Graduate Medical Education Committee Research Articles

Developing a Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive Curriculum for Trainees

The importance of diversity in medical education has become increasingly clear with strong evidence showing its benefits in helping to reduce healthcare disparities and mortality, increase access to medical care, increase the number of clinicians practicing in medically underserved and rural communities, increased patient trust, improvement in patient-physician relationships, and better financial outcomes for health systems. As leaders in graduate medical education, the Teaching and Training Committee of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP) proposed the creation and development of a curriculum that fosters an inclusive learning environment for our fellows, promotes open dialogue among everyone involved in the clinical process, and establishes anti-bias principles as integral parts of geriatric psychiatry education. The AAGP Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Curriculum Development subcommittee was established to carry out this task. Themes to be explored include ageism, racism and bias, social determinants of health, cultural humility, ethics of decision making in older adults, substance use, neurobiology of stress, the mental health of minoritized older adults, psychosocial and cultural aspects of aging, and laws that impact this population.This session details the process of establishing this important curricular thread as a template or framework that can be used in Geriatric Psychiatry training programs throughout the country and, in acknowledgement of the importance of the workforce that cares for older adults, ensures that it is practical and applicable to clinicians in non-academic settings. The panelists will highlight DEI curricular development in one fellowship program from the view of a trainee, the impact on recruiting a more representative workforce, and how to improve trainee and faculty engagement within and across programs.This presentation is sponsored by the Teaching and Training Committee.

Continued Positive Job Search Experience for New Pathologists Seeking First Employment During the COVID-19 Pandemic (2020-2022).

As pathologists retire and leave the field, it is critical to accurately capture employment trends for new-in-practice pathologists. There is always interest in the job market for newly graduated pathology trainees and prospective pathology trainees, but it is unclear how the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the job search experience. To provide an update on trends gleaned from a survey of pathology graduates' job search experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyzed data from an annual job search survey sent by the College of American Pathologists Graduate Medical Education Committee between 2020 and 2022 to College of American Pathologists junior members and fellows in practice 3 years or less actively looking for a nonfellowship position. Various indicators of the job search experience were compared year to year and with the data previously published 2017 to 2019 and 2012 to 2016. Analysis revealed continued positive trends between the 2020 to 2022 data and the data from 2017 to 2019 and 2012 to 2016. This includes continued ease in finding positions, continued availability of jobs in the subspecialty of choice, continued satisfaction with the positions accepted, and, notably, higher starting salaries. Despite the many challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, job market trends for newly graduated pathology trainees continue to be favorable with respect to multiple indicators compared with 2 prior periods, 2017 to 2019 and 2012 to 2016.

The current landscape of emergency medicine resident scheduling.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and Residency Review Committee oversee resident physician work hours with additional specifics for U.S. emergency medicine (EM) residency programs. While there are maximum work hours, the regulatory bodies do not describe minimum work hours to achieve competency, leading to variable scheduling practices. This study aimed to understand the current landscape of U.S. EM residency scheduling given the expansion of programs, evolution of policies, and increased emphasis on wellness. We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess current strategies of U.S. EM residency scheduling. The RedCap survey was sent to all ACGME-accredited EM residency programs across the United States via individualized emails between January 10, 2023, and March 15, 2023. Data were combined using Microsoft Excel. A total of 138 of 278 (50%) programs responded to the survey. A total of 73.2% of programs were using thirteen 28-day blocks with the remainder using twelve 1-month blocks or reported "other" block scheduling. The number of blocks in the ED increases with each postgraduate year (PGY). For PGY-1 through PGY-3, the most commonly used shift duration was 9 h. The mean total shifts per ED block and hours worked per ED block are as follows: 19 shifts and 185.1 h (PGY-1), 18.2 shifts and 173.9 h (PGY-2), 17.3 shifts and 163.6 h (PGY-3), and 14.8 shifts and 157.2 h (PGY-4). Programs provide a median for 4 weeks of vacation per year of residency. Given the expansion of U.S. EM residency programs, we reevaluated the landscape of resident scheduling. We described scheduling patterns related to night shifts, vacations, requested time off, conference coverage, charting time, and circadian rhythms. Programs should utilize these data as a starting point for setting a clinical experience for their residents.

