Nordhues, Hannah

Background: There is a lack of data regarding the current state of lactation accommodations at continuing medical education (CME) events to guide best practice recommendations. Objective: To evaluate CME attendee attitudes, experiences, and preferences as it pertains to lactation support accommodations at CME events. Design: A cross-sectional study utilizing an electronic-based survey. Methods: Surveys were administered electronically to attendees of seven CME courses from August 2022 to October 2023, and de-identified data were collected to a secure database. Attitudes regarding lactation accommodations, personal preferences for lactation accommodations, and experiences with lactation at CME events were analyzed. Results: Of the 337 survey respondents, 169 had personal experience with lactation and 47 had experience with lactation at a CME course within the past 10 years. The majority of respondents agreed that lactation accommodations should be a priority ( n = 264, 83%) and are a medical need ( n = 285, 89%). Of those with recent experience lactating at a CME course, only 19% ( n = 9) indicated adequate lactation accommodations were provided. Due to inadequate accommodations, 77% ( n = 36) of respondents experienced decreased participation in the CME course content, 70% ( n = 33) claimed fewer hours of CME credit, and 74% ( n = 35) experienced decreased satisfaction in the CME course. Preferences for lactation accommodations included proximity to the meeting, audio–visual streaming of content, privacy, security, and signage supporting lactation in addition to an adequate designated space with access to an electrical plug and water supply. Conclusions: The current state of lactation accommodations at CME courses is inadequate and contributes to inequitable experiences for lactating participants. Course participants are supportive of lactating healthcare professionals at CME courses and recognize lactation accommodations as a priority. Further work is needed to inform and institute changes to lactation accommodations for healthcare professionals.

Background: Residency is a time of personal and professional growth. Resident assessment and feedback are an integral part of that process. However, assessment may be influenced by various types of bias, including gender bias. Women are less likely than men to be identified by their professional titles in many settings. The use of professional titles for residents in written assessments is unknown and may be a marker of bias. Objective: To assess for differences and trends regarding the use of professional and personal titles in formal resident assessments related to gender-based resident–faculty pairs. Methods: Electronic assessments of postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) internal medicine residents from the 2019–2020 academic year were used. Professional title use was analyzed, as it relates to resident–faculty gendered dyads, among other variables. The primary outcome of professional title usage was split into a binary variable by professional versus other titles and analyzed using logistic regression and random-effects model. Results: We analyzed 1,363 unique electronic assessments (37.8% from female faculty). Female residents were more likely to be addressed by a professional title than their male colleagues (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; confidence interval [CI], 1.2–2.4; p = 0.02). We found no difference in professional title usage based on resident–faculty gendered dyads. After adjusting for repeated faculty and resident encounters with random-effects model, secondary analysis found no significant difference in evaluation of word count between gendered dyads. Conclusions: The analysis found no significant difference in professional title usage based on resident–faculty dyads. In our analysis, female residents were significantly more likely to have their professional title used on assessments than male residents.