H Barrett Fromme, MD, MHPE

There is a growing appreciation of gender disparities in career advancement in medicine. By 2004, approximately 50% of medical school graduates were women, yet considerable differences persist between genders in compensation, faculty rank, and leadership positions.^1-3 According to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), women account for only 25% of full professors, 18% of department chairs, and 18% of medical school deans.¹ Women are also underrepresented in other areas of leadership such as division directors, professional society leadership, and hospital executives.^4-6

Specialties that are predominantly women, including pediatrics, are not immune to gender disparities. Women represent 71% of pediatric residents¹ and currently constitute two-thirds of active pediatricians in the United States.⁷ However, there is a disproportionately low number of women ascending the pediatric academic ladder, with only 35% of full professors² and 28% of department chairs being women.¹ Pediatrics also was noted to have the fifth-largest gender pay gap across 40 specialties.³ These disparities can contribute to burnout, poorer patient outcomes, and decreased advancement of women known as the “leaky pipeline.”^1,8,9

There is some evidence that gender disparities may be improving among younger professionals with increasing percentages of women as leaders and decreasing pay gaps.^10,11 These potential positive trends provide hope that fields in medicine early in their development may demonstrate fewer gender disparities. One of the youngest fields of medicine is pediatric hospital medicine (PHM), which officially became a recognized pediatric subspecialty in 2017.¹² There is no literature to date describing gender disparities in PHM. We aimed to explore the gender distribution of university-based PHM program leadership and to compare this gender distribution with that seen in the broader field of PHM.

This study was Institutional Review Board–approved as non–human subjects research through University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. From January to March 2020, the authors performed web-based searches for PHM division directors or program leaders in the United States. Because there is no single database of PHM programs in the United States, we used the AAMC list of Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)–accredited US medical schools; medical schools in Puerto Rico were not included, nor were pending and provisional institutions. If an institution had multiple practice sites for its students, the primary site for third-year medical student clerkship rotations was included. If a medical school had multiple branches, each with its own primary inpatient pediatrics site, these sites were included. If there was no PHM division director, a program leader (lead hospitalist) was substituted and counted as long as the role was formally designated. This leadership role is herein referred to under the umbrella term of “division director.”

We searched medical school web pages, affiliated hospital web pages, and Google. All program leadership information (divisional and fellowship, if present) was confirmed through direct communication with the program, most commonly with division directors, and included name, gender, title, and presence of associate/assistant leader, gender, and title. Associate division directors were only included if it was a formal leadership position. Associate directors of research, quality, etc, were not included due to the limited number of formal positions noted on further review. Of note, the terms “associate” and “assistant” are referring to leadership positions and not academic ranks.

Fellowship leadership was included if affiliated with a US medical school in the primary list. Medical schools with multiple PHM fellowships were included as separate observations. The leadership was confirmed using the methods described above and cross-referenced through the PHM Fellowship Program website. PHM fellowship programs starting in 2020 were included if leadership was determined.

All leadership positions were verified by two authors, and all authors reviewed the master list to identify errors.

To determine the overall gender breakdown in the specialty, we used three estimates: 2019 American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) PHM Board Certification Exam applicants, the 2019 American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine membership, and a random sample of all PHM faculty in 25% of the programs included in this study.⁴

Descriptive statistics using 95% confidence intervals for proportions were used. Differences between proportions were evaluated using a two-proportion z test with the null hypothesis that the two proportions are the same and significance set at P < .05. 

Of the 150 AAMC LCME–accredited medical school departments of pediatrics evaluated, a total of 142 programs were included; eight programs were excluded due to not providing inpatient pediatric services.

Division Leadership

The proportion of women PHM division directors was 55% (95% CI, 47%-63%) in this sample of 146 leaders from 142 programs (4 programs had coleaders). In the 113 programs with standalone PHM divisions or sections, the proportion of women division directors was 56% (95% CI, 47%-64%). In the 29 hospitalist groups that were not standalone (ie, embedded in another division), the proportion of women leaders was similar at 52% (95% CI, 34%-69%). In 24 programs with 27 formally designated associate directors (1 program had 3 associate directors and 1 program had 2), 81% of associate directors were women (95% CI, 63%-92%).

Fellowship Leadership

A total of 51 PHM fellowship programs had 53 directors (2 had codirectors), and 66% of the fellowship directors were women (95% CI, 53%-77%). A total of 31 programs had 34 assistant directors (3 programs had 2 assistants), and 82% of the assistant fellowship directors were women (95% CI, 66%-92%).

Comparison With the Field at Large

The inaugural ABP PHM board certification exam in 2019 had 1,627 applicants with 70% women (95% CI, 68%-73%) (Suzanne Woods, MD, email communication, December 4, 2019). The American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine, the largest PHM-specific organization, has 2,299 practicing physician members with 71% women (95% CI, 69%-73%) (Niccole Alexander, email communication, November 25, 2019). Our random sample of 25% of university-based PHM programs contained 1,063 faculty members with 72% women (95% CI, 69%-75%).

The Table provides P values for comparisons of the proportion of women in each of the above-described leadership roles compared to the most conservative estimate of women in the field from the estimates given above (ie, 70%). Compared with the field at large, women appear to be underrepresented as division directors (70% vs 55%; P < .001) but not as fellowship directors (70% vs 66%; P = .5). There is a higher proportion of women in all associate/assistant director roles, compared with the population (82% vs 70%; P = .04).

We found a significant difference between the proportion of women as PHM division directors (55%) when compared with the proportion of women physicians in PHM (70%), which suggests that women are underrepresented in clinical leadership at university-based pediatric hospitalist programs. Similar findings are described in other specialties, including notably adult hospital medicine.⁴ Burden et al found that only 16% of hospital medicine program leaders were women despite an equal number of women and men in the field. PHM has a much larger proportion of women, compared with that of hospital medicine, and yet women are still underrepresented as program leaders.

We found no disparities between the proportion of women as PHM fellowship directors and the field at large. These results are similar to those of other studies, which showed a higher number of women in educational leadership roles and lower representation in roles with influence over policy and allocation of resources.^13,14 Although the proportion of women in educational roles itself is not a concern, there is evidence that these positions may be undervalued by some institutions, which provide these positions with lower salaries and fewer opportunities for career advancement.^13,14

Interestingly, women are well-represented in associate/assistant director roles at both the division and fellowship leader level when comparing the distribution in those roles with that of the PHM field at large. This finding suggests that the pipeline of women is robust and potentially may indicate positive change. Alternatively, this finding may reflect a previously described phenomenon of the “sticky floor” in which women are “stuck” in these supportive roles and do not necessarily advance to higher-impact positions.¹⁵ We found a statistically significant higher proportion of women in the combined group of all associate/assistant directors compared with the overall population, which raises the concern that supportive leadership roles may represent “women’s work.”¹⁶ Future studies are needed to track whether these women truly advance or whether women are overrepresented in supportive leadership positions at the expense of primary leadership positions.

Adequate representation of women alone is not sufficient to achieve gender equity in medicine. We need to understand why there is a lower representation of women in leadership positions. Some barriers have already been described, including gender bias in promotions,¹⁷ higher demands outside of work,¹⁸ and lower pay,³ though none are specific to PHM. A further qualitative exploration of PHM leadership would help describe any barriers women in PHM specifically may be facing in their career trajectory. In addition, more information is needed to explore the experience of women with intersectional identities in PHM, especially since they may experience increased bias and discrimination.¹⁹

Limitations of this study include the lack of a centralized list of PHM programs and data on PHM workforce. Our three estimates for the proportion of women in PHM were similar at 70%-71%; however, these are only proxies for the true gender distribution of PHM physicians, which is unknown. PHM leadership targets of close to 70% women would be reflective of the field at large; however, institutional variation may exist, and ideally leadership should be diverse and reflective of its faculty members. Our study only describes university-based PHM programs and, therefore, is not necessarily generalizable to nonuniversity programs. Further studies are needed to evaluate any potential differences based on program type. In our study, gender was used in binary terms; however, we acknowledge that gender exists on a spectrum.

