BACKGROUND: Prior research has shown a gender gap in the evaluations of emergency medicine (EM) residents' competency on the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones, yet the practical implications of this are not fully understood. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the gender gap in evaluations, we examined qualitative differences in the feedback that male and female residents received from attending physicians. METHODS: This study used a longitudinal qualitative content analysis of narrative comments by attending physicians during real-time direct observation milestone evaluations of residents. Comments were collected over 2 years from 1 ACGME-accredited EM training program. RESULTS: In total, 1317 direct observation evaluations with comments from 67 faculty members were collected for 47 postgraduate year 3 EM residents. Analysis of the comments revealed that the ideal EM resident possesses many stereotypically masculine traits. Additionally, examination of a subset of the residents (those with 15 or more comments, n = 35) showed that when male residents struggled, they received consistent feedback from different attending physicians regarding aspects of their performance that needed work. In contrast, when female residents struggled, they received discordant feedback from different attending physicians, particularly regarding issues of autonomy and assertiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed qualitative differences in the kind of feedback that male and female EM residents received from attending physicians. The findings suggest that attending physicians should endeavor to provide male and female residents with consistent feedback and guard against gender bias in their perceptions of residents' capabilities.
BACKGROUND: Prior research has shown a gender gap in the evaluations of emergency medicine (EM) residents' competency on the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones, yet the practical implications of this are not fully understood. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the gender gap in evaluations, we examined qualitative differences in the feedback that male and female residents received from attending physicians. METHODS: This study used a longitudinal qualitative content analysis of narrative comments by attending physicians during real-time direct observation milestone evaluations of residents. Comments were collected over 2 years from 1 ACGME-accredited EM training program. RESULTS: In total, 1317 direct observation evaluations with comments from 67 faculty members were collected for 47 postgraduate year 3 EM residents. Analysis of the comments revealed that the ideal EM resident possesses many stereotypically masculine traits. Additionally, examination of a subset of the residents (those with 15 or more comments, n = 35) showed that when male residents struggled, they received consistent feedback from different attending physicians regarding aspects of their performance that needed work. In contrast, when female residents struggled, they received discordant feedback from different attending physicians, particularly regarding issues of autonomy and assertiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed qualitative differences in the kind of feedback that male and female EM residents received from attending physicians. The findings suggest that attending physicians should endeavor to provide male and female residents with consistent feedback and guard against gender bias in their perceptions of residents' capabilities.
Authors: Curtiland Deville; Wei-Ting Hwang; Ramon Burgos; Christina H Chapman; Stefan Both; Charles R Thomas Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Karen M Freund; Anita Raj; Samantha E Kaplan; Norma Terrin; Janis L Breeze; Tracy H Urech; Phyllis L Carr Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Molly Carnes; Patricia G Devine; Linda Baier Manwell; Angela Byars-Winston; Eve Fine; Cecilia E Ford; Patrick Forscher; Carol Isaac; Anna Kaatz; Wairimu Magua; Mari Palta; Jennifer Sheridan Journal: Acad Med Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Alyssa Friede Westring; Rebecca M Speck; Mary Dupuis Sammel; Patricia Scott; Emily F Conant; Lucy Wolf Tuton; Stephanie B Abbuhl; Jeane Ann Grisso Journal: Acad Med Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Robin Klein; Katherine A Julian; Erin D Snyder; Jennifer Koch; Nneka N Ufere; Anna Volerman; Ann E Vandenberg; Sarah Schaeffer; Kerri Palamara Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Helen Neighbour; Sandra Monteiro; Mark Lee; Yifei Wu; Anthony Levinson; Jonathan Sherbino Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Alexandra E Rojek; Raman Khanna; Joanne W L Yim; Rebekah Gardner; Sarah Lisker; Karen E Hauer; Catherine Lucey; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.128