Implementation of a Specialty Society‒Sponsored Wilderness Medicine Fellowship Match.

Previously, wilderness medicine (WM) fellowships offered spots to applicants using an offer date. Due in part to increases in the number of WM fellowships and applicants, in 2021, the WM program directors (PDs) agreed to conduct the first WM fellowship match through the Wilderness Medical Society graduate medical education committee. This article outlines the process used and demonstrates its feasibility. To create an independent matching process, a simulation was performed using imaginary programs and participants. Using the same algorithm utilized by the National Resident Matching Program, this process was completed manually and by computer to ensure accuracy. The PDs shared an email with the applicants they interviewed and submitted their names. Applicants registered for the match and generated a match list. The PDs then submitted a rank list of applicants they interviewed through a similar Google form. These lists were used to run the matching algorithm both manually and by computer. Any programs that did not "fill" or applicants who did not "match" were contacted to participate in a secondary match. Following the match, a survey was sent to PDs and participants for process improvement. The match filled 11 of 14 participating programs and 15 of 19 applicants. The results obtained via a computer algorithm were consistent with multiple human validations. The survey results were mostly positive, with 2 neutral responses and no negative responses. The inaugural WM fellowship match was successful in matching the majority of programs and participants and was well-received by both directors and applicants.

Design and implementation of a health systems science curriculum at a large teaching hospital

BackgroundPhysicians must increasingly lead change for improvement in the value of health care for individuals and populations. Leadership, stewardship, and population health competencies are not explicitly part of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements and are best appreciated in the context of Health Systems Science (HSS).HSS education is best approached at the institutional level, yet almost all graduate medical education (GME) curriculum is at the program level. We describe the process of designing and implementing an institutional HSS GME curriculum in a hospital-based sponsoring institution.MethodsA group of diverse stakeholders drafted a curriculum to build competencies in leadership, stewardship, and population health, which was further refined by our Graduate Medical Education Committee (GMEC) and Resident Forum in the academic years 2015–2017. The refined curriculum was implemented at the institutional level of a large urban teaching hospital with over 80 ACGME accredited programs in the 2017–2018 academic year, participation was tracked and impact surveys were conducted.ResultsAll programs participate in at least parts of the curriculum with sustained use. Annual surveys show a progression in assessment of our target competencies and/or opportunities to reflect and provide feedback. The annual program review meeting and GMEC meetings are used to troubleshoot and identify new curricular opportunities.ConclusionThis innovative institutional curriculum has been sustained for over four years and we believe that other training institutions with similar goals will find our experience implementing an institutional curriculum translatable to their clinical learning environment.

The Promise of Aire.

Four-year residency programs have much to teach us, and the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Committee drafting new requirements for Family Medicine residencies decided to explore time-variable residency training more formally. Consequently, in December 2021, the ACGME and

