Volume 16: Issue 3

Background The 2022 Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization nullified the constitutional right to abortion, which led to effective bans in at least 14 US states and placed obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) residents in dilemmas where they may have to withhold care, potentially causing moral distress—a health care workforce phenomenon less understood among resident physicians.

Objective To identify and explore moral distress experienced by OB/GYN residents due to care restrictions post-Dobbs.

Methods In 2023, we invited OB/GYN residents, identified by their program directors, training in states with restricted abortion access, to participate in one-on-one, semi-structured interviews via Zoom about their experiences caring for patients post-Dobbs. We used thematic analysis to analyze interview data.

Results Twenty-one residents described their experiences of moral distress due to restrictions. We report on 3 themes in their accounts related to moral distress (and 4 subthemes): (1) challenges to their physician identity (inability to do the job, internalized distress, and reconsidering career choices); (2) participating in care that exacerbates inequities (and erodes patient trust); and (3) determination to advocate for and provide abortion care in the future.

Conclusions OB/GYN residents grappled with moral distress and identified challenges from abortion restrictions.

Background A national survey of general surgery residents revealed significant self-assessed deficits in preparation for independent practice, with only 7.7% of graduating postgraduate year 5 residents (n=1145) reporting self-efficacy for all 10 commonly performed operations surveyed.

Objective We sought to understand why this phenomenon occurs. We hypothesized that self-efficacy would be positively correlated with both operative independence and case volume.

Methods We compared 3 independent datasets: case information for the same 10 previously surveyed operations for residents graduating in 2020 (dataset 1), operative independence data obtained through the SIMPL OR app, an operative self-assessment tool (dataset 2), and case volume data obtained through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education National Data Report (dataset 3). Operations were categorized into high, middle (mid), and low self-efficacy tiers; analysis of variance was used to compare operative independence and case volume per tier.

Results There were significant differences in self-efficacy between high (87.7%), mid (68.3%), and low (25.4%) tiers (P=.008 [95% CI 6.2, 32.7] for high vs mid, P<.001 for high vs low [49.1, 75.6], and P<.001 for mid vs low [28.7, 57.1]). The percentage of cases completed with operative independence followed similar trends (high 32.7%, mid 13.8%, low 4.9%, P=.006 [6.4, 31.4] for high vs mid, P<.001 [15.3, 40.3] for high vs low, P=.23 [-4.5, 22.3] for mid vs low). The total volume of cases decreased from high to mid to low self-efficacy tiers (average 91.8 to 20.8 to 11.1) but did not reach statistical significance on post-hoc analysis.

Conclusions In this analysis of US surgical residents, operative independence was strongly correlated with self-efficacy.

Background The integration of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) within objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) has yielded a valuable avenue for delivering timely feedback to residents. However, concerns about feedback quality persist.

Objective This study aimed to assess the quality and content alignment of verbal feedback provided by examiners during an entrustment-based OSCE.

Methods We conducted a progress test OSCE for internal medicine residents in 2022, assessing 7 EPAs. The immediate 2-minute feedback provided by examiners was recorded and analyzed using the Quality of Assessment of Learning (QuAL) score. We also analyzed the degree of alignment with EPA learning objectives: competency milestones and task-specific abilities. In a randomized crossover experiment, we compared the impact of 2 scoring methods used to assess residents’ clinical performance (3-point entrustability scales vs task-specific checklists) on feedback quality and alignment.

Results Twenty-one examiners provided feedback to 67 residents. The feedback demonstrated high quality (mean QuAL score 4.3 of 5) and significant alignment with the learning objectives of the EPAs. On average, examiners addressed in their feedback 2.5 milestones (61%) and 1.2 task-specific abilities (46%). The scoring methods used had no significant impact on QuAL scores (95% CI -0.3, 0.1, P=.28), alignment with competency milestones (95% CI -0.4, 0.1, P=.13), or alignment with task-specific abilities (95% CI -0.3, 0.1, P=.29).

Conclusions In our entrustment-based OSCE, examiners consistently offered valuable feedback aligned with intended learning outcomes. Notably, we explored high-quality feedback and alignment as separate dimensions, finding no significant impact from our 2 scoring methods on either aspect.

The sun is still hidden, and the pager begins to beep

It’s hour 26 and there are still patients to see

They have seizures, new weakness, unexplained encephalopathy

Now you add a new case of headaches to your list solemnly.

Like a black hole, work swarms and grows and grows

Running, rounding, patient calls, messages, oh we are in the throes!

The mind races, heart flutters, sweat glistens on your skin

Uncovering doubts, insecurities, and fears from within.

You hear pushy talkers, the know-it-alls, the many mentalities

Some seem to intimidate, or bring you to your knees

Now close your