As a specialty early in development with a robust pipeline of women, PHM is in a unique position to lead the way in gender equity. However, women appear to be underrepresented as division directors at university-based PHM programs. Achieving proportional representation of women leaders is imperative for tapping into the full potential of the community and ensuring that the goals of the field are representative of the population.

Special thanks to Lucille Lester, MD, who asked the question that started this road to discovery.

There is a growing appreciation of gender disparities in career advancement in medicine. By 2004, approximately 50% of medical school graduates were women, yet considerable differences persist between genders in compensation, faculty rank, and leadership positions.^1-3 According to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), women account for only 25% of full professors, 18% of department chairs, and 18% of medical school deans.¹ Women are also underrepresented in other areas of leadership such as division directors, professional society leadership, and hospital executives.^4-6

Specialties that are predominantly women, including pediatrics, are not immune to gender disparities. Women represent 71% of pediatric residents¹ and currently constitute two-thirds of active pediatricians in the United States.⁷ However, there is a disproportionately low number of women ascending the pediatric academic ladder, with only 35% of full professors² and 28% of department chairs being women.¹ Pediatrics also was noted to have the fifth-largest gender pay gap across 40 specialties.³ These disparities can contribute to burnout, poorer patient outcomes, and decreased advancement of women known as the “leaky pipeline.”^1,8,9

There is some evidence that gender disparities may be improving among younger professionals with increasing percentages of women as leaders and decreasing pay gaps.^10,11 These potential positive trends provide hope that fields in medicine early in their development may demonstrate fewer gender disparities. One of the youngest fields of medicine is pediatric hospital medicine (PHM), which officially became a recognized pediatric subspecialty in 2017.¹² There is no literature to date describing gender disparities in PHM. We aimed to explore the gender distribution of university-based PHM program leadership and to compare this gender distribution with that seen in the broader field of PHM.

This study was Institutional Review Board–approved as non–human subjects research through University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. From January to March 2020, the authors performed web-based searches for PHM division directors or program leaders in the United States. Because there is no single database of PHM programs in the United States, we used the AAMC list of Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)–accredited US medical schools; medical schools in Puerto Rico were not included, nor were pending and provisional institutions. If an institution had multiple practice sites for its students, the primary site for third-year medical student clerkship rotations was included. If a medical school had multiple branches, each with its own primary inpatient pediatrics site, these sites were included. If there was no PHM division director, a program leader (lead hospitalist) was substituted and counted as long as the role was formally designated. This leadership role is herein referred to under the umbrella term of “division director.”

We searched medical school web pages, affiliated hospital web pages, and Google. All program leadership information (divisional and fellowship, if present) was confirmed through direct communication with the program, most commonly with division directors, and included name, gender, title, and presence of associate/assistant leader, gender, and title. Associate division directors were only included if it was a formal leadership position. Associate directors of research, quality, etc, were not included due to the limited number of formal positions noted on further review. Of note, the terms “associate” and “assistant” are referring to leadership positions and not academic ranks.

Fellowship leadership was included if affiliated with a US medical school in the primary list. Medical schools with multiple PHM fellowships were included as separate observations. The leadership was confirmed using the methods described above and cross-referenced through the PHM Fellowship Program website. PHM fellowship programs starting in 2020 were included if leadership was determined.

All leadership positions were verified by two authors, and all authors reviewed the master list to identify errors.

To determine the overall gender breakdown in the specialty, we used three estimates: 2019 American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) PHM Board Certification Exam applicants, the 2019 American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine membership, and a random sample of all PHM faculty in 25% of the programs included in this study.⁴

Descriptive statistics using 95% confidence intervals for proportions were used. Differences between proportions were evaluated using a two-proportion z test with the null hypothesis that the two proportions are the same and significance set at P < .05. 

Of the 150 AAMC LCME–accredited medical school departments of pediatrics evaluated, a total of 142 programs were included; eight programs were excluded due to not providing inpatient pediatric services.

Division Leadership

The proportion of women PHM division directors was 55% (95% CI, 47%-63%) in this sample of 146 leaders from 142 programs (4 programs had coleaders). In the 113 programs with standalone PHM divisions or sections, the proportion of women division directors was 56% (95% CI, 47%-64%). In the 29 hospitalist groups that were not standalone (ie, embedded in another division), the proportion of women leaders was similar at 52% (95% CI, 34%-69%). In 24 programs with 27 formally designated associate directors (1 program had 3 associate directors and 1 program had 2), 81% of associate directors were women (95% CI, 63%-92%).

Fellowship Leadership

A total of 51 PHM fellowship programs had 53 directors (2 had codirectors), and 66% of the fellowship directors were women (95% CI, 53%-77%). A total of 31 programs had 34 assistant directors (3 programs had 2 assistants), and 82% of the assistant fellowship directors were women (95% CI, 66%-92%).

Comparison With the Field at Large

The inaugural ABP PHM board certification exam in 2019 had 1,627 applicants with 70% women (95% CI, 68%-73%) (Suzanne Woods, MD, email communication, December 4, 2019). The American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine, the largest PHM-specific organization, has 2,299 practicing physician members with 71% women (95% CI, 69%-73%) (Niccole Alexander, email communication, November 25, 2019). Our random sample of 25% of university-based PHM programs contained 1,063 faculty members with 72% women (95% CI, 69%-75%).

The Table provides P values for comparisons of the proportion of women in each of the above-described leadership roles compared to the most conservative estimate of women in the field from the estimates given above (ie, 70%). Compared with the field at large, women appear to be underrepresented as division directors (70% vs 55%; P < .001) but not as fellowship directors (70% vs 66%; P = .5). There is a higher proportion of women in all associate/assistant director roles, compared with the population (82% vs 70%; P = .04).

We found a significant difference between the proportion of women as PHM division directors (55%) when compared with the proportion of women physicians in PHM (70%), which suggests that women are underrepresented in clinical leadership at university-based pediatric hospitalist programs. Similar findings are described in other specialties, including notably adult hospital medicine.⁴ Burden et al found that only 16% of hospital medicine program leaders were women despite an equal number of women and men in the field. PHM has a much larger proportion of women, compared with that of hospital medicine, and yet women are still underrepresented as program leaders.

We found no disparities between the proportion of women as PHM fellowship directors and the field at large. These results are similar to those of other studies, which showed a higher number of women in educational leadership roles and lower representation in roles with influence over policy and allocation of resources.^13,14 Although the proportion of women in educational roles itself is not a concern, there is evidence that these positions may be undervalued by some institutions, which provide these positions with lower salaries and fewer opportunities for career advancement.^13,14

Interestingly, women are well-represented in associate/assistant director roles at both the division and fellowship leader level when comparing the distribution in those roles with that of the PHM field at large. This finding suggests that the pipeline of women is robust and potentially may indicate positive change. Alternatively, this finding may reflect a previously described phenomenon of the “sticky floor” in which women are “stuck” in these supportive roles and do not necessarily advance to higher-impact positions.¹⁵ We found a statistically significant higher proportion of women in the combined group of all associate/assistant directors compared with the overall population, which raises the concern that supportive leadership roles may represent “women’s work.”¹⁶ Future studies are needed to track whether these women truly advance or whether women are overrepresented in supportive leadership positions at the expense of primary leadership positions.

