it comes to gender in comparison with other specialties. For all physicians, 56% of men and 39% of women reported a net worth of more than $1 million. For oncologists, that ratio is 59% of men and 54% of women.

Not surprisingly, net worth also increased by age. Only about a quarter (27%) of oncologists younger than age 45 reported a net worth of $1 million to $5 million, compared to 48% aged 45-54 and 56% of physicians aged 55-64. This makes sense, inasmuch as earnings generally increase over time and early-career debt is paid down. However, net worth does appear to decline somewhat after the age of 65, presumably because of a decrease in income on retirement.
 

Debts and expenses

For debts and expenses that are currently being paid off, mortgage on a primary residence (59%) topped the list. More than half of oncologists reported living in a home that is 3,000 sq ft or larger, and nearly half (49%) have a mortgage of $300,000 or higher. About a third of the oncologists surveyed have no mortgage or one that has been paid off.

Car loan payments (35%) and college education/medical school loans (25%) were the second and third most common sources of debt. As compared with other specialties, oncologists land right in the middle of those still paying off school loans. Only 15% reported that they had no debts or expenses to be paid off.
 

Savings and living within one’s means

The average American has four credit cards. About half of oncologists surveyed reported having four or fewer, although about a fifth (22%) have seven or more. But the vast majority reported living within their means (49%) or below their means (46%). Only 6% reported living above their means.

Surveyed oncologists also reported putting money aside in a tax-deferred retirement account or college savings account. Almost half (48%) are putting aside more than $2000 every month, and 28% save from $1000 to $2000. A small percentage (8%) reported not doing this on a regular basis.

A smaller percentage (40%) responded that they put more than $2000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account; 18% reported not doing this on a regular basis. More than two thirds also reported either having a written budget or a mental one for their personal expenses.

In 2019, most oncologists (77%) did not experience a financial loss. For those who did, bad investments on the stock market (14%) were the main cause. A smaller number reported real estate losses, problems with their practice, or job loss.

Nearly half (49%) reported that they currently work with a financial planner or have done so in the past.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most U.S. oncologists live within in their means and save their money, and a large proportion have a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, according to the new Medscape Oncologist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

The average annual income for oncologists surveyed was $377,000, which was 5% higher than the $359,000 reported for 2018. This put oncologists in eleventh place among 29 specialties.

However, this information was obtained prior to February 11, 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the United States, and the financial situation has changed for many physicians.

For example, primary care physicians have reported a 55% decrease in revenue along with a 20% to 30% reduction in patient volume. The decline has even led some to shutter their physical offices, according to the larger survey of all physicians, the Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020. This full survey included 17, 461 physicians and represented 30 specialties.

Physicians in specialty practices may be facing even greater reductions. “Specialists are currently having more troubles than PCPs because they’re largely dependent on elective cases, which can’t be directly addressed by telemedicine,” commented Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, in the survey.

Community oncology clinics and practices have reported a substantial decline in office visits and new patients because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even before the pandemic, clinics had been closing in recent years as a result of being acquired, merging, or because of financial struggles, although that trend has been plateauing, according to the latest report from the Community Oncology Alliance.
 

Oncologists’ net worth

With regard to net worth, 42% of the oncologists surveyed reported having assets totaling from $1 million to $5 million, which is about the same for physicians in general. Only 15% reported a net worth of $5 million or higher; a quarter reported a net worth of less than $500,000.

Wealth is more evenly divided when it comes to gender in comparison with other specialties. For all physicians, 56% of men and 39% of women reported a net worth of more than $1 million. For oncologists, that ratio is 59% of men and 54% of women.

Not surprisingly, net worth also increased by age. Only about a quarter (27%) of oncologists younger than age 45 reported a net worth of $1 million to $5 million, compared to 48% aged 45-54 and 56% of physicians aged 55-64. This makes sense, inasmuch as earnings generally increase over time and early-career debt is paid down. However, net worth does appear to decline somewhat after the age of 65, presumably because of a decrease in income on retirement.
 

Debts and expenses

For debts and expenses that are currently being paid off, mortgage on a primary residence (59%) topped the list. More than half of oncologists reported living in a home that is 3,000 sq ft or larger, and nearly half (49%) have a mortgage of $300,000 or higher. About a third of the oncologists surveyed have no mortgage or one that has been paid off.

Car loan payments (35%) and college education/medical school loans (25%) were the second and third most common sources of debt. As compared with other specialties, oncologists land right in the middle of those still paying off school loans. Only 15% reported that they had no debts or expenses to be paid off.
 

Savings and living within one’s means

The average American has four credit cards. About half of oncologists surveyed reported having four or fewer, although about a fifth (22%) have seven or more. But the vast majority reported living within their means (49%) or below their means (46%). Only 6% reported living above their means.

Surveyed oncologists also reported putting money aside in a tax-deferred retirement account or college savings account. Almost half (48%) are putting aside more than $2000 every month, and 28% save from $1000 to $2000. A small percentage (8%) reported not doing this on a regular basis.

A smaller percentage (40%) responded that they put more than $2000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account; 18% reported not doing this on a regular basis. More than two thirds also reported either having a written budget or a mental one for their personal expenses.

In 2019, most oncologists (77%) did not experience a financial loss. For those who did, bad investments on the stock market (14%) were the main cause. A smaller number reported real estate losses, problems with their practice, or job loss.

Nearly half (49%) reported that they currently work with a financial planner or have done so in the past.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most U.S. oncologists live within in their means and save their money, and a large proportion have a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, according to the new Medscape Oncologist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

The average annual income for oncologists surveyed was $377,000, which was 5% higher than the $359,000 reported for 2018. This put oncologists in eleventh place among 29 specialties.

However, this information was obtained prior to February 11, 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the United States, and the financial situation has changed for many physicians.

For example, primary care physicians have reported a 55% decrease in revenue along with a 20% to 30% reduction in patient volume. The decline has even led some to shutter their physical offices, according to the larger survey of all physicians, the Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020. This full survey included 17, 461 physicians and represented 30 specialties.

Physicians in specialty practices may be facing even greater reductions. “Specialists are currently having more troubles than PCPs because they’re largely dependent on elective cases, which can’t be directly addressed by telemedicine,” commented Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, in the survey.

Community oncology clinics and practices have reported a substantial decline in office visits and new patients because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even before the pandemic, clinics had been closing in recent years as a result of being acquired, merging, or because of financial struggles, although that trend has been plateauing, according to the latest report from the Community Oncology Alliance.
 

Oncologists’ net worth

With regard to net worth, 42% of the oncologists surveyed reported having assets totaling from $1 million to $5 million, which is about the same for physicians in general. Only 15% reported a net worth of $5 million or higher; a quarter reported a net worth of less than $500,000.

