Jema K Turk1, Uta Landy2, Jessie Chien2, Jody E Steinauer2. 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; University of California, San Francisco Fellowship in Family Planning, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: jema.turk@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; University of California, San Francisco Fellowship in Family Planning, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Only 64% of obstetrics and gynecology program directors report routine, scheduled training in abortion, despite the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's requirements for routine training. Most report that exposure to training is limited to specific clinical circumstances. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe residency program directors' perspectives of support for and resistance to abortion training in residency training programs in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national survey of directors explored the availability of abortion training as well as support for and resistance to abortion training within their departments and institutions. In addition, directors who indicated that training was not available at all, available only as an elective, or as routine but limited to specific clinical circumstances, were also asked which procedures were limited, in what ways, and by whom. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 190 residency program directors (79%) responded from throughout the United States (30% in the Northeast, 30% in the South, 23% in the Midwest, and 16% in the West), and 14% described their program as religiously affiliated. Most directors (73%) reported at least some institutional or government restrictions to training, and reported an average of 3 types of restrictions. Hospital policy was the most commonly reported restriction, followed by state law. Programs with routine abortion training reported an average of 2 restrictions, compared with 4 restrictions in programs with optional training, and 5 restrictions in programs with no abortion training. CONCLUSION: Significant barriers to integrating abortion training into residents' schedules continue to exist decades after the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education training mandate. We should use these data to develop better support and targeted strategies for increasing the number of trained abortion providers in the United States.
BACKGROUND: Only 64% of obstetrics and gynecology program directors report routine, scheduled training in abortion, despite the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's requirements for routine training. Most report that exposure to training is limited to specific clinical circumstances. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe residency program directors' perspectives of support for and resistance to abortion training in residency training programs in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national survey of directors explored the availability of abortion training as well as support for and resistance to abortion training within their departments and institutions. In addition, directors who indicated that training was not available at all, available only as an elective, or as routine but limited to specific clinical circumstances, were also asked which procedures were limited, in what ways, and by whom. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 190 residency program directors (79%) responded from throughout the United States (30% in the Northeast, 30% in the South, 23% in the Midwest, and 16% in the West), and 14% described their program as religiously affiliated. Most directors (73%) reported at least some institutional or government restrictions to training, and reported an average of 3 types of restrictions. Hospital policy was the most commonly reported restriction, followed by state law. Programs with routine abortion training reported an average of 2 restrictions, compared with 4 restrictions in programs with optional training, and 5 restrictions in programs with no abortion training. CONCLUSION: Significant barriers to integrating abortion training into residents' schedules continue to exist decades after the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education training mandate. We should use these data to develop better support and targeted strategies for increasing the number of trained abortion providers in the United States.