Adequate representation of women alone is not sufficient to achieve gender equity in medicine. We need to understand why there is a lower representation of women in leadership positions. Some barriers have already been described, including gender bias in promotions,¹⁷ higher demands outside of work,¹⁸ and lower pay,³ though none are specific to PHM. A further qualitative exploration of PHM leadership would help describe any barriers women in PHM specifically may be facing in their career trajectory. In addition, more information is needed to explore the experience of women with intersectional identities in PHM, especially since they may experience increased bias and discrimination.¹⁹

Limitations of this study include the lack of a centralized list of PHM programs and data on PHM workforce. Our three estimates for the proportion of women in PHM were similar at 70%-71%; however, these are only proxies for the true gender distribution of PHM physicians, which is unknown. PHM leadership targets of close to 70% women would be reflective of the field at large; however, institutional variation may exist, and ideally leadership should be diverse and reflective of its faculty members. Our study only describes university-based PHM programs and, therefore, is not necessarily generalizable to nonuniversity programs. Further studies are needed to evaluate any potential differences based on program type. In our study, gender was used in binary terms; however, we acknowledge that gender exists on a spectrum.

As a specialty early in development with a robust pipeline of women, PHM is in a unique position to lead the way in gender equity. However, women appear to be underrepresented as division directors at university-based PHM programs. Achieving proportional representation of women leaders is imperative for tapping into the full potential of the community and ensuring that the goals of the field are representative of the population.

Special thanks to Lucille Lester, MD, who asked the question that started this road to discovery.

There is a growing appreciation of gender disparities in career advancement in medicine. By 2004, approximately 50% of medical school graduates were women, yet considerable differences persist between genders in compensation, faculty rank, and leadership positions.^1-3 According to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), women account for only 25% of full professors, 18% of department chairs, and 18% of medical school deans.¹ Women are also underrepresented in other areas of leadership such as division directors, professional society leadership, and hospital executives.^4-6

Specialties that are predominantly women, including pediatrics, are not immune to gender disparities. Women represent 71% of pediatric residents¹ and currently constitute two-thirds of active pediatricians in the United States.⁷ However, there is a disproportionately low number of women ascending the pediatric academic ladder, with only 35% of full professors² and 28% of department chairs being women.¹ Pediatrics also was noted to have the fifth-largest gender pay gap across 40 specialties.³ These disparities can contribute to burnout, poorer patient outcomes, and decreased advancement of women known as the “leaky pipeline.”^1,8,9

There is some evidence that gender disparities may be improving among younger professionals with increasing percentages of women as leaders and decreasing pay gaps.^10,11 These potential positive trends provide hope that fields in medicine early in their development may demonstrate fewer gender disparities. One of the youngest fields of medicine is pediatric hospital medicine (PHM), which officially became a recognized pediatric subspecialty in 2017.¹² There is no literature to date describing gender disparities in PHM. We aimed to explore the gender distribution of university-based PHM program leadership and to compare this gender distribution with that seen in the broader field of PHM.

This study was Institutional Review Board–approved as non–human subjects research through University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. From January to March 2020, the authors performed web-based searches for PHM division directors or program leaders in the United States. Because there is no single database of PHM programs in the United States, we used the AAMC list of Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)–accredited US medical schools; medical schools in Puerto Rico were not included, nor were pending and provisional institutions. If an institution had multiple practice sites for its students, the primary site for third-year medical student clerkship rotations was included. If a medical school had multiple branches, each with its own primary inpatient pediatrics site, these sites were included. If there was no PHM division director, a program leader (lead hospitalist) was substituted and counted as long as the role was formally designated. This leadership role is herein referred to under the umbrella term of “division director.”

We searched medical school web pages, affiliated hospital web pages, and Google. All program leadership information (divisional and fellowship, if present) was confirmed through direct communication with the program, most commonly with division directors, and included name, gender, title, and presence of associate/assistant leader, gender, and title. Associate division directors were only included if it was a formal leadership position. Associate directors of research, quality, etc, were not included due to the limited number of formal positions noted on further review. Of note, the terms “associate” and “assistant” are referring to leadership positions and not academic ranks.

Fellowship leadership was included if affiliated with a US medical school in the primary list. Medical schools with multiple PHM fellowships were included as separate observations. The leadership was confirmed using the methods described above and cross-referenced through the PHM Fellowship Program website. PHM fellowship programs starting in 2020 were included if leadership was determined.

All leadership positions were verified by two authors, and all authors reviewed the master list to identify errors.

To determine the overall gender breakdown in the specialty, we used three estimates: 2019 American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) PHM Board Certification Exam applicants, the 2019 American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine membership, and a random sample of all PHM faculty in 25% of the programs included in this study.⁴

Descriptive statistics using 95% confidence intervals for proportions were used. Differences between proportions were evaluated using a two-proportion z test with the null hypothesis that the two proportions are the same and significance set at P < .05. 

Of the 150 AAMC LCME–accredited medical school departments of pediatrics evaluated, a total of 142 programs were included; eight programs were excluded due to not providing inpatient pediatric services.

Division Leadership

The proportion of women PHM division directors was 55% (95% CI, 47%-63%) in this sample of 146 leaders from 142 programs (4 programs had coleaders). In the 113 programs with standalone PHM divisions or sections, the proportion of women division directors was 56% (95% CI, 47%-64%). In the 29 hospitalist groups that were not standalone (ie, embedded in another division), the proportion of women leaders was similar at 52% (95% CI, 34%-69%). In 24 programs with 27 formally designated associate directors (1 program had 3 associate directors and 1 program had 2), 81% of associate directors were women (95% CI, 63%-92%).

Fellowship Leadership

A total of 51 PHM fellowship programs had 53 directors (2 had codirectors), and 66% of the fellowship directors were women (95% CI, 53%-77%). A total of 31 programs had 34 assistant directors (3 programs had 2 assistants), and 82% of the assistant fellowship directors were women (95% CI, 66%-92%).

Comparison With the Field at Large

The inaugural ABP PHM board certification exam in 2019 had 1,627 applicants with 70% women (95% CI, 68%-73%) (Suzanne Woods, MD, email communication, December 4, 2019). The American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine, the largest PHM-specific organization, has 2,299 practicing physician members with 71% women (95% CI, 69%-73%) (Niccole Alexander, email communication, November 25, 2019). Our random sample of 25% of university-based PHM programs contained 1,063 faculty members with 72% women (95% CI, 69%-75%).

The Table provides P values for comparisons of the proportion of women in each of the above-described leadership roles compared to the most conservative estimate of women in the field from the estimates given above (ie, 70%). Compared with the field at large, women appear to be underrepresented as division directors (70% vs 55%; P < .001) but not as fellowship directors (70% vs 66%; P = .5). There is a higher proportion of women in all associate/assistant director roles, compared with the population (82% vs 70%; P = .04).

We found a significant difference between the proportion of women as PHM division directors (55%) when compared with the proportion of women physicians in PHM (70%), which suggests that women are underrepresented in clinical leadership at university-based pediatric hospitalist programs. Similar findings are described in other specialties, including notably adult hospital medicine.⁴ Burden et al found that only 16% of hospital medicine program leaders were women despite an equal number of women and men in the field. PHM has a much larger proportion of women, compared with that of hospital medicine, and yet women are still underrepresented as program leaders.