Wealth is more evenly divided when it comes to gender in comparison with other specialties. For all physicians, 56% of men and 39% of women reported a net worth of more than $1 million. For oncologists, that ratio is 59% of men and 54% of women.

Not surprisingly, net worth also increased by age. Only about a quarter (27%) of oncologists younger than age 45 reported a net worth of $1 million to $5 million, compared to 48% aged 45-54 and 56% of physicians aged 55-64. This makes sense, inasmuch as earnings generally increase over time and early-career debt is paid down. However, net worth does appear to decline somewhat after the age of 65, presumably because of a decrease in income on retirement.
 

Debts and expenses

For debts and expenses that are currently being paid off, mortgage on a primary residence (59%) topped the list. More than half of oncologists reported living in a home that is 3,000 sq ft or larger, and nearly half (49%) have a mortgage of $300,000 or higher. About a third of the oncologists surveyed have no mortgage or one that has been paid off.

Car loan payments (35%) and college education/medical school loans (25%) were the second and third most common sources of debt. As compared with other specialties, oncologists land right in the middle of those still paying off school loans. Only 15% reported that they had no debts or expenses to be paid off.
 

Savings and living within one’s means

The average American has four credit cards. About half of oncologists surveyed reported having four or fewer, although about a fifth (22%) have seven or more. But the vast majority reported living within their means (49%) or below their means (46%). Only 6% reported living above their means.

Surveyed oncologists also reported putting money aside in a tax-deferred retirement account or college savings account. Almost half (48%) are putting aside more than $2000 every month, and 28% save from $1000 to $2000. A small percentage (8%) reported not doing this on a regular basis.

A smaller percentage (40%) responded that they put more than $2000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account; 18% reported not doing this on a regular basis. More than two thirds also reported either having a written budget or a mental one for their personal expenses.

In 2019, most oncologists (77%) did not experience a financial loss. For those who did, bad investments on the stock market (14%) were the main cause. A smaller number reported real estate losses, problems with their practice, or job loss.

Nearly half (49%) reported that they currently work with a financial planner or have done so in the past.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Work-life balance was the top concern for female physicians who responded to a new Medscape survey, far outpacing concerns about pay.

A psychiatrist who responded to the survey commented, “I’ve been trying to use all my vacation to spend time with my spouse. I’m always apologizing for being late, not being able to go to an event due to my work schedule, and missing out on life with my husband.”

Nearly two thirds (64%) said the balance was their top concern whereas 43% put pay at the top.

Medscape surveyed more than 3,000 women physicians about how they deal with parenthood, work pressures, and relationships in Women Physicians 2020: The Issues They Care About.
 

Almost all are making personal trade-offs

An overwhelming percentage (94%) said they have had to make personal trade-offs for work obligations.

“Women are more likely to make work compromises to benefit their families,” a cardiologist responded. “I won’t/can’t take a position that would disrupt my husband’s community ties, my children’s schooling, and relationships with family.”

More than one-third of women (36%) said that being a woman had a negative or very negative impact on their compensation. Only 4% said their gender had a positive or very positive impact on pay and 59% said gender had no effect.

The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020 showed male specialists made 31% more than their female counterparts and male primary care physicians earned 25% more.

Some factors may help explain some of the difference, but others remain unclear.

Poor negotiating skills have long been cited as a reason women get paid less; in this survey 39% said they were unskilled or very unskilled in salary negotiations, compared with 28% who said they were skilled or very skilled in those talks.

Katie Donovan, founder of Equal Pay Negotiations, reports that only 30% of women negotiate pay at all, compared with 46% of men.

Additionally, women tend to gravitate in specialties that don’t pay as well.

They are poorly represented in some of the highest-paying specialties: orthopedics (9%), urology (12%), and cardiology (14%).

“Society’s view of women as caretaker is powerful,” a radiologist commented. “Women feel like they need to choose specialties where they can work part-time or flexible time in order to be the primary caretaker at home.”
 

Confidence high in leadership abilities

The survey asked women about their confidence in taking a leadership role, and 90% answered that they were confident about taking such a role. However, only half said they had a leadership or supervisory role.

According to the American Medical Association, women make up 3% of healthcare chief medical officers, 6% of department chairs, and 9% of division leaders.

Asked whether women have experienced gender inequity in the workplace, respondents were almost evenly split, but hospital-based physicians at 61% were more likely to report inequity than were 42% of office-based physicians.

A family physician responded, “I have experienced gender inequality more from administrators than from my male colleagues. I think it’s coming from corporate more than from medical professionals.”

In this survey, 3% said their male colleagues were unsupportive of gender equality in the workplace.

The survey responses indicate most women physicians who have children are also conflicted as parents regarding their careers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were always or often conflicted with these dueling priorities; only 8% said they sometimes or rarely are.

Those conflicts start even before having children. More than half in this survey (52%) said their career influenced the number of children they have.

A family physician said, “I delayed starting a family because of my career. That affected my fertility and made it hard to complete [in-vitro fertilization].”
 

Family responsibilities meet stigma

Half of the respondents said women physicians are stigmatized for taking a full maternity leave (6 weeks or longer). An even higher percentage (65%) said women are stigmatized for taking more flexible or fewer hours to accommodate family responsibilities.

A 2019 survey of 844 physician mothers found that physicians who took maternity leave received lower peer evaluation scores, lost potential income, and reported experiencing discrimination. One-quarter of the participants (25.8%) reported experiencing discrimination related to breastfeeding or breast milk pumping upon their return to work.

Burnout at work puts stress on primary relationships, 63% of respondents said, although 24% said it did not strain those relationships. Thirteen percent of women gave the response “not applicable.”

“I try to be present when I’m home, but to be honest, I don’t deal with it very well,” a family physician commented.

AGA fosters and promotes involvement and advancement of women members and addresses concerns relative to their professional endeavors. Visit www.gastro.org to learn more.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Work-life balance was the top concern for female physicians who responded to a new Medscape survey, far outpacing concerns about pay.

A psychiatrist who responded to the survey commented, “I’ve been trying to use all my vacation to spend time with my spouse. I’m always apologizing for being late, not being able to go to an event due to my work schedule, and missing out on life with my husband.”

Nearly two thirds (64%) said the balance was their top concern whereas 43% put pay at the top.

Medscape surveyed more than 3,000 women physicians about how they deal with parenthood, work pressures, and relationships in Women Physicians 2020: The Issues They Care About.
 

Almost all are making personal trade-offs

An overwhelming percentage (94%) said they have had to make personal trade-offs for work obligations.

“Women are more likely to make work compromises to benefit their families,” a cardiologist responded. “I won’t/can’t take a position that would disrupt my husband’s community ties, my children’s schooling, and relationships with family.”

