Alice L Tang1, Adam Miller1, Samantha Hauff, Charles M Myer1,2, Vinita Takiar3, Rebecca J Howell1, Jonathan R Mark1. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio. 2. the Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology , Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology , University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: This study evaluates the existence and nature of maternity and paternity leave policies for residents during otolaryngology training. The study sought to survey program directors (PDs) on the impact of parental leave. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to 103 otolaryngology residency PDs. A link to a 10-page, 30-question survey was provided. Descriptive statistics and comments were collected. RESULTS: Forty-one respondents (39.8%) completed the survey, all of whom were from university-based programs. Programs from the Midwest (n = 11, 26.8%), Northeast (n = 12, 29.3%), South (n = 12, 29.3%) and West (n = 6, 14.6%) were represented. Sixteen (42%) programs reported having a written formal maternity leave policy for trainees, and 13 (32%) programs had a paternity-specific policy. Four programs reported using short-term disability, whereas 11 programs reported using the Family Medical Leave Act to accommodate parental leave. Policies primarily followed the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and American Board of Otolaryngology guidelines, with factors such as clinical duties and call schedules left to the programs' discretion. Although the majority of PDs (56%) reported support of residents who planned to become pregnant during training, many expressed concerns regarding the burden on co-residents and the difficulty of fulfilling training obligations for the resident taking leave. CONCLUSIONS: Many institutions do not have parental leave policies and logistics regarding leave are left to the discretion of individual programs. Surveyed PDs addressed the challenges of becoming a parent during training and the potential burden placed on the program when trainees take leave. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 129:1093-1099, 2019.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: This study evaluates the existence and nature of maternity and paternity leave policies for residents during otolaryngology training. The study sought to survey program directors (PDs) on the impact of parental leave. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to 103 otolaryngology residency PDs. A link to a 10-page, 30-question survey was provided. Descriptive statistics and comments were collected. RESULTS: Forty-one respondents (39.8%) completed the survey, all of whom were from university-based programs. Programs from the Midwest (n = 11, 26.8%), Northeast (n = 12, 29.3%), South (n = 12, 29.3%) and West (n = 6, 14.6%) were represented. Sixteen (42%) programs reported having a written formal maternity leave policy for trainees, and 13 (32%) programs had a paternity-specific policy. Four programs reported using short-term disability, whereas 11 programs reported using the Family Medical Leave Act to accommodate parental leave. Policies primarily followed the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and American Board of Otolaryngology guidelines, with factors such as clinical duties and call schedules left to the programs' discretion. Although the majority of PDs (56%) reported support of residents who planned to become pregnant during training, many expressed concerns regarding the burden on co-residents and the difficulty of fulfilling training obligations for the resident taking leave. CONCLUSIONS: Many institutions do not have parental leave policies and logistics regarding leave are left to the discretion of individual programs. Surveyed PDs addressed the challenges of becoming a parent during training and the potential burden placed on the program when trainees take leave. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 129:1093-1099, 2019.
Authors: Dana D Huh; Jiangxia Wang; Michael J Fliotsos; Casey J Beal; Charline S Boente; C Ellis Wisely; Lindsay M De Andrade; Alice C Lorch; Saras Ramanathan; Maria A Reinoso; Ramya N Swamy; Evan L Waxman; Fasika A Woreta; Divya Srikumaran Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 8.253
Authors: Eve P Champaloux; Anne Starks Acosta; Stacey T Gray; Tanya K Meyer; Regan W Bergmark Journal: Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol Date: 2022-07-28
Authors: Marianne Casilla-Lennon; Stephanie Hanchuk; Sijin Zheng; David D Kim; Benjamin Press; Justin V Nguyen; Alyssa Grimshaw; Michael S Leapman; Jaime A Cavallo Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Kirti Magudia; Thomas S C Ng; Alexander G Bick; Megan A Koster; Camden Bay; Kathryn M Rexrode; Stacy E Smith; Debra F Weinstein Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2020-04