We found no disparities between the proportion of women as PHM fellowship directors and the field at large. These results are similar to those of other studies, which showed a higher number of women in educational leadership roles and lower representation in roles with influence over policy and allocation of resources.^13,14 Although the proportion of women in educational roles itself is not a concern, there is evidence that these positions may be undervalued by some institutions, which provide these positions with lower salaries and fewer opportunities for career advancement.^13,14

Interestingly, women are well-represented in associate/assistant director roles at both the division and fellowship leader level when comparing the distribution in those roles with that of the PHM field at large. This finding suggests that the pipeline of women is robust and potentially may indicate positive change. Alternatively, this finding may reflect a previously described phenomenon of the “sticky floor” in which women are “stuck” in these supportive roles and do not necessarily advance to higher-impact positions.¹⁵ We found a statistically significant higher proportion of women in the combined group of all associate/assistant directors compared with the overall population, which raises the concern that supportive leadership roles may represent “women’s work.”¹⁶ Future studies are needed to track whether these women truly advance or whether women are overrepresented in supportive leadership positions at the expense of primary leadership positions.

Adequate representation of women alone is not sufficient to achieve gender equity in medicine. We need to understand why there is a lower representation of women in leadership positions. Some barriers have already been described, including gender bias in promotions,¹⁷ higher demands outside of work,¹⁸ and lower pay,³ though none are specific to PHM. A further qualitative exploration of PHM leadership would help describe any barriers women in PHM specifically may be facing in their career trajectory. In addition, more information is needed to explore the experience of women with intersectional identities in PHM, especially since they may experience increased bias and discrimination.¹⁹

Limitations of this study include the lack of a centralized list of PHM programs and data on PHM workforce. Our three estimates for the proportion of women in PHM were similar at 70%-71%; however, these are only proxies for the true gender distribution of PHM physicians, which is unknown. PHM leadership targets of close to 70% women would be reflective of the field at large; however, institutional variation may exist, and ideally leadership should be diverse and reflective of its faculty members. Our study only describes university-based PHM programs and, therefore, is not necessarily generalizable to nonuniversity programs. Further studies are needed to evaluate any potential differences based on program type. In our study, gender was used in binary terms; however, we acknowledge that gender exists on a spectrum.

As a specialty early in development with a robust pipeline of women, PHM is in a unique position to lead the way in gender equity. However, women appear to be underrepresented as division directors at university-based PHM programs. Achieving proportional representation of women leaders is imperative for tapping into the full potential of the community and ensuring that the goals of the field are representative of the population.

Special thanks to Lucille Lester, MD, who asked the question that started this road to discovery.

In 2016, Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) was recognized as a subspecialty under the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP), one of 24 certifying boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties. As with all new ABP subspecialty certification processes, a “practice pathway” with specific eligibility criteria allows individuals with expertise and sufficient practice experience within the discipline to take the certification examination. For PHM, certification via the practice pathway is permissible for the 2019, 2021, and 2023 certifying examinations.¹ In this perspective, we provide an illustration of ABP leadership and the PHM community partnering to mitigate unintentional gender bias that surfaced after the practice pathway eligibility criteria were implemented. We also provide recommendations to revise these criteria to eliminate future gender bias and promote equity in medicine.

In July 2019, individuals within the PHM community began to share stories of being denied eligibility to sit for the 2019 exam.² Some of the reported denials were due to an eligibility criterion related to “practice interruptions”, which stated that practice interruptions cannot exceed three months in the preceding four years or six months in the preceding five years. Notably, some women reported that their applications were denied because of practice interruptions due to maternity leave. These stories raised significant concerns of gender bias in the board certification process and sparked collective action to revise the board certification eligibility criteria. A petition was circulated within the PHM community and received 1,479 signatures in two weeks.

Given the magnitude of concern, leaders within the PHM community, with support from the American Academy of Pediatrics, collaboratively engaged with the ABP and members of the ABP PHM subboard to improve the transparency and equity of the eligibility process. As a result of this activism and effective dialogue, the ABP revised the PHM board certification eligibility criteria and removed the practice interruption criterion.¹ Through this unique experience of advocacy and partnership in medicine, the PHM community and ABP were able to work together to mitigate unintentional gender bias in the board certification process. However, this collaboration must continue as we believe the revised criteria remain unintentionally biased against women.

Gender bias is defined as the unfair difference in the way men and women are treated.³ Maternal bias is further characterized as bias experienced by mothers related to motherhood, often involving discrimination based on pregnancy, maternity leave, or breastfeeding. Both are common in medicine. Two-thirds of physician mothers report experiencing gender bias and more than a third experience maternal bias.⁴ This bias may be explicit, or intentional, but often the bias is unintentional. This bias can occur even with equal representation of women and men on committees determining eligibility, and even when the committee believes it is not biased.⁵ Furthermore, gender or maternal bias negatively affects individuals in medicine in regards to future employment, career advancement, and compensation.^6-11

Given these implications, we celebrate the removal of the practice interruptions criterion as it was unintentionally biased against women. Eligibility criteria that considered practice interruptions would have disproportionately affected women due to leaves related to pregnancy and due to discrepancies in the length of parental leave for mothers versus fathers. Though the ABP’s initial review of cases of denial did not demonstrate a significant difference in the proportion of men and women who were denied, these data may be misleading. Potential reasons why the ABP did not find significant differences in denial rates between women and men include: (1) some women who had recent maternity leaves chose not to apply because of concerns they may be denied; or (2) some women did not disclose maternity leaves on their application because they did not interpret maternity leave to be a practice interruption. This “self-censoring” may have resulted in incomplete data, making it difficult to fully understand the differential impact of this criterion on women versus men. Therefore, it is essential that we as a profession continue to identify any areas where gender bias exists in determining eligibility for certification, employment, or career advancement within medicine and eliminate it.

Despite the improvements made in the revised criteria, further revision is necessary to remove the criterion related to the “start date”, which will differentially affect women. This criterion states that an individual must have started their PHM practice on or before July of the first year of a four-year look-back period (eg, July 2015 for the 2019 cycle). We present three theoretical cases to illustrate gender bias with respect to this criterion (Table). Even though Applicants #2 and #3 accrue far more than the minimum number of hours in their first year—and more hours overall than Applicant #1—both of these women will remain ineligible under the revised criteria. While Applicant #2 could be eligible for the 2021 or 2023 cycle, Applicant #3, who is new to PHM practice in 2019 as a residency graduate, will not be eligible at all under the practice pathway due to delayed graduation from residency.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

In 2016, Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) was recognized as a subspecialty under the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP), one of 24 certifying boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties. As with all new ABP subspecialty certification processes, a “practice pathway” with specific eligibility criteria allows individuals with expertise and sufficient practice experience within the discipline to take the certification examination. For PHM, certification via the practice pathway is permissible for the 2019, 2021, and 2023 certifying examinations.¹ In this perspective, we provide an illustration of ABP leadership and the PHM community partnering to mitigate unintentional gender bias that surfaced after the practice pathway eligibility criteria were implemented. We also provide recommendations to revise these criteria to eliminate future gender bias and promote equity in medicine.

In July 2019, individuals within the PHM community began to share stories of being denied eligibility to sit for the 2019 exam.² Some of the reported denials were due to an eligibility criterion related to “practice interruptions”, which stated that practice interruptions cannot exceed three months in the preceding four years or six months in the preceding five years. Notably, some women reported that their applications were denied because of practice interruptions due to maternity leave. These stories raised significant concerns of gender bias in the board certification process and sparked collective action to revise the board certification eligibility criteria. A petition was circulated within the PHM community and received 1,479 signatures in two weeks.