Using a Milestone Framework for Assessing Resident, Fellow, and Faculty Competence in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Graduating residents and fellows who can competently provide equitable and inclusive care to a diverse patient population requires data to monitor progress and outcomes. This data must be continuously gathered and used to guide improvements at the individual program level and at the sponsoring institution level for trainee and faculty growth and development. Recognizing the need for data, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) updated its 2021 annual Resident/Fellow and Faculty Surveys to include items related to equity and inclusion. Yet, accessible data on the structural competency level of our residents and faculty specific to the areas of health equity, social responsibility, diversity, inclusion, and social determinants of health is limited.1Our aim was to develop and implement a quick, evidence-based, structural competency tool to monitor trainee and faculty proficiency over time. A literature review was completed to identify key competency elements. To facilitate implementation, we framed our assessment to parallel the structure and format of the ACGME's core competency milestone model. Literature-identified elements were plotted in each of the core competency domains with progression delineated across 5 levels resulting in a comprehensive 8-page milestone document. The milestone was then iteratively revised by multiple stakeholders (experts in diversity, equity, and inclusion, ethics, and medical education; faculty; learners; program directors) to create an annotated and referenced 2-page master milestone and an abbreviated milestone with domain threads across levels (eg, Medical Knowledge) for inclusion within each graduate medical education (GME) program's required milestone assessment form and for faculty self-assessment. For example, an element in the domain of Patient Care level 3 (Identifies and incorporates mitigation strategies to address structural risks in patient care) progresses to level 4 (Develops and collaborates with patient on plan of care cognizant of patient's intersectionalites and its influences on their health care values, decisions…). In the Professionalism domain, level 3 (Reconciles personal beliefs and identities with professional role; develops strategies to mitigate own implicit biases; recognizes the contribution of bias to iatrogenic risk and health disparities) progresses to level 4 (Speaks up in the moment [allyship]; utilizes incident reporting mechanism to address microaggressions and/or lateral workplace violence).The milestone was approved by the Graduate Medical Education Committee (GMEC) for inclusion as a required formative trainee assessment in every program beginning in January 2021 and as a request for faculty to complete as a needs assessment. Data are not used for trainee progress (Clinical Competency Committee reviews) or annual faculty performance reviews. Trainee milestone data across programs revealed a consistent progression in the institutional average competence by year of training from 3.1 (postgraduate year [PGY]-1) to 4.4 (PGY-6). The same progression held within each residency and fellowship program. Faculty self-assessment (N>100) revealed that, on average, greater than 50% of the faculty perceived themselves to be at level 4 or higher: range between domains of 53%–79% at or above level 3 by competency domain with SD 1.1 to 1.7. Programs utilize the data as part of their annual program evaluations outlining measurable action steps. At the GMEC level, the data guide GME-wide diversity, equity, and inclusion educational sessions for trainees and faculty.This structural milestone innovation meets our need for data to monitor our trainees' and faculty's competence to guide ongoing program improvements. Formatted like existing ACGME Milestones, implementation within existing trainee competency assessment systems and/or as a faculty self-assessment is seamless, enhancing its utility, feasibility, and transferability. That said, we recognize that milestones are not static; the specific domain inclusions will need to evolve as we do on our equity journey.

The pathology fellowship application crisis: The current state and suggestions for remediation

Problems within the Pathology fellowship application process in the US have been recognized and reported for years. Recently, members of the Graduate Medical Education Committee (GMEC) of the Association of Pathology Chairs (APC) and collaborators collected survey data from the residents themselves and the fellowship programs, as represented by both the fellowship program directors (members of the Fellowship Directors Ad Hoc Committee, FDAHC) and the program administrators (members of the Graduate Medical Education Administrators Section, GMEAS). These data are presented and discussed, and potential steps to resolve some of the problems around fellowship applications in pathology are presented.

Defining observable practice activities for postgraduate residents in cytopathology

Competency-based medical education (CBME) is the new buzzword in the context of the Indian postgraduate teaching. Entrustable professional activities (EPA) are a means by which competencies can be converted to clinical practice. The National Medical Council (NMC) has outlined the four basic skills expected from postgraduate students at the end of cytopathology training. In pathology, the College of American Pathologists Graduate Medical Education Committee has defined 19 EPA s for pathology postgraduate education. Out of these, 4 were for clinical pathology, 7 were for anatomic pathology, and 8 related to both of the above. However, both NMC and College of American Pathologists (CAP) have not further divided the EPAs and skills into smaller observable components observable practice activities (OPAs) so that the postgraduates can have clear-cut targets for their competency. Integration of the EPA to the pathology curriculum would be easier if separate OPAs are devised for postgraduates. We provide the proposed OPAs in cytopathology for postgraduate students based on multiple rounds of analysis by faculty from different institutions using a modified Delphi approach. This study is an example of a pilot project undertaken to implement OPAs in cytopathology laboratory by taking feedback from the stakeholders. This was followed by mapping these OPAs to their relevant competencies. These can be considered stepping stones for the final competency evaluation. To conclude, shortlisting the OPAs is the first step in integrating CBME into the existing pathology postgraduate teaching. The next step is to devise ways to evaluate them in an objective manner and provide feedback to the residents regarding their shortcomings.

A Collaborative Approach to Safety, Equity, and Fairness by Medical Staff, Graduate Medical Education, Human Resources, and Law Enforcement.

A Collaborative Approach to Safety, Equity, and Fairness by Medical Staff, Graduate Medical Education, Human Resources, and Law Enforcement.