More than one-third of women (36%) said that being a woman had a negative or very negative impact on their compensation. Only 4% said their gender had a positive or very positive impact on pay and 59% said gender had no effect.

The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020 showed male specialists made 31% more than their female counterparts and male primary care physicians earned 25% more.

Some factors may help explain some of the difference, but others remain unclear.

Poor negotiating skills have long been cited as a reason women get paid less; in this survey 39% said they were unskilled or very unskilled in salary negotiations, compared with 28% who said they were skilled or very skilled in those talks.

Katie Donovan, founder of Equal Pay Negotiations, reports that only 30% of women negotiate pay at all, compared with 46% of men.

Additionally, women tend to gravitate in specialties that don’t pay as well.

They are poorly represented in some of the highest-paying specialties: orthopedics (9%), urology (12%), and cardiology (14%).

“Society’s view of women as caretaker is powerful,” a radiologist commented. “Women feel like they need to choose specialties where they can work part-time or flexible time in order to be the primary caretaker at home.”
 

Confidence high in leadership abilities

The survey asked women about their confidence in taking a leadership role, and 90% answered that they were confident about taking such a role. However, only half said they had a leadership or supervisory role.

According to the American Medical Association, women make up 3% of healthcare chief medical officers, 6% of department chairs, and 9% of division leaders.

Asked whether women have experienced gender inequity in the workplace, respondents were almost evenly split, but hospital-based physicians at 61% were more likely to report inequity than were 42% of office-based physicians.

A family physician responded, “I have experienced gender inequality more from administrators than from my male colleagues. I think it’s coming from corporate more than from medical professionals.”

In this survey, 3% said their male colleagues were unsupportive of gender equality in the workplace.

The survey responses indicate most women physicians who have children are also conflicted as parents regarding their careers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were always or often conflicted with these dueling priorities; only 8% said they sometimes or rarely are.

Those conflicts start even before having children. More than half in this survey (52%) said their career influenced the number of children they have.

A family physician said, “I delayed starting a family because of my career. That affected my fertility and made it hard to complete [in-vitro fertilization].”
 

Family responsibilities meet stigma

Half of the respondents said women physicians are stigmatized for taking a full maternity leave (6 weeks or longer). An even higher percentage (65%) said women are stigmatized for taking more flexible or fewer hours to accommodate family responsibilities.

A 2019 survey of 844 physician mothers found that physicians who took maternity leave received lower peer evaluation scores, lost potential income, and reported experiencing discrimination. One-quarter of the participants (25.8%) reported experiencing discrimination related to breastfeeding or breast milk pumping upon their return to work.

Burnout at work puts stress on primary relationships, 63% of respondents said, although 24% said it did not strain those relationships. Thirteen percent of women gave the response “not applicable.”

“I try to be present when I’m home, but to be honest, I don’t deal with it very well,” a family physician commented.

AGA fosters and promotes involvement and advancement of women members and addresses concerns relative to their professional endeavors. Visit www.gastro.org to learn more.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Work-life balance was the top concern for female physicians who responded to a new Medscape survey, far outpacing concerns about pay.

A psychiatrist who responded to the survey commented, “I’ve been trying to use all my vacation to spend time with my spouse. I’m always apologizing for being late, not being able to go to an event due to my work schedule, and missing out on life with my husband.”

Nearly two thirds (64%) said the balance was their top concern whereas 43% put pay at the top.

Medscape surveyed more than 3,000 women physicians about how they deal with parenthood, work pressures, and relationships in Women Physicians 2020: The Issues They Care About.
 

Almost all are making personal trade-offs

An overwhelming percentage (94%) said they have had to make personal trade-offs for work obligations.

“Women are more likely to make work compromises to benefit their families,” a cardiologist responded. “I won’t/can’t take a position that would disrupt my husband’s community ties, my children’s schooling, and relationships with family.”

More than one-third of women (36%) said that being a woman had a negative or very negative impact on their compensation. Only 4% said their gender had a positive or very positive impact on pay and 59% said gender had no effect.

The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020 showed male specialists made 31% more than their female counterparts and male primary care physicians earned 25% more.

Some factors may help explain some of the difference, but others remain unclear.

Poor negotiating skills have long been cited as a reason women get paid less; in this survey 39% said they were unskilled or very unskilled in salary negotiations, compared with 28% who said they were skilled or very skilled in those talks.

Katie Donovan, founder of Equal Pay Negotiations, reports that only 30% of women negotiate pay at all, compared with 46% of men.

Additionally, women tend to gravitate in specialties that don’t pay as well.

They are poorly represented in some of the highest-paying specialties: orthopedics (9%), urology (12%), and cardiology (14%).

“Society’s view of women as caretaker is powerful,” a radiologist commented. “Women feel like they need to choose specialties where they can work part-time or flexible time in order to be the primary caretaker at home.”
 

Confidence high in leadership abilities

The survey asked women about their confidence in taking a leadership role, and 90% answered that they were confident about taking such a role. However, only half said they had a leadership or supervisory role.

According to the American Medical Association, women make up 3% of healthcare chief medical officers, 6% of department chairs, and 9% of division leaders.

Asked whether women have experienced gender inequity in the workplace, respondents were almost evenly split, but hospital-based physicians at 61% were more likely to report inequity than were 42% of office-based physicians.

A family physician responded, “I have experienced gender inequality more from administrators than from my male colleagues. I think it’s coming from corporate more than from medical professionals.”

In this survey, 3% said their male colleagues were unsupportive of gender equality in the workplace.

The survey responses indicate most women physicians who have children are also conflicted as parents regarding their careers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were always or often conflicted with these dueling priorities; only 8% said they sometimes or rarely are.

Those conflicts start even before having children. More than half in this survey (52%) said their career influenced the number of children they have.

A family physician said, “I delayed starting a family because of my career. That affected my fertility and made it hard to complete [in-vitro fertilization].”
 

Family responsibilities meet stigma

Half of the respondents said women physicians are stigmatized for taking a full maternity leave (6 weeks or longer). An even higher percentage (65%) said women are stigmatized for taking more flexible or fewer hours to accommodate family responsibilities.

A 2019 survey of 844 physician mothers found that physicians who took maternity leave received lower peer evaluation scores, lost potential income, and reported experiencing discrimination. One-quarter of the participants (25.8%) reported experiencing discrimination related to breastfeeding or breast milk pumping upon their return to work.

Burnout at work puts stress on primary relationships, 63% of respondents said, although 24% said it did not strain those relationships. Thirteen percent of women gave the response “not applicable.”

“I try to be present when I’m home, but to be honest, I don’t deal with it very well,” a family physician commented.