Given the magnitude of concern, leaders within the PHM community, with support from the American Academy of Pediatrics, collaboratively engaged with the ABP and members of the ABP PHM subboard to improve the transparency and equity of the eligibility process. As a result of this activism and effective dialogue, the ABP revised the PHM board certification eligibility criteria and removed the practice interruption criterion.¹ Through this unique experience of advocacy and partnership in medicine, the PHM community and ABP were able to work together to mitigate unintentional gender bias in the board certification process. However, this collaboration must continue as we believe the revised criteria remain unintentionally biased against women.

Gender bias is defined as the unfair difference in the way men and women are treated.³ Maternal bias is further characterized as bias experienced by mothers related to motherhood, often involving discrimination based on pregnancy, maternity leave, or breastfeeding. Both are common in medicine. Two-thirds of physician mothers report experiencing gender bias and more than a third experience maternal bias.⁴ This bias may be explicit, or intentional, but often the bias is unintentional. This bias can occur even with equal representation of women and men on committees determining eligibility, and even when the committee believes it is not biased.⁵ Furthermore, gender or maternal bias negatively affects individuals in medicine in regards to future employment, career advancement, and compensation.^6-11

Given these implications, we celebrate the removal of the practice interruptions criterion as it was unintentionally biased against women. Eligibility criteria that considered practice interruptions would have disproportionately affected women due to leaves related to pregnancy and due to discrepancies in the length of parental leave for mothers versus fathers. Though the ABP’s initial review of cases of denial did not demonstrate a significant difference in the proportion of men and women who were denied, these data may be misleading. Potential reasons why the ABP did not find significant differences in denial rates between women and men include: (1) some women who had recent maternity leaves chose not to apply because of concerns they may be denied; or (2) some women did not disclose maternity leaves on their application because they did not interpret maternity leave to be a practice interruption. This “self-censoring” may have resulted in incomplete data, making it difficult to fully understand the differential impact of this criterion on women versus men. Therefore, it is essential that we as a profession continue to identify any areas where gender bias exists in determining eligibility for certification, employment, or career advancement within medicine and eliminate it.

Despite the improvements made in the revised criteria, further revision is necessary to remove the criterion related to the “start date”, which will differentially affect women. This criterion states that an individual must have started their PHM practice on or before July of the first year of a four-year look-back period (eg, July 2015 for the 2019 cycle). We present three theoretical cases to illustrate gender bias with respect to this criterion (Table). Even though Applicants #2 and #3 accrue far more than the minimum number of hours in their first year—and more hours overall than Applicant #1—both of these women will remain ineligible under the revised criteria. While Applicant #2 could be eligible for the 2021 or 2023 cycle, Applicant #3, who is new to PHM practice in 2019 as a residency graduate, will not be eligible at all under the practice pathway due to delayed graduation from residency.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

In 2016, Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) was recognized as a subspecialty under the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP), one of 24 certifying boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties. As with all new ABP subspecialty certification processes, a “practice pathway” with specific eligibility criteria allows individuals with expertise and sufficient practice experience within the discipline to take the certification examination. For PHM, certification via the practice pathway is permissible for the 2019, 2021, and 2023 certifying examinations.¹ In this perspective, we provide an illustration of ABP leadership and the PHM community partnering to mitigate unintentional gender bias that surfaced after the practice pathway eligibility criteria were implemented. We also provide recommendations to revise these criteria to eliminate future gender bias and promote equity in medicine.

In July 2019, individuals within the PHM community began to share stories of being denied eligibility to sit for the 2019 exam.² Some of the reported denials were due to an eligibility criterion related to “practice interruptions”, which stated that practice interruptions cannot exceed three months in the preceding four years or six months in the preceding five years. Notably, some women reported that their applications were denied because of practice interruptions due to maternity leave. These stories raised significant concerns of gender bias in the board certification process and sparked collective action to revise the board certification eligibility criteria. A petition was circulated within the PHM community and received 1,479 signatures in two weeks.

Given the magnitude of concern, leaders within the PHM community, with support from the American Academy of Pediatrics, collaboratively engaged with the ABP and members of the ABP PHM subboard to improve the transparency and equity of the eligibility process. As a result of this activism and effective dialogue, the ABP revised the PHM board certification eligibility criteria and removed the practice interruption criterion.¹ Through this unique experience of advocacy and partnership in medicine, the PHM community and ABP were able to work together to mitigate unintentional gender bias in the board certification process. However, this collaboration must continue as we believe the revised criteria remain unintentionally biased against women.

Gender bias is defined as the unfair difference in the way men and women are treated.³ Maternal bias is further characterized as bias experienced by mothers related to motherhood, often involving discrimination based on pregnancy, maternity leave, or breastfeeding. Both are common in medicine. Two-thirds of physician mothers report experiencing gender bias and more than a third experience maternal bias.⁴ This bias may be explicit, or intentional, but often the bias is unintentional. This bias can occur even with equal representation of women and men on committees determining eligibility, and even when the committee believes it is not biased.⁵ Furthermore, gender or maternal bias negatively affects individuals in medicine in regards to future employment, career advancement, and compensation.^6-11

Given these implications, we celebrate the removal of the practice interruptions criterion as it was unintentionally biased against women. Eligibility criteria that considered practice interruptions would have disproportionately affected women due to leaves related to pregnancy and due to discrepancies in the length of parental leave for mothers versus fathers. Though the ABP’s initial review of cases of denial did not demonstrate a significant difference in the proportion of men and women who were denied, these data may be misleading. Potential reasons why the ABP did not find significant differences in denial rates between women and men include: (1) some women who had recent maternity leaves chose not to apply because of concerns they may be denied; or (2) some women did not disclose maternity leaves on their application because they did not interpret maternity leave to be a practice interruption. This “self-censoring” may have resulted in incomplete data, making it difficult to fully understand the differential impact of this criterion on women versus men. Therefore, it is essential that we as a profession continue to identify any areas where gender bias exists in determining eligibility for certification, employment, or career advancement within medicine and eliminate it.

Despite the improvements made in the revised criteria, further revision is necessary to remove the criterion related to the “start date”, which will differentially affect women. This criterion states that an individual must have started their PHM practice on or before July of the first year of a four-year look-back period (eg, July 2015 for the 2019 cycle). We present three theoretical cases to illustrate gender bias with respect to this criterion (Table). Even though Applicants #2 and #3 accrue far more than the minimum number of hours in their first year—and more hours overall than Applicant #1—both of these women will remain ineligible under the revised criteria. While Applicant #2 could be eligible for the 2021 or 2023 cycle, Applicant #3, who is new to PHM practice in 2019 as a residency graduate, will not be eligible at all under the practice pathway due to delayed graduation from residency.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

As a newly recognized specialty, pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) continues to expand and diversify.¹ Pediatric hospitalists care for children in hospitals ranging from small, rural community hospitals to large, free-standing quaternary children’s hospitals.^2-4 In addition, more than 10% of graduating pediatric residents are seeking future careers within PHM.⁵

In 2018, Fromme et al. published a study describing clinical workload for pediatric hospitalists within university-based settings.⁶ They characterized the diversity of work models and programmatic sustainability but limited the study to university-based programs. With over half of children receiving care within community hospitals,⁷ workforce patterns for community-based pediatric hospitalists should be characterized to maximize sustainability and minimize attrition across the field.

In this study, we describe programmatic variability in clinical work expectations of 70 community-based PHM programs. We aimed to describe existing work models and expectations of community-based program leaders as they relate to their unique clinical setting.

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of community-based PHM site directors through structured interviews. Community hospital programs were self-defined by the study participants, although typically defined as general hospitals that admit pediatric patients and are not free-standing or children’s hospitals within a general hospital. Survey respondents were asked to answer questions only reflecting expectations at their community hospital.