Cultivating Healthy Governance in Rural Programs.

Cultivating Healthy Governance in Rural Programs.

Positive Job Search Experience for New Pathologists Seeking First Employment Between 2017 and 2019.

An aging population calls for an adequate response in the workforce of medical professionals. The field of pathology has seen a downward trend in numbers of graduating US allopathic medical students choosing the specialty. Concerns about the job market after residency and fellowship graduation may be a contributing factor. To provide an update on the trends emerging from a survey of pathology graduates' job search experience for their first nonfellowship position. Data from an annual job search survey sent by the College of American Pathologists Graduate Medical Education Committee between 2017 and 2019 to College of American Pathologists junior members and fellows in practice 3 years or less actively looking for a nonfellowship position was analyzed. Various indicators of the job search experience were compared year to year and with the previously published 2012 to 2016 benchmark data. Analysis revealed positive trends between the 2017 to 2019 data and the 2012 to 2016 benchmark data, including participants' perceiving more ease in finding a position, improved availability of jobs in their subspecialty choice, and higher ratings of satisfaction with the position accepted, as well as a greater proportion of respondents finding a position within 6 months of initiating their job search. The job market for pathology residents and fellows looking for their first nonfellowship position has improved with respect to multiple indicators, such as ease of finding a position, length of job search, and satisfaction with the position accepted when comparing 2017 to 2019 data with the 2012 to 2016 benchmark data.

Residency training in the time of COVID-19: Aframework for academic medical centers dealing with the pandemic.

BackgroundAs cases of COVID-19 climb worldwide, academic medical centers (AMCs) are scrambling to balance the increasing demand for medical services while maintaining safe learning environments. The scale and nature of the current pandemic, limitations on key resources, risks of transmission, and the impact on trainee wellbeing pose additional challenges to AMCs. We propose a framework for AMCs to utilize in facilitating health system, organization and program-level adjustments to meet the needs of medical trainees during the pandemic.ApproachIn February 2020, we developed a three-level approach to the pandemic response of training programs at our AMC. The first level involved AMC alignment and engagement with regulatory stakeholders. The second level utilized the graduate medical education committee and leveraged organizational functions such as human resources, finance, and clinical departments. The third level of intervention focused on common approaches used by programs to ensure continuity of learning in the context of dynamic changes in workflows and service operations.EvaluationOutcomes at each level are reported. These include the co-development of a national framework on medical trainee responses to COVID-19, the composition of an operational guidance document, organizational protocols to accommodate novel challenges posed by the pandemic, and multiple program-level interventions.ReflectionThis methodical approach, employed during a global crisis, was critical in facilitating interventions required to fulfill the mission of AMCs. Future steps include assessing the impact of these changes on trainee performance and the applicability of the approach in diverse settings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40037-020-00622-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Blueprinting Program Evaluation Evidence Through the Lens of Key Stakeholders.

Residency and fellowship program leaders regularly seek information to determine the value or effectiveness of their programs' sponsored activities and processes to drive continuous improvement. This information often includes individuals' judgements and perceptions about what is or is not working. These judgements and perceptions may be influenced by individuals' backgrounds or values, as well as limited data about the program. Thus, key stakeholders in any program evaluation must be queried about evaluation evidence prior to gathering any new information.A stakeholder is an individual or group that has an interest in any decision or activity in a residency or fellowship program. Stakeholders can be internal to the program (residents/fellows, faculty, program coordinator) or the sponsoring organization (Graduate Medical Education Committee, designated institutional official, C-suite leaders). These stakeholders often seek evidence about training experiences and outcomes. Stakeholders can also be external to the program (accreditation bodies, medical school leaders) and may have additional questions that require different kinds of evidence. Patients and community leaders as external stakeholders can provide insights into alignment between the program goals and community interests. The selection of the program's evaluation focus1 will determine the key stakeholders to include in the evaluation and their level of involvement in the process. For example, consider who is responsible or accountable for making decisions about the program, who should be consulted or who just needs to be informed (RACI).2 Spending time up-front to query stakeholders regarding the evidence they need to inform their decisions about the program will optimize their engagement and the evaluation's utility,3 increasing capacity for change.4

University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences.