AGA fosters and promotes involvement and advancement of women members and addresses concerns relative to their professional endeavors. Visit www.gastro.org to learn more.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Work-life balance was the top concern for female physicians who responded to a new Medscape survey, far outpacing concerns about pay.

A psychiatrist who responded to the survey commented, “I’ve been trying to use all my vacation to spend time with my spouse. I’m always apologizing for being late, not being able to go to an event due to my work schedule, and missing out on life with my husband.”

Nearly two thirds (64%) said the balance was their top concern whereas 43% put pay at the top.

Medscape surveyed more than 3,000 women physicians about how they deal with parenthood, work pressures, and relationships in Women Physicians 2020: The Issues They Care About.
 

Almost all are making personal trade-offs

An overwhelming percentage (94%) said they have had to make personal trade-offs for work obligations.

“Women are more likely to make work compromises to benefit their families,” a cardiologist responded. “I won’t/can’t take a position that would disrupt my husband’s community ties, my children’s schooling, and relationships with family.”

More than one-third of women (36%) said that being a woman had a negative or very negative impact on their compensation. Only 4% said their gender had a positive or very positive impact on pay and 59% said gender had no effect.

The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020 showed male specialists made 31% more than their female counterparts and male primary care physicians earned 25% more.

Some factors may help explain some of the difference, but others remain unclear.

Poor negotiating skills have long been cited as a reason women get paid less; in this survey 39% said they were unskilled or very unskilled in salary negotiations, compared with 28% who said they were skilled or very skilled in those talks.

Katie Donovan, founder of Equal Pay Negotiations, reports that only 30% of women negotiate pay at all, compared with 46% of men.

Additionally, women tend to gravitate in specialties that don’t pay as well.

They are poorly represented in some of the highest-paying specialties: orthopedics (9%), urology (12%), and cardiology (14%).

“Society’s view of women as caretaker is powerful,” a radiologist commented. “Women feel like they need to choose specialties where they can work part-time or flexible time in order to be the primary caretaker at home.”
 

Confidence high in leadership abilities

The survey asked women about their confidence in taking a leadership role, and 90% answered that they were confident about taking such a role. However, only half said they had a leadership or supervisory role.

According to the American Medical Association, women make up 3% of healthcare chief medical officers, 6% of department chairs, and 9% of division leaders.

Asked whether women have experienced gender inequity in the workplace, respondents were almost evenly split, but hospital-based physicians at 61% were more likely to report inequity than were 42% of office-based physicians.

A family physician responded, “I have experienced gender inequality more from administrators than from my male colleagues. I think it’s coming from corporate more than from medical professionals.”

In this survey, 3% said their male colleagues were unsupportive of gender equality in the workplace.

The survey responses indicate most women physicians who have children are also conflicted as parents regarding their careers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were always or often conflicted with these dueling priorities; only 8% said they sometimes or rarely are.

Those conflicts start even before having children. More than half in this survey (52%) said their career influenced the number of children they have.

A family physician said, “I delayed starting a family because of my career. That affected my fertility and made it hard to complete [in-vitro fertilization].”
 

Family responsibilities meet stigma

Half of the respondents said women physicians are stigmatized for taking a full maternity leave (6 weeks or longer). An even higher percentage (65%) said women are stigmatized for taking more flexible or fewer hours to accommodate family responsibilities.

A 2019 survey of 844 physician mothers found that physicians who took maternity leave received lower peer evaluation scores, lost potential income, and reported experiencing discrimination. One-quarter of the participants (25.8%) reported experiencing discrimination related to breastfeeding or breast milk pumping upon their return to work.

Burnout at work puts stress on primary relationships, 63% of respondents said, although 24% said it did not strain those relationships. Thirteen percent of women gave the response “not applicable.”

“I try to be present when I’m home, but to be honest, I don’t deal with it very well,” a family physician commented.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Work-life balance was the top concern for female physicians who responded to a new Medscape survey, far outpacing concerns about pay.

A psychiatrist who responded to the survey commented, “I’ve been trying to use all my vacation to spend time with my spouse. I’m always apologizing for being late, not being able to go to an event due to my work schedule, and missing out on life with my husband.”

Nearly two thirds (64%) said the balance was their top concern whereas 43% put pay at the top.

Medscape surveyed more than 3,000 women physicians about how they deal with parenthood, work pressures, and relationships in Women Physicians 2020: The Issues They Care About.
 

Almost all are making personal trade-offs

An overwhelming percentage (94%) said they have had to make personal trade-offs for work obligations.

“Women are more likely to make work compromises to benefit their families,” a cardiologist responded. “I won’t/can’t take a position that would disrupt my husband’s community ties, my children’s schooling, and relationships with family.”

More than one-third of women (36%) said that being a woman had a negative or very negative impact on their compensation. Only 4% said their gender had a positive or very positive impact on pay and 59% said gender had no effect.

The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020 showed male specialists made 31% more than their female counterparts and male primary care physicians earned 25% more.

Some factors may help explain some of the difference, but others remain unclear.

Poor negotiating skills have long been cited as a reason women get paid less; in this survey 39% said they were unskilled or very unskilled in salary negotiations, compared with 28% who said they were skilled or very skilled in those talks.

Katie Donovan, founder of Equal Pay Negotiations, reports that only 30% of women negotiate pay at all, compared with 46% of men.

Additionally, women tend to gravitate in specialties that don’t pay as well.

They are poorly represented in some of the highest-paying specialties: orthopedics (9%), urology (12%), and cardiology (14%).

“Society’s view of women as caretaker is powerful,” a radiologist commented. “Women feel like they need to choose specialties where they can work part-time or flexible time in order to be the primary caretaker at home.”
 

Confidence high in leadership abilities

The survey asked women about their confidence in taking a leadership role, and 90% answered that they were confident about taking such a role. However, only half said they had a leadership or supervisory role.

According to the American Medical Association, women make up 3% of healthcare chief medical officers, 6% of department chairs, and 9% of division leaders.

Asked whether women have experienced gender inequity in the workplace, respondents were almost evenly split, but hospital-based physicians at 61% were more likely to report inequity than were 42% of office-based physicians.

A family physician responded, “I have experienced gender inequality more from administrators than from my male colleagues. I think it’s coming from corporate more than from medical professionals.”

In this survey, 3% said their male colleagues were unsupportive of gender equality in the workplace.

The survey responses indicate most women physicians who have children are also conflicted as parents regarding their careers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were always or often conflicted with these dueling priorities; only 8% said they sometimes or rarely are.

Those conflicts start even before having children. More than half in this survey (52%) said their career influenced the number of children they have.

A family physician said, “I delayed starting a family because of my career. That affected my fertility and made it hard to complete [in-vitro fertilization].”
 