Survey Design and Content

Building from a tool used by Fromme et al.⁶ we created a 12-question structured interview questionnaire focused on three areas: (1) full-time employment (FTE) metrics including definitions of a 1.0 FTE, “typical” shifts, and weekend responsibilities; (2) work volume including census parameters, service-line coverage expectations, back-up systems, and overnight call responsibilities; and (3) programmatic model including sense of sustainability (eg, minimizing burnout and attrition), support for activities such as administrative or research time, and employer model (Appendix).

We modified the survey through research team consensus. After pilot-testing by research team members at their own sites, the survey was refined for item clarity, structural design, and length. We chose to administer surveys through phone interviews over a traditional distribution due to anticipated variability in work models. The research team discussed how each question should be asked, and responses were clarified to maintain consistency.

Survey Administration

Given the absence of a national registry or database for community-based PHM programs, study participation was solicited through an invitation posted on the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine (AAP SOHM) Listserv and the AAP SOHM Community Hospitalist Listserv in May 2018. Invitations were posted twice at two weeks apart. Each research team member completed 6-19 interviews. Responses to survey questions were recorded in REDCap, a secure, web-based data capture instrument.⁸

Participating in the study was considered implied consent, and participants did not receive a monetary incentive, although respondents were offered deidentified survey data for participation. The study was exempted through the University of Chicago Institutional Review Board.

Data Analysis

Employers were dichotomized as community hospital employer (including primary community hospital employment/private organization) or noncommunity hospital employer (including children’s/university hospital employment or school of medicine). Descriptive statistics were reported to compare the demographics of two employer groups. P values were calculated using two-sample t-tests for the continuous variables and chi-square or Fisher-exact tests for the categorical variables. Mann–Whitney U-test was performed for continuous variables without normality. Analyses were performed using the R Statistical Programming Language (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), version 3.4.3.

Participation and Program Characteristics

We interviewed 70 community-based PHM site directors representing programs across 29 states (Table 1) and five geographic regions: Midwest (34.3%), Northeast (11.4%), Southeast (15.7%), Southwest (4.3%), and West (34.3%). Employer models varied across groups, with more noncommunity hospital employers (57%) than community hospital employers (43%). The top three services covered by pediatric hospitalists were pediatric inpatient or observation bed admissions (97%), emergency department consults (89%), and general newborns (67%). PHM programs also provided coverage for other services, including newborn deliveries (43%), Special Care Nursery/Level II Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (41%), step-down unit (20%), and mental health units (13%). About 59% of programs provided education for family medicine residents, 36% were for pediatric residents, and 70% worked with advanced practice providers. The majority of programs (70%) provided in-house coverage overnight.

Clinical Work Expectations and Employer Model

Clinical work expectations varied broadly across programs (Table 2). The median expected hours for a 1.0 FTE was 1,882 hours per year (interquartile range [IQR] 1,805, 2,016), and the median expected weekend coverage/year (defined as covering two days or two nights of the weekend) was 21 (IQR 14, 24). Most programs did not expand staff coverage based on seasonality (73%), and less than 20% of programs operated with a census cap. Median support for nondirect patient care activities was 4% (IQR 0,10) of a program’s total FTE (ie, a 5.0 FTE program would have 0.20 FTE support). Programs with community hospital employers had an 8% higher expectation of 1.0 FTE hours/year (P = .01) and viewed an appropriate pediatric morning census as 20% higher (P = .01; Table 2).

Program Sustainability

To our knowledge, this study is the first to describe clinical work models exclusively for pediatric community hospitalist programs. We found that expectations for clinical FTE hours, weekend coverage, appropriate morning census, support for nondirect patient care activities, and perception of sustainability varied broadly across programs. The only variable affecting some of these differences was employer model, with those employed by a community hospital employer having a higher expectation for hours/year and appropriate morning pediatric census than those employed by noncommunity hospital employers.

With a growing emphasis on physician burnout and career satisfaction,^9-11 understanding the characteristics of community hospital work settings is critical for identifying and building sustainable employment models. Previous studies have identified that the balance of clinical and nonclinical responsibilities and the setting of community versus university-based programs are major contributors to burnout and career satisfaction.^9,11 Interestingly, although community hospital-based programs have limited FTE for nondirect patient care activities, we found that a higher percentage of program site directors perceived their program models as sustainable when compared with university-based programs in prior research (63% versus 50%).⁶ Elucidating why community hospital PHM programs are perceived as more sustainable provides an opportunity for future research. Potential reasons may include fewer academic requirements for promotion or an increased connection to a local community.

We also found that the employer model had a statistically significant impact on expected FTE hours per year but not on perception of sustainability. Programs employed by community hospitals worked 8% more hours per year than those employed by noncommunity hospital employers and accepted a higher morning pediatric census. This variation in hours and census level appropriateness is likely multifactorial, potentially from higher nonclinical expectations for promotion (eg, academic or scholarly production) at school of medicine or children’s hospital employed programs versus limited reimbursement for administrative responsibilities within community hospital employment models.

There are several potential next steps for our findings. As our data are the first attempt (to our knowledge) at describing the current practice and expectations exclusively within community hospital programs, this study can be used as a starting point for the development of workload expectation standards. Increasing transparency nationally for individual community programs potentially promotes discussions around burnout and attrition. Having objective data to compare program models may assist in advocating with local hospital leadership for restructuring that better aligns with national norms.

Our study has several limitations. First, our sampling frame was based upon a self-selection of program directors. This may have led to a biased representation of programs with higher workloads motivated to develop a standard to compare with other programs, which may have potentially led to an overestimation of hours. Second, without a registry or database for community-based pediatric hospitalist programs, we do not know the percentage of community-based programs that our sample represents. Although our results cannot speak for all community PHM programs, we attempted to mitigate nonresponse bias through the breadth of programs represented, which spanned 29 states, five geographic regions, and teaching and nonteaching programs. The interview-based method for data collection allowed the research team to clarify questions and responses across sites, thereby improving the quality and consistency of the data for the represented study sample. Finally, other factors possibly contributed to sustainability that we did not address in this study, such as programs that are dependent on billable encounters as part of their salary support.

As a newly recognized subspecialty, creating a reference for community-based program leaders to determine and discuss individual models and expectations with hospital administrators may help address programmatic sustainability. It may also allow for the analysis of long-term career satisfaction and longevity within community PHM programs based on workload. Future studies should further explore root causes for workload discrepancies between community and university employed programs along with establishing potential standards for PHM program development.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Stanford School of Medicine Quantitative Sciences Unit staff for their assistance in statistical analysis.

Disclosure

The authors have nothing to disclose.

As a newly recognized specialty, pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) continues to expand and diversify.¹ Pediatric hospitalists care for children in hospitals ranging from small, rural community hospitals to large, free-standing quaternary children’s hospitals.^2-4 In addition, more than 10% of graduating pediatric residents are seeking future careers within PHM.⁵

In 2018, Fromme et al. published a study describing clinical workload for pediatric hospitalists within university-based settings.⁶ They characterized the diversity of work models and programmatic sustainability but limited the study to university-based programs. With over half of children receiving care within community hospitals,⁷ workforce patterns for community-based pediatric hospitalists should be characterized to maximize sustainability and minimize attrition across the field.

In this study, we describe programmatic variability in clinical work expectations of 70 community-based PHM programs. We aimed to describe existing work models and expectations of community-based program leaders as they relate to their unique clinical setting.

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of community-based PHM site directors through structured interviews. Community hospital programs were self-defined by the study participants, although typically defined as general hospitals that admit pediatric patients and are not free-standing or children’s hospitals within a general hospital. Survey respondents were asked to answer questions only reflecting expectations at their community hospital.