University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences.

Analysis of Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) Data Can Improve House Staff Diversity

BackgroundTraining diverse house staff, including those who are underrepresented in medicine, is vital to provide high-quality patient care for the communities that we serve. In 2018, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education announced new common program requirements for systematic efforts to recruit and retain a diverse workforce. However, questions remain about how to implement such efforts. Materials and methodsElectronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) data from eight residency programs spanning two recruitment cycles (2017-2018, 2018-2019) was reviewed. The number of candidates at each stage in the process (applicant, invited to interview, interviewed, and matched) was examined by self-identified race or ethnicity. These data were presented to residency program directors at our Graduate Medical Education committee meeting before the next recruitment cycle. Data were analyzed following the 2019-20 residency match. Odds ratios and Pearson's chi-squared test were used to assess statistical significance. ResultsA total of 10,445 and 10,982 medical students applied to our 8 core residency programs in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Medical students who applied and self-identified as Asian, Black or African American, and Hispanic or Latino or Spanish origin had lower odds of being invited to interview than those who self-identified as White. After data presentation, the odds of inviting Black or African American applicants to interview increased significantly. The odds of attending an interview once invited were the same across groups. ConclusionsSharing ERAS data patterns with residency program directors was associated with a significant year over year change in interviewee diversity. Structured analysis of institutional ERAS data can provide insight into the resident selection process and may be a useful tool to improve house staff diversity.

Cost analysis and barriers to implementing and sustaining an international surgical resident rotation: a retrospective review

BackgroundThe overwhelming need and interest in global surgery has led to increasing numbers of international surgery resident rotations. Despite the validity of global surgical education, financial and logistical barriers remain when implementing these international rotations. The Mount Sinai Department of Surgery, New York, USA, established an international resident rotation in 2005. Here, we describe some of the costs and barriers to establishing and maintaining a global surgery rotation with the aim of providing a guideline for academic institutions interested in building an international rotation. MethodsThis study is a retrospective review of the international rotation with the Hospital Jose Maria Cabral y Báez (Cabral) in Santiago, Dominican Republic. The exchange programme is an opportunity for two resident doctors from Dominican Republic to join Mount Sinai third year residents in a 1-month surgical rotation. We reviewed data collected from budgets, financial investments, resident and programme director experiences, and formal agreements between the two institutions. FindingsWith the Mount Sinai funding, there have been three residents from the Dominican Republic who have completed an exchange rotation at the Mount Sinai Hospital. An optimum international site requires a balanced alliance between the US academic institution and the international site. The Cabral and Mount Sinai collaborative partnership allows residents from both institutions to benefit from the exchange of experiences and surgical practices. Site selection is contingent on: hospital infrastructure (eg, operative variety and volume, faculty oversight); suitable living accommodations that allow personal safety, access to food, running water, electricity, and an internet connection; and overcoming language barriers. Successful implementation requires a time commitment from staff at both institutions. The monthly operational cost of this programme is US$3530, with 37% for visiting resident accommodation, 30% for transport, 20% for visiting resident expenses, and 13% for health and communication expenses. The time required by the US programme director includes an annual trip to the international rotation site and approximately 100 h per year, which includes monthly orientations and debriefings, and research. Finally, this programme requires adherence to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and Residency Review Committee guidelines. InterpretationGlobal academic surgery combines surgery with education, clinical service, research, and advocacy in resource-limited settings. Mitigation of logistical barriers and addressing financial costs allows for successful global academic surgery programmes. FundingNone

Gender Parity in Gainful Employment and Other Gender Trends in the Job Market for Recent Pathology Graduates.