Family responsibilities meet stigma

Half of the respondents said women physicians are stigmatized for taking a full maternity leave (6 weeks or longer). An even higher percentage (65%) said women are stigmatized for taking more flexible or fewer hours to accommodate family responsibilities.

A 2019 survey of 844 physician mothers found that physicians who took maternity leave received lower peer evaluation scores, lost potential income, and reported experiencing discrimination. One-quarter of the participants (25.8%) reported experiencing discrimination related to breastfeeding or breast milk pumping upon their return to work.

Burnout at work puts stress on primary relationships, 63% of respondents said, although 24% said it did not strain those relationships. Thirteen percent of women gave the response “not applicable.”

“I try to be present when I’m home, but to be honest, I don’t deal with it very well,” a family physician commented.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Work-life balance was the top concern for female physicians who responded to a new Medscape survey, far outpacing concerns about pay.

A psychiatrist who responded to the survey commented, “I’ve been trying to use all my vacation to spend time with my spouse. I’m always apologizing for being late, not being able to go to an event due to my work schedule, and missing out on life with my husband.”

Nearly two thirds (64%) said the balance was their top concern whereas 43% put pay at the top.

Medscape surveyed more than 3,000 women physicians about how they deal with parenthood, work pressures, and relationships in Women Physicians 2020: The Issues They Care About.
 

Almost all are making personal trade-offs

An overwhelming percentage (94%) said they have had to make personal trade-offs for work obligations.

“Women are more likely to make work compromises to benefit their families,” a cardiologist responded. “I won’t/can’t take a position that would disrupt my husband’s community ties, my children’s schooling, and relationships with family.”

More than one-third of women (36%) said that being a woman had a negative or very negative impact on their compensation. Only 4% said their gender had a positive or very positive impact on pay and 59% said gender had no effect.

The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020 showed male specialists made 31% more than their female counterparts and male primary care physicians earned 25% more.

Some factors may help explain some of the difference, but others remain unclear.

Poor negotiating skills have long been cited as a reason women get paid less; in this survey 39% said they were unskilled or very unskilled in salary negotiations, compared with 28% who said they were skilled or very skilled in those talks.

Katie Donovan, founder of Equal Pay Negotiations, reports that only 30% of women negotiate pay at all, compared with 46% of men.

Additionally, women tend to gravitate in specialties that don’t pay as well.

They are poorly represented in some of the highest-paying specialties: orthopedics (9%), urology (12%), and cardiology (14%).

“Society’s view of women as caretaker is powerful,” a radiologist commented. “Women feel like they need to choose specialties where they can work part-time or flexible time in order to be the primary caretaker at home.”
 

Confidence high in leadership abilities

The survey asked women about their confidence in taking a leadership role, and 90% answered that they were confident about taking such a role. However, only half said they had a leadership or supervisory role.

According to the American Medical Association, women make up 3% of healthcare chief medical officers, 6% of department chairs, and 9% of division leaders.

Asked whether women have experienced gender inequity in the workplace, respondents were almost evenly split, but hospital-based physicians at 61% were more likely to report inequity than were 42% of office-based physicians.

A family physician responded, “I have experienced gender inequality more from administrators than from my male colleagues. I think it’s coming from corporate more than from medical professionals.”

In this survey, 3% said their male colleagues were unsupportive of gender equality in the workplace.

The survey responses indicate most women physicians who have children are also conflicted as parents regarding their careers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were always or often conflicted with these dueling priorities; only 8% said they sometimes or rarely are.

Those conflicts start even before having children. More than half in this survey (52%) said their career influenced the number of children they have.

A family physician said, “I delayed starting a family because of my career. That affected my fertility and made it hard to complete [in-vitro fertilization].”
 

Family responsibilities meet stigma

Half of the respondents said women physicians are stigmatized for taking a full maternity leave (6 weeks or longer). An even higher percentage (65%) said women are stigmatized for taking more flexible or fewer hours to accommodate family responsibilities.

A 2019 survey of 844 physician mothers found that physicians who took maternity leave received lower peer evaluation scores, lost potential income, and reported experiencing discrimination. One-quarter of the participants (25.8%) reported experiencing discrimination related to breastfeeding or breast milk pumping upon their return to work.

Burnout at work puts stress on primary relationships, 63% of respondents said, although 24% said it did not strain those relationships. Thirteen percent of women gave the response “not applicable.”

“I try to be present when I’m home, but to be honest, I don’t deal with it very well,” a family physician commented.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

CASE Black woman in stable labor expresses fear 
 

A 29-year-old Black woman (G1) at 39 0/7 weeks’ gestation presents to your labor and delivery unit reporting leaking fluid and contractions. She is found to have ruptured membranes and reassuring fetal testing. Her cervix is 4 cm dilated, and you recommend admission for expectant management of labor. She is otherwise healthy and has no significant medical history. 

As you are finishing admitting this patient, you ask if she has any remaining questions. She asks quietly, “Am I going to die today?”

You provide reassurance of her stable clinical picture, then pause and ask the patient about her fears. She looks at you and says, “They didn’t believe Serena Williams, so why would they believe me?”

Your patient is referencing Serena Williams’ harrowing and public postpartum course, complicated by a pulmonary embolism and several reoperations.¹ While many of us in the medical field may read this account as a story of challenges with an ultimate triumph, many expectant Black mothers hold Serena’s experience as a cautionary tale about deep-rooted inequities in our health care system that lead to potentially dangerous outcomes. 

Disparities in care 

They are right to be concerned. In the United States, Black mothers are 4 times more likely to die during or after pregnancy, mostly from preventable causes,² and nearly 50% more likely to have a preterm delivery.³ These disparities extend beyond the delivery room to all aspects of ObGyn care. Black women are 2 to 3 times more likely to die from cervical cancer, and they are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage, thus rendering treatment less effective.⁴ Black patients also have a higher burden of obesity, diabetes, and cardiac disease, and when they present to the hospital, receive evidence-based treatment at lower rates compared with White patients.⁵

Mourning the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, amongst the many other Black lives taken unjustly in the United States, has highlighted egregious practices against people of color embedded within the systems meant to protect and serve our communities. We as ObGyn physicians must take professional onus to recognize a devastating but humbling truth—systemic racism has long pervaded our health care practices and systems, and now more than ever, we must do more to stand by and for our patients. 

As ObGyns, we help support patients through some of the happiest, most vulnerable, and potentially most dire moments of their lives. We help patients through the birth of their children, reproductive struggles, gynecologic concerns, and cancer diagnoses. Many of us chose this field for the privilege of caring for patients at these critical moments in their lives, but we have often neglected the racism present in our practices, our hospital settings, and the medical system itself. We often fail to acknowledge our own implicit bias and the role that we play in contributing to acts and experiences of racism that our patients and our colleagues face on a daily basis. 