Survey Design and Content

Building from a tool used by Fromme et al.⁶ we created a 12-question structured interview questionnaire focused on three areas: (1) full-time employment (FTE) metrics including definitions of a 1.0 FTE, “typical” shifts, and weekend responsibilities; (2) work volume including census parameters, service-line coverage expectations, back-up systems, and overnight call responsibilities; and (3) programmatic model including sense of sustainability (eg, minimizing burnout and attrition), support for activities such as administrative or research time, and employer model (Appendix).

We modified the survey through research team consensus. After pilot-testing by research team members at their own sites, the survey was refined for item clarity, structural design, and length. We chose to administer surveys through phone interviews over a traditional distribution due to anticipated variability in work models. The research team discussed how each question should be asked, and responses were clarified to maintain consistency.

Survey Administration

Given the absence of a national registry or database for community-based PHM programs, study participation was solicited through an invitation posted on the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine (AAP SOHM) Listserv and the AAP SOHM Community Hospitalist Listserv in May 2018. Invitations were posted twice at two weeks apart. Each research team member completed 6-19 interviews. Responses to survey questions were recorded in REDCap, a secure, web-based data capture instrument.⁸

Participating in the study was considered implied consent, and participants did not receive a monetary incentive, although respondents were offered deidentified survey data for participation. The study was exempted through the University of Chicago Institutional Review Board.

Data Analysis

Employers were dichotomized as community hospital employer (including primary community hospital employment/private organization) or noncommunity hospital employer (including children’s/university hospital employment or school of medicine). Descriptive statistics were reported to compare the demographics of two employer groups. P values were calculated using two-sample t-tests for the continuous variables and chi-square or Fisher-exact tests for the categorical variables. Mann–Whitney U-test was performed for continuous variables without normality. Analyses were performed using the R Statistical Programming Language (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), version 3.4.3.

Participation and Program Characteristics

We interviewed 70 community-based PHM site directors representing programs across 29 states (Table 1) and five geographic regions: Midwest (34.3%), Northeast (11.4%), Southeast (15.7%), Southwest (4.3%), and West (34.3%). Employer models varied across groups, with more noncommunity hospital employers (57%) than community hospital employers (43%). The top three services covered by pediatric hospitalists were pediatric inpatient or observation bed admissions (97%), emergency department consults (89%), and general newborns (67%). PHM programs also provided coverage for other services, including newborn deliveries (43%), Special Care Nursery/Level II Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (41%), step-down unit (20%), and mental health units (13%). About 59% of programs provided education for family medicine residents, 36% were for pediatric residents, and 70% worked with advanced practice providers. The majority of programs (70%) provided in-house coverage overnight.

Clinical Work Expectations and Employer Model

Clinical work expectations varied broadly across programs (Table 2). The median expected hours for a 1.0 FTE was 1,882 hours per year (interquartile range [IQR] 1,805, 2,016), and the median expected weekend coverage/year (defined as covering two days or two nights of the weekend) was 21 (IQR 14, 24). Most programs did not expand staff coverage based on seasonality (73%), and less than 20% of programs operated with a census cap. Median support for nondirect patient care activities was 4% (IQR 0,10) of a program’s total FTE (ie, a 5.0 FTE program would have 0.20 FTE support). Programs with community hospital employers had an 8% higher expectation of 1.0 FTE hours/year (P = .01) and viewed an appropriate pediatric morning census as 20% higher (P = .01; Table 2).

Program Sustainability

To our knowledge, this study is the first to describe clinical work models exclusively for pediatric community hospitalist programs. We found that expectations for clinical FTE hours, weekend coverage, appropriate morning census, support for nondirect patient care activities, and perception of sustainability varied broadly across programs. The only variable affecting some of these differences was employer model, with those employed by a community hospital employer having a higher expectation for hours/year and appropriate morning pediatric census than those employed by noncommunity hospital employers.

With a growing emphasis on physician burnout and career satisfaction,^9-11 understanding the characteristics of community hospital work settings is critical for identifying and building sustainable employment models. Previous studies have identified that the balance of clinical and nonclinical responsibilities and the setting of community versus university-based programs are major contributors to burnout and career satisfaction.^9,11 Interestingly, although community hospital-based programs have limited FTE for nondirect patient care activities, we found that a higher percentage of program site directors perceived their program models as sustainable when compared with university-based programs in prior research (63% versus 50%).⁶ Elucidating why community hospital PHM programs are perceived as more sustainable provides an opportunity for future research. Potential reasons may include fewer academic requirements for promotion or an increased connection to a local community.

We also found that the employer model had a statistically significant impact on expected FTE hours per year but not on perception of sustainability. Programs employed by community hospitals worked 8% more hours per year than those employed by noncommunity hospital employers and accepted a higher morning pediatric census. This variation in hours and census level appropriateness is likely multifactorial, potentially from higher nonclinical expectations for promotion (eg, academic or scholarly production) at school of medicine or children’s hospital employed programs versus limited reimbursement for administrative responsibilities within community hospital employment models.

There are several potential next steps for our findings. As our data are the first attempt (to our knowledge) at describing the current practice and expectations exclusively within community hospital programs, this study can be used as a starting point for the development of workload expectation standards. Increasing transparency nationally for individual community programs potentially promotes discussions around burnout and attrition. Having objective data to compare program models may assist in advocating with local hospital leadership for restructuring that better aligns with national norms.

Our study has several limitations. First, our sampling frame was based upon a self-selection of program directors. This may have led to a biased representation of programs with higher workloads motivated to develop a standard to compare with other programs, which may have potentially led to an overestimation of hours. Second, without a registry or database for community-based pediatric hospitalist programs, we do not know the percentage of community-based programs that our sample represents. Although our results cannot speak for all community PHM programs, we attempted to mitigate nonresponse bias through the breadth of programs represented, which spanned 29 states, five geographic regions, and teaching and nonteaching programs. The interview-based method for data collection allowed the research team to clarify questions and responses across sites, thereby improving the quality and consistency of the data for the represented study sample. Finally, other factors possibly contributed to sustainability that we did not address in this study, such as programs that are dependent on billable encounters as part of their salary support.

As a newly recognized subspecialty, creating a reference for community-based program leaders to determine and discuss individual models and expectations with hospital administrators may help address programmatic sustainability. It may also allow for the analysis of long-term career satisfaction and longevity within community PHM programs based on workload. Future studies should further explore root causes for workload discrepancies between community and university employed programs along with establishing potential standards for PHM program development.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Stanford School of Medicine Quantitative Sciences Unit staff for their assistance in statistical analysis.

Disclosure

The authors have nothing to disclose.

As a newly recognized specialty, pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) continues to expand and diversify.¹ Pediatric hospitalists care for children in hospitals ranging from small, rural community hospitals to large, free-standing quaternary children’s hospitals.^2-4 In addition, more than 10% of graduating pediatric residents are seeking future careers within PHM.⁵

In 2018, Fromme et al. published a study describing clinical workload for pediatric hospitalists within university-based settings.⁶ They characterized the diversity of work models and programmatic sustainability but limited the study to university-based programs. With over half of children receiving care within community hospitals,⁷ workforce patterns for community-based pediatric hospitalists should be characterized to maximize sustainability and minimize attrition across the field.

In this study, we describe programmatic variability in clinical work expectations of 70 community-based PHM programs. We aimed to describe existing work models and expectations of community-based program leaders as they relate to their unique clinical setting.