Gender-based barriers to equal salary, career advancement, and leadership still exist in medicine. Herein we provide the first report of data comparing the experiences of men and women seeking their first nonfellowship position in pathology. To identify gender trends regarding pathologists taking their first job after training and the relationship to various demographic factors, job search satisfaction, and outcome. Aggregate data from the College of American Pathologists Graduate Medical Education Committee Job Market surveys (2015-2018) were analyzed across multiple domains including residency focus, number and subspecialty of fellowships completed, and extent to which expectations were met in regard to work duties, geographic preference, benefits, and salary. These data were examined in the context of assessing gender-based differences. Comparable results were identified in all measured outcomes according to gender. There were no differences between gender and medical school type, relocation, residency training focus, number of fellowships completed, overall satisfaction with position accepted, salary, or extent to which the position met expectations. Similarly, there were also no discrepancies between gender and the geographic region in which positions were accepted, practice setting, practice subspecialty, partnership track, length of job search, or difficulty finding a position. Analysis from 4 years of job market survey data shows equivalent results between men and women looking for their first nonfellowship position in pathology. There were no significant differences with regard to difficulty finding a position, overall satisfaction with the position accepted, salary, benefits, or access to partnership track.

Will I Need to Move to Get My First Job?: Geographic Relocation and Other Trends in the Pathology Job Market.

There is an ongoing perception that the pathology job market is poor, which may be discouraging medical students from pursuing the specialty. Academic pathologists believe that jobs are available but relocation may be necessary. To identify trends regarding the geographic relocation of pathologists taking their first job after training. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Graduate Medical Education Committee has sent an annual job search survey from 2012-2016 to CAP junior members and fellows in practice for 3 years or less and seeking their first job. Data were analyzed across demographics and geographic domains consisting of the following: stayed at same institution/city, relocated within the same region, or relocated to a different region. Standard statistical methods were used. Of 501 respondents, 421 reported completing combined anatomic pathology (AP)/clinical pathology (CP) training, while 80 reported AP- or CP-only training. Of the 421 AP/CP respondents, 109 (26%) stayed at the same institution or city, while of the 80 AP- or CP-only respondents, 36 (45%) stayed at the same institution or city. One hundred ninety-nine respondents completed surgical pathology fellowships with 124 (62%) general/oncologic surgical pathology and 75 (38%) subspecialty surgical pathology trainees. Job seekers who completed general surgical pathology/surgical oncologic pathology fellowship accounted for 34 of 52 (65%) of those remaining at the same institution or city, while those with subspecialty training accounted for 40 of 77 (52%) of those relocating to a different region. Relocation did not demonstrate any significant trends in regard to other demographics studied. The pathology job market appears stable with no precedent for geographic hardship.

Perceptions of Surgery Residents About Parental Leave During Training

To our knowledge, there has been little research conducted on the attitudes of residents toward their pregnant peers and parental leave. To examine the perceptions of current surgery residents regarding parental leave. A 36-item survey was distributed to current US general surgery residents and residents in surgical subspecialties through the Association of Program Directors in Surgery listserv and social media platforms. Questions were associated with general information/demographics, parental leave, having children, and respondents' knowledge regarding the current parental leave policy as set by the American Board of Surgery. The study was conducted from August to September 2018 and the data were analyzed in October 2018. Main outcomes included the attitudes of residents toward pregnancy and parental leave, parental leave policy, and the association of parental leave with residency programs. A total of 2188 completed responses were obtained; of these, 1049 (50.2%) were women, 1572 (75.8%) were white, 164 (7.9%) were Hispanic/Latinx, 75 (3.6%) were African American, 2 (0.1%) were American Indian or Alaskan Native, 263 (12.7%) were Asian, and 5 (0.2%) were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. From the number of residents who had/were expecting children (581 [28.6%]), 474 (81.6%) had or were going to have a child during the clinical years of residency. Many residents (247 [42.5%]) took fewer than 2 weeks of parental leave. Many residents did not feel supported in taking parental leave (177 [30.4%] did not feel supported by other residents and 190 [32.71%] did not feel supported by the faculty). Only 83 respondents (3.8%%) correctly identified the current American Board of Surgery parental leave policy. Residents who took parental leave identified a lack of a universal leave policy, strain on the residency program, a loss of education/training time, a lack of flexibility of programs, and a perceived or actual lack of support from faculty/peers as the top 5 biggest obstacles to taking leave during the clinical years of residency. Most of the modifiable factors that inhibit residents from having children during residency are associated with policies (eg, a lack of universal leave policy and lack of flexibility) and personnel (eg, a strain on the residency program and lack of support from peers/faculty). These data suggest that policies at the level of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or Resident Review Committee (RRC), as well as education and the normalization of pregnancy during training, may be effective interventions.