Racism in our origins 

The history of obstetrics and gynecology shows us a long record of physicians perpetrating injustices that target marginalized communities of color. Dr. James Sims, often given the title of “father of modern gynecology,” performed numerous experiments on unanesthetized Black female slaves to develop procedures for fistulae repair and other surgical techniques.⁶ Throughout the twentieth century, dating as recent as 1979, state laws written in the name of public safety forcibly sterilized women of color to control an “undesirable population.”⁷ When a patient of color declines a method of long-acting reversible contraception, birth control pills, or tubal ligation, do you take the time to reflect on the potential context of the patient’s decision? 

It is critical to recognize the legacy that these acts have on our patients today, leading to a higher burden of disease and an understandable distrust of the medical system. The uncovering of the unethical practices of the National Institutions of Health‒funded Tuskegee syphilis study, in which hundreds of Black men with latent syphilis were passively monitored despite the knowledge of a proven treatment, has attributed to a measurable decrease in life expectancy among Black males.⁸ Even as we face the COVID-19 pandemic, the undercurrent of racism continues to do harm. Black patients are 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than their White counterparts. This disparity, in part, is a product of a higher burden of comorbidities and the privilege associated with shelter-in-place policies, which disproportionately strain communities of color.⁹

We as a medical community need to do better for our patients. No matter how difficult to confront, each of us must acknowledge our own biases and our duty to combat persistent and perpetual racism in our medical system. We need to commit to amplifying the voices of our Black patients and colleagues. It is not enough to celebrate diversity for performance sake—it is time to recognize that diversity saves lives.

We have a responsibility to rectify these traditions of injustice and work toward a safer, more equitable, healthy future for our patients and their families. While this pledge may seem daunting, changes at individual and systems levels can make a difference for all patients that come through our doors. In addition, to honor our oath to “do no harm,” we must act; Black lives matter, and we are charged as medical providers to help our patients thrive, especially those from historically oppressed communities and who continue to suffer inexcusable injustices in health care and beyond. 

Take action

Here is a collection of ways to institute an antiracist environment and more equitable care for your patients.
 

Self-reflect and educate

• Learn about the role racism plays in ObGyn and modern medicine. One place to start: read “Medical Bondage: Race, Gender and the Origins of American Gynecology” by Deidre Cooper Owens. Also check out articles and key readings curated by the Black Mamas Matter Alliance. 
• Introduce and sustain antiracism training for all staff in your clinic or hospital system. To start, consider taking these free and quick implicit bias tests at a staff or department meeting. 
• Familiarize yourself and your colleagues with facets of reproductive justice—the human right to have children, to not have children, and to nurture children in a safe and healthy environment—and incorporate these values in your practice. Request trainings in reproductive justice from community groups like Sister Song. 
• Sign up for updates for state and national bills addressing health inequity and access to reproductive health services. Show your support by calling your congress-people, testifying, or donating to a cause that promotes these bills.  You can stay up to date on national issues with government affairs newsletters from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Sign up here. 
• Continue the conversation and re-evaluate your personal and institution’s efforts to combat racism and social and reproductive injustices. 

Provide access to high-quality reproductive health care

• Ask your patients what barriers they faced to come to your clinic and receive the care they needed. Consider incorporating the following screening tools regarding social determinants of health: PRAPARE screening tool, AAFP screening tool. 
• Promote access to insurance and support programs, including nutrition, exercise and wellness, and safe home and school environments. Look up resources available to your patients by their zip codes using AAFP’s Neighborhood Navigator. 
• Help patients access their medications at affordable prices in their neighborhoods by using free apps. Use the GoodRx app to identify discounts for prescriptions at various pharmacies, and search the Bedsider app to find out how your patients can get their birth control for free and delivered to their homes.
• Expand access to language services for patients who do not speak English as their first language. If working in a resource-limited setting, use the Google Translate app. Print out these free handouts for birth control fact sheets in different languages. 
• Establish standardized protocols for common treatment paradigms to reduce the influence of bias in clinical scenarios. For example, institute a protocol for managing postoperative pain to ensure equal access to treatment. 
• Institute the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) patient safety bundle on the Reduction of Peripartum Racial/Ethnic Disparities. Learn more about AIM’s maternal safety and quality improvement initiative to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality here. 

Support a diverse workforce

• Designate and/or hire a Diversity and Inclusion Officer at your institution to ensure that hiring practices actively achieve a diverse workforce and that employees feel supported in the work environment. Consider coalition-building between hospitals, like the UPHS-CHOP Alliance of Minority Physicians.
• Recruit diverse applicants by advertising positions to groups that focus on the advancement of underrepresented minorities in medicine. Engage with your local chapter of the National Medical Association and American Medical Women’s Association. 
• Have a system in place for anonymous reporting of incidents involving bias or discrimination against staff, and develop a protocol to ensure action is taken in case of such incidents.
• Institute a recurring conference or Grand Rounds across disciplines to discuss the impacts of bias and discrimination on patients and providers at your institution. View examples of these conferences here.
• Ensure invited speakers and other educational opportunities are comprised of diverse representation.
• Create a work environment with safe spaces for the discussion of racism, discrimination, and bias. 

CASE Black woman in stable labor expresses fear 
 

A 29-year-old Black woman (G1) at 39 0/7 weeks’ gestation presents to your labor and delivery unit reporting leaking fluid and contractions. She is found to have ruptured membranes and reassuring fetal testing. Her cervix is 4 cm dilated, and you recommend admission for expectant management of labor. She is otherwise healthy and has no significant medical history. 

As you are finishing admitting this patient, you ask if she has any remaining questions. She asks quietly, “Am I going to die today?”

You provide reassurance of her stable clinical picture, then pause and ask the patient about her fears. She looks at you and says, “They didn’t believe Serena Williams, so why would they believe me?”

Your patient is referencing Serena Williams’ harrowing and public postpartum course, complicated by a pulmonary embolism and several reoperations.¹ While many of us in the medical field may read this account as a story of challenges with an ultimate triumph, many expectant Black mothers hold Serena’s experience as a cautionary tale about deep-rooted inequities in our health care system that lead to potentially dangerous outcomes. 

Disparities in care 

They are right to be concerned. In the United States, Black mothers are 4 times more likely to die during or after pregnancy, mostly from preventable causes,² and nearly 50% more likely to have a preterm delivery.³ These disparities extend beyond the delivery room to all aspects of ObGyn care. Black women are 2 to 3 times more likely to die from cervical cancer, and they are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage, thus rendering treatment less effective.⁴ Black patients also have a higher burden of obesity, diabetes, and cardiac disease, and when they present to the hospital, receive evidence-based treatment at lower rates compared with White patients.⁵

Mourning the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, amongst the many other Black lives taken unjustly in the United States, has highlighted egregious practices against people of color embedded within the systems meant to protect and serve our communities. We as ObGyn physicians must take professional onus to recognize a devastating but humbling truth—systemic racism has long pervaded our health care practices and systems, and now more than ever, we must do more to stand by and for our patients. 

