Original Article

Identifying Gender-Related Differences in Graduate Medical Education with the Use of a Web-Based Professionalism Monitoring Tool

Authors: Manuel C. Vallejo, MD, DMD, Lauren E. Imler, BS, Shelia S. Price, DDS, EdD, Christa L. Lilly, PhD, Rebecca M. Elmo, BA, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, Linda S. Nield, MD

Abstract

Objectives: Medical education is required to ensure a healthy training and learning environment for resident physicians. Trainees are expected to demonstrate professionalism with patients, faculty, and staff. West Virginia University Graduate Medical Education (GME) initiated a Web-based professionalism and mistreatment form (“button”) on our Web site for reporting professionalism breaches, mistreatment, and exemplary behavior events. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics in resident trainees who had a “button push” activation about their behavior to better understand ways to improve professionalism in GME.

Methods: This West Virginia University institutional review board–approved quality improvement study is a descriptive analysis of GME button push activations from July 2013 through June 2021. We compared characteristics of all of those trainees who had specific button activation(s) about their behavior. Data are reported as frequency and percentage. Nominal data and interval data were analyzed using the χ2 and the t test, respectively. P < 0.05 was significant. Logistic regression was used to analyze those differences that were significant.

Results: In the 8-year study period, there were 598 button activations, and 54% (n = 324) of the activations were anonymous. Nearly all of the button reports (n = 586, 98%) were constructively resolved within 14 days. Of the 598 button activations, 95% (n = 569) were identified as involving one sex, with 66.3% (n = 377) identified as men and 33.7% (n = 192) as women. Of the 598 activations, 83.7% (n = 500) involved residents and 16.3% (n = 98) involved attendings. One-time offenders comprised 90% (n = 538), and 10% (n = 60) involved individuals who had previous button pushes about their behavior.

Conclusions: Implementation of a professionalism-monitoring tool, such as our Web-based button push, identified gender differences in the reporting of professionalism breaches, because twice as many men as women were identified as the instigator of a professionalism breech. The tool also facilitated timely interventions and exemplary behavior recognition.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Hansen M, Schoonover A, Skarica B, et al. Implicit gender bias among US resident physicians. BMC Med Educ 2019;19:396.
 
2. Mueller AS, Jenkins TM, Osborne M, et al. Gender differences in attending physicians’ feedback to residents: a qualitative analysis. J Grad Med Educ 2017;9:577–585.
 
3. Dayal A, O’Connor DM, Qadri U, et al. Comparison of male vs female resident milestone evaluations by faculty during emergency medicine residency training. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177:651–657.
 
4. Carnes M, Bartels CM, Kaatz A, et al. Why is John more likely to become department chair than Jennifer? Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 2015;126: 197–214.
 
5. Galvin SL, Parlier AB, Martino E, et al. Gender bias in nurse evaluations of residents in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126(suppl 4): 7S–12S.
 
6. Loeppky C, Babenko O, Ross S. Examining gender bias in the feedback shared with family medicine residents. Educ Prim Care 2017;28:319–324.
 
7. Landau SI, Syvyk S, Wirtalla C, et al. Trainee sex and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestone assessments during general surgery residency. JAMA Surg 2021;156:925–931.
 
8. Fnais N, Soobiah C, Chen MH, et al. Harassment and discrimination in medical training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med 2014;89:817–827.
 
9. Ruzycki SM, Freeman G, Bharwani A, et al. Association of physician characteristics With perceptions and experiences of gender equity in an academic internal medicine department. JAMA Netw Open 2019;2:e1915165.
 
10. Wear D, Keck-McNulty C. Attitudes of female nurses and female residents toward each other: a qualitative study in one U.S. teaching hospital. Acad Med 2004;79:291–301.
 
11. Burgess DJ, Joseph A, van Ryn M, et al. Does stereotype threat affect women in academic medicine? Acad Med 2012;87:506–512.
 
12. Edmunds LD, Ovseiko PV, Shepperd S, et al. Why do women choose or reject careers in academic medicine? A narrative review of empirical evidence. Lancet 2016;388:2948–2958.
 
13. Kuhn GJ, Abbuhl SB, Clem KJ; Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Taskforce for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine. Recommendations from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Taskforce on women in academic emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:762–767.
 
14. Leonard JC, Ellsbury KE. Gender and interest in academic careers among first- and third-year residents. Acad Med 1996;71:502–504.
 
15. Eagly AH, Karau SJ. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol Rev 2002;109:573–598.
 
16. Heilman ME, Wallen AS, Fuchs D, et al. Penalties for success: reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. J Appl Psychol 2004;89: 416–427.
 
17. Billick M, Rassos J, Ginsburg S. Dressing the part: gender differences in residents’ experiences of feedback in internal medicine. Acad Med 2022; 97:406–413.
 
18. Thackeray EW, Halvorsen AJ, Ficalora RD, et al. The effects of gender and age on evaluation of trainees and faculty in gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:1610–1614.
 
19. Brienza RS, Huot S, Holmboe ES. Influence of gender on the evaluation of internal medicine residents. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2004;13:77–83.
 
20. Santen SA, Yamazaki K, Holmboe ES, et al. Comparison of male and female resident milestone assessments during emergency medicine residency training: a national Study. Acad Med 2020;95:263–268.
 
21. Holmboe ES, Huot SJ, Brienza RS, et al. The association of faculty and residents’ gender on faculty evaluations of internal medicine residents in 16 residencies. Acad Med 2009;84:381–384.
 
22. Eysenbach G, Wyatt J. Using the Internet for surveys and health research. J Med Internet Res 2002;4:E13.
 
23. Glenn TH, Rhea J, Wheeless LR. Interpersonal communication satisfaction and biological sex: nurse-physician relationships. Commun Res Rep 1997; 14:24–32.
 
24. Lamude KG, Daniels TD, Graham EE. The paradoxical influence of sex on communication rules coorientation and communication satisfaction in superior-subordinate relationships. West J Speech Commun 1988;52: 122–134.
 
25. Porter S. A participant observation study of power relations between nurses and doctors in a general hospital. J Adv Nurs 1991;16:728–735.