As ObGyns, we help support patients through some of the happiest, most vulnerable, and potentially most dire moments of their lives. We help patients through the birth of their children, reproductive struggles, gynecologic concerns, and cancer diagnoses. Many of us chose this field for the privilege of caring for patients at these critical moments in their lives, but we have often neglected the racism present in our practices, our hospital settings, and the medical system itself. We often fail to acknowledge our own implicit bias and the role that we play in contributing to acts and experiences of racism that our patients and our colleagues face on a daily basis. 

Racism in our origins 

The history of obstetrics and gynecology shows us a long record of physicians perpetrating injustices that target marginalized communities of color. Dr. James Sims, often given the title of “father of modern gynecology,” performed numerous experiments on unanesthetized Black female slaves to develop procedures for fistulae repair and other surgical techniques.⁶ Throughout the twentieth century, dating as recent as 1979, state laws written in the name of public safety forcibly sterilized women of color to control an “undesirable population.”⁷ When a patient of color declines a method of long-acting reversible contraception, birth control pills, or tubal ligation, do you take the time to reflect on the potential context of the patient’s decision? 

It is critical to recognize the legacy that these acts have on our patients today, leading to a higher burden of disease and an understandable distrust of the medical system. The uncovering of the unethical practices of the National Institutions of Health‒funded Tuskegee syphilis study, in which hundreds of Black men with latent syphilis were passively monitored despite the knowledge of a proven treatment, has attributed to a measurable decrease in life expectancy among Black males.⁸ Even as we face the COVID-19 pandemic, the undercurrent of racism continues to do harm. Black patients are 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than their White counterparts. This disparity, in part, is a product of a higher burden of comorbidities and the privilege associated with shelter-in-place policies, which disproportionately strain communities of color.⁹

We as a medical community need to do better for our patients. No matter how difficult to confront, each of us must acknowledge our own biases and our duty to combat persistent and perpetual racism in our medical system. We need to commit to amplifying the voices of our Black patients and colleagues. It is not enough to celebrate diversity for performance sake—it is time to recognize that diversity saves lives.

We have a responsibility to rectify these traditions of injustice and work toward a safer, more equitable, healthy future for our patients and their families. While this pledge may seem daunting, changes at individual and systems levels can make a difference for all patients that come through our doors. In addition, to honor our oath to “do no harm,” we must act; Black lives matter, and we are charged as medical providers to help our patients thrive, especially those from historically oppressed communities and who continue to suffer inexcusable injustices in health care and beyond. 

Take action

Here is a collection of ways to institute an antiracist environment and more equitable care for your patients.
 

Self-reflect and educate

• Learn about the role racism plays in ObGyn and modern medicine. One place to start: read “Medical Bondage: Race, Gender and the Origins of American Gynecology” by Deidre Cooper Owens. Also check out articles and key readings curated by the Black Mamas Matter Alliance. 
• Introduce and sustain antiracism training for all staff in your clinic or hospital system. To start, consider taking these free and quick implicit bias tests at a staff or department meeting. 
• Familiarize yourself and your colleagues with facets of reproductive justice—the human right to have children, to not have children, and to nurture children in a safe and healthy environment—and incorporate these values in your practice. Request trainings in reproductive justice from community groups like Sister Song. 
• Sign up for updates for state and national bills addressing health inequity and access to reproductive health services. Show your support by calling your congress-people, testifying, or donating to a cause that promotes these bills.  You can stay up to date on national issues with government affairs newsletters from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Sign up here. 
• Continue the conversation and re-evaluate your personal and institution’s efforts to combat racism and social and reproductive injustices. 

Provide access to high-quality reproductive health care

• Ask your patients what barriers they faced to come to your clinic and receive the care they needed. Consider incorporating the following screening tools regarding social determinants of health: PRAPARE screening tool, AAFP screening tool. 
• Promote access to insurance and support programs, including nutrition, exercise and wellness, and safe home and school environments. Look up resources available to your patients by their zip codes using AAFP’s Neighborhood Navigator. 
• Help patients access their medications at affordable prices in their neighborhoods by using free apps. Use the GoodRx app to identify discounts for prescriptions at various pharmacies, and search the Bedsider app to find out how your patients can get their birth control for free and delivered to their homes.
• Expand access to language services for patients who do not speak English as their first language. If working in a resource-limited setting, use the Google Translate app. Print out these free handouts for birth control fact sheets in different languages. 
• Establish standardized protocols for common treatment paradigms to reduce the influence of bias in clinical scenarios. For example, institute a protocol for managing postoperative pain to ensure equal access to treatment. 
• Institute the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) patient safety bundle on the Reduction of Peripartum Racial/Ethnic Disparities. Learn more about AIM’s maternal safety and quality improvement initiative to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality here. 

Support a diverse workforce

• Designate and/or hire a Diversity and Inclusion Officer at your institution to ensure that hiring practices actively achieve a diverse workforce and that employees feel supported in the work environment. Consider coalition-building between hospitals, like the UPHS-CHOP Alliance of Minority Physicians.
• Recruit diverse applicants by advertising positions to groups that focus on the advancement of underrepresented minorities in medicine. Engage with your local chapter of the National Medical Association and American Medical Women’s Association. 
• Have a system in place for anonymous reporting of incidents involving bias or discrimination against staff, and develop a protocol to ensure action is taken in case of such incidents.
• Institute a recurring conference or Grand Rounds across disciplines to discuss the impacts of bias and discrimination on patients and providers at your institution. View examples of these conferences here.
• Ensure invited speakers and other educational opportunities are comprised of diverse representation.
• Create a work environment with safe spaces for the discussion of racism, discrimination, and bias. 

CASE Black woman in stable labor expresses fear 
 

A 29-year-old Black woman (G1) at 39 0/7 weeks’ gestation presents to your labor and delivery unit reporting leaking fluid and contractions. She is found to have ruptured membranes and reassuring fetal testing. Her cervix is 4 cm dilated, and you recommend admission for expectant management of labor. She is otherwise healthy and has no significant medical history. 

As you are finishing admitting this patient, you ask if she has any remaining questions. She asks quietly, “Am I going to die today?”

You provide reassurance of her stable clinical picture, then pause and ask the patient about her fears. She looks at you and says, “They didn’t believe Serena Williams, so why would they believe me?”

Your patient is referencing Serena Williams’ harrowing and public postpartum course, complicated by a pulmonary embolism and several reoperations.¹ While many of us in the medical field may read this account as a story of challenges with an ultimate triumph, many expectant Black mothers hold Serena’s experience as a cautionary tale about deep-rooted inequities in our health care system that lead to potentially dangerous outcomes. 

Disparities in care 

They are right to be concerned. In the United States, Black mothers are 4 times more likely to die during or after pregnancy, mostly from preventable causes,² and nearly 50% more likely to have a preterm delivery.³ These disparities extend beyond the delivery room to all aspects of ObGyn care. Black women are 2 to 3 times more likely to die from cervical cancer, and they are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage, thus rendering treatment less effective.⁴ Black patients also have a higher burden of obesity, diabetes, and cardiac disease, and when they present to the hospital, receive evidence-based treatment at lower rates compared with White patients.⁵

Mourning the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, amongst the many other Black lives taken unjustly in the United States, has highlighted egregious practices against people of color embedded within the systems meant to protect and serve our communities. We as ObGyn physicians must take professional onus to recognize a devastating but humbling truth—systemic racism has long pervaded our health care practices and systems, and now more than ever, we must do more to stand by and for our patients. 

As ObGyns, we help support patients through some of the happiest, most vulnerable, and potentially most dire moments of their lives. We help patients through the birth of their children, reproductive struggles, gynecologic concerns, and cancer diagnoses. Many of us chose this field for the privilege of caring for patients at these critical moments in their lives, but we have often neglected the racism present in our practices, our hospital settings, and the medical system itself. We often fail to acknowledge our own implicit bias and the role that we play in contributing to acts and experiences of racism that our patients and our colleagues face on a daily basis. 

Racism in our origins 

The history of obstetrics and gynecology shows us a long record of physicians perpetrating injustices that target marginalized communities of color. Dr. James Sims, often given the title of “father of modern gynecology,” performed numerous experiments on unanesthetized Black female slaves to develop procedures for fistulae repair and other surgical techniques.⁶ Throughout the twentieth century, dating as recent as 1979, state laws written in the name of public safety forcibly sterilized women of color to control an “undesirable population.”⁷ When a patient of color declines a method of long-acting reversible contraception, birth control pills, or tubal ligation, do you take the time to reflect on the potential context of the patient’s decision? 

It is critical to recognize the legacy that these acts have on our patients today, leading to a higher burden of disease and an understandable distrust of the medical system. The uncovering of the unethical practices of the National Institutions of Health‒funded Tuskegee syphilis study, in which hundreds of Black men with latent syphilis were passively monitored despite the knowledge of a proven treatment, has attributed to a measurable decrease in life expectancy among Black males.⁸ Even as we face the COVID-19 pandemic, the undercurrent of racism continues to do harm. Black patients are 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than their White counterparts. This disparity, in part, is a product of a higher burden of comorbidities and the privilege associated with shelter-in-place policies, which disproportionately strain communities of color.⁹

We as a medical community need to do better for our patients. No matter how difficult to confront, each of us must acknowledge our own biases and our duty to combat persistent and perpetual racism in our medical system. We need to commit to amplifying the voices of our Black patients and colleagues. It is not enough to celebrate diversity for performance sake—it is time to recognize that diversity saves lives.

We have a responsibility to rectify these traditions of injustice and work toward a safer, more equitable, healthy future for our patients and their families. While this pledge may seem daunting, changes at individual and systems levels can make a difference for all patients that come through our doors. In addition, to honor our oath to “do no harm,” we must act; Black lives matter, and we are charged as medical providers to help our patients thrive, especially those from historically oppressed communities and who continue to suffer inexcusable injustices in health care and beyond. 

Take action

Here is a collection of ways to institute an antiracist environment and more equitable care for your patients.
 

Self-reflect and educate

• Learn about the role racism plays in ObGyn and modern medicine. One place to start: read “Medical Bondage: Race, Gender and the Origins of American Gynecology” by Deidre Cooper Owens. Also check out articles and key readings curated by the Black Mamas Matter Alliance. 
• Introduce and sustain antiracism training for all staff in your clinic or hospital system. To start, consider taking these free and quick implicit bias tests at a staff or department meeting. 
• Familiarize yourself and your colleagues with facets of reproductive justice—the human right to have children, to not have children, and to nurture children in a safe and healthy environment—and incorporate these values in your practice. Request trainings in reproductive justice from community groups like Sister Song. 
• Sign up for updates for state and national bills addressing health inequity and access to reproductive health services. Show your support by calling your congress-people, testifying, or donating to a cause that promotes these bills.  You can stay up to date on national issues with government affairs newsletters from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Sign up here. 
• Continue the conversation and re-evaluate your personal and institution’s efforts to combat racism and social and reproductive injustices. 

Provide access to high-quality reproductive health care

• Ask your patients what barriers they faced to come to your clinic and receive the care they needed. Consider incorporating the following screening tools regarding social determinants of health: PRAPARE screening tool, AAFP screening tool. 
• Promote access to insurance and support programs, including nutrition, exercise and wellness, and safe home and school environments. Look up resources available to your patients by their zip codes using AAFP’s Neighborhood Navigator. 
• Help patients access their medications at affordable prices in their neighborhoods by using free apps. Use the GoodRx app to identify discounts for prescriptions at various pharmacies, and search the Bedsider app to find out how your patients can get their birth control for free and delivered to their homes.
• Expand access to language services for patients who do not speak English as their first language. If working in a resource-limited setting, use the Google Translate app. Print out these free handouts for birth control fact sheets in different languages. 
• Establish standardized protocols for common treatment paradigms to reduce the influence of bias in clinical scenarios. For example, institute a protocol for managing postoperative pain to ensure equal access to treatment. 
• Institute the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) patient safety bundle on the Reduction of Peripartum Racial/Ethnic Disparities. Learn more about AIM’s maternal safety and quality improvement initiative to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality here. 

Support a diverse workforce

• Designate and/or hire a Diversity and Inclusion Officer at your institution to ensure that hiring practices actively achieve a diverse workforce and that employees feel supported in the work environment. Consider coalition-building between hospitals, like the UPHS-CHOP Alliance of Minority Physicians.
• Recruit diverse applicants by advertising positions to groups that focus on the advancement of underrepresented minorities in medicine. Engage with your local chapter of the National Medical Association and American Medical Women’s Association. 
• Have a system in place for anonymous reporting of incidents involving bias or discrimination against staff, and develop a protocol to ensure action is taken in case of such incidents.
• Institute a recurring conference or Grand Rounds across disciplines to discuss the impacts of bias and discrimination on patients and providers at your institution. View examples of these conferences here.
• Ensure invited speakers and other educational opportunities are comprised of diverse representation.
• Create a work environment with safe spaces for the discussion of racism, discrimination, and bias.