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of community-based PHM site directors through structured interviews. Community hospital programs were self-defined by the study participants, although typically defined as general hospitals that admit pediatric patients and are not free-standing or children’s hospitals within a general hospital. Survey respondents were asked to answer questions only reflecting expectations at their community hospital.

Survey Design and Content

Building from a tool used by Fromme et al.⁶ we created a 12-question structured interview questionnaire focused on three areas: (1) full-time employment (FTE) metrics including definitions of a 1.0 FTE, “typical” shifts, and weekend responsibilities; (2) work volume including census parameters, service-line coverage expectations, back-up systems, and overnight call responsibilities; and (3) programmatic model including sense of sustainability (eg, minimizing burnout and attrition), support for activities such as administrative or research time, and employer model (Appendix).

We modified the survey through research team consensus. After pilot-testing by research team members at their own sites, the survey was refined for item clarity, structural design, and length. We chose to administer surveys through phone interviews over a traditional distribution due to anticipated variability in work models. The research team discussed how each question should be asked, and responses were clarified to maintain consistency.

Survey Administration

Given the absence of a national registry or database for community-based PHM programs, study participation was solicited through an invitation posted on the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine (AAP SOHM) Listserv and the AAP SOHM Community Hospitalist Listserv in May 2018. Invitations were posted twice at two weeks apart. Each research team member completed 6-19 interviews. Responses to survey questions were recorded in REDCap, a secure, web-based data capture instrument.⁸

Participating in the study was considered implied consent, and participants did not receive a monetary incentive, although respondents were offered deidentified survey data for participation. The study was exempted through the University of Chicago Institutional Review Board.

Data Analysis

Employers were dichotomized as community hospital employer (including primary community hospital employment/private organization) or noncommunity hospital employer (including children’s/university hospital employment or school of medicine). Descriptive statistics were reported to compare the demographics of two employer groups. P values were calculated using two-sample t-tests for the continuous variables and chi-square or Fisher-exact tests for the categorical variables. Mann–Whitney U-test was performed for continuous variables without normality. Analyses were performed using the R Statistical Programming Language (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), version 3.4.3.

Participation and Program Characteristics

We interviewed 70 community-based PHM site directors representing programs across 29 states (Table 1) and five geographic regions: Midwest (34.3%), Northeast (11.4%), Southeast (15.7%), Southwest (4.3%), and West (34.3%). Employer models varied across groups, with more noncommunity hospital employers (57%) than community hospital employers (43%). The top three services covered by pediatric hospitalists were pediatric inpatient or observation bed admissions (97%), emergency department consults (89%), and general newborns (67%). PHM programs also provided coverage for other services, including newborn deliveries (43%), Special Care Nursery/Level II Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (41%), step-down unit (20%), and mental health units (13%). About 59% of programs provided education for family medicine residents, 36% were for pediatric residents, and 70% worked with advanced practice providers. The majority of programs (70%) provided in-house coverage overnight.

Clinical Work Expectations and Employer Model

Clinical work expectations varied broadly across programs (Table 2). The median expected hours for a 1.0 FTE was 1,882 hours per year (interquartile range [IQR] 1,805, 2,016), and the median expected weekend coverage/year (defined as covering two days or two nights of the weekend) was 21 (IQR 14, 24). Most programs did not expand staff coverage based on seasonality (73%), and less than 20% of programs operated with a census cap. Median support for nondirect patient care activities was 4% (IQR 0,10) of a program’s total FTE (ie, a 5.0 FTE program would have 0.20 FTE support). Programs with community hospital employers had an 8% higher expectation of 1.0 FTE hours/year (P = .01) and viewed an appropriate pediatric morning census as 20% higher (P = .01; Table 2).

Program Sustainability

To our knowledge, this study is the first to describe clinical work models exclusively for pediatric community hospitalist programs. We found that expectations for clinical FTE hours, weekend coverage, appropriate morning census, support for nondirect patient care activities, and perception of sustainability varied broadly across programs. The only variable affecting some of these differences was employer model, with those employed by a community hospital employer having a higher expectation for hours/year and appropriate morning pediatric census than those employed by noncommunity hospital employers.

With a growing emphasis on physician burnout and career satisfaction,^9-11 understanding the characteristics of community hospital work settings is critical for identifying and building sustainable employment models. Previous studies have identified that the balance of clinical and nonclinical responsibilities and the setting of community versus university-based programs are major contributors to burnout and career satisfaction.^9,11 Interestingly, although community hospital-based programs have limited FTE for nondirect patient care activities, we found that a higher percentage of program site directors perceived their program models as sustainable when compared with university-based programs in prior research (63% versus 50%).⁶ Elucidating why community hospital PHM programs are perceived as more sustainable provides an opportunity for future research. Potential reasons may include fewer academic requirements for promotion or an increased connection to a local community.

We also found that the employer model had a statistically significant impact on expected FTE hours per year but not on perception of sustainability. Programs employed by community hospitals worked 8% more hours per year than those employed by noncommunity hospital employers and accepted a higher morning pediatric census. This variation in hours and census level appropriateness is likely multifactorial, potentially from higher nonclinical expectations for promotion (eg, academic or scholarly production) at school of medicine or children’s hospital employed programs versus limited reimbursement for administrative responsibilities within community hospital employment models.

There are several potential next steps for our findings. As our data are the first attempt (to our knowledge) at describing the current practice and expectations exclusively within community hospital programs, this study can be used as a starting point for the development of workload expectation standards. Increasing transparency nationally for individual community programs potentially promotes discussions around burnout and attrition. Having objective data to compare program models may assist in advocating with local hospital leadership for restructuring that better aligns with national norms.

Our study has several limitations. First, our sampling frame was based upon a self-selection of program directors. This may have led to a biased representation of programs with higher workloads motivated to develop a standard to compare with other programs, which may have potentially led to an overestimation of hours. Second, without a registry or database for community-based pediatric hospitalist programs, we do not know the percentage of community-based programs that our sample represents. Although our results cannot speak for all community PHM programs, we attempted to mitigate nonresponse bias through the breadth of programs represented, which spanned 29 states, five geographic regions, and teaching and nonteaching programs. The interview-based method for data collection allowed the research team to clarify questions and responses across sites, thereby improving the quality and consistency of the data for the represented study sample. Finally, other factors possibly contributed to sustainability that we did not address in this study, such as programs that are dependent on billable encounters as part of their salary support.

As a newly recognized subspecialty, creating a reference for community-based program leaders to determine and discuss individual models and expectations with hospital administrators may help address programmatic sustainability. It may also allow for the analysis of long-term career satisfaction and longevity within community PHM programs based on workload. Future studies should further explore root causes for workload discrepancies between community and university employed programs along with establishing potential standards for PHM program development.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Stanford School of Medicine Quantitative Sciences Unit staff for their assistance in statistical analysis.

Disclosure

The authors have nothing to disclose.

We appreciate the query by Drs. Douglas and Wilson. We hereby supply additional information that is critical for creating and administering sustainable staffing models.

For programs with a census cap, the majority cited 16 or fewer patients as the trigger for that cap. Nearly all programs with back-up used a census of 16 or fewer. Over 80% of programs cited a “safe 7 am census” as 16 or fewer. These data suggest that a census over 16 is appropriate to trigger additional clinical support.

Regarding clinical weighting of nights, nighttime shifts were often more heavily weighted than day shifts, but approaches to weighting varied and have not been validated. Alternate staffing models for overnight pager calls varied greatly by individual program.

This is a time of significant growth for pediatric hospital medicine, and national workforce data are essential to hospitalists, administrators, and most importantly, patients. Our study¹ provides pediatric hospital medicine leaders with data for discussions regarding appropriate FTE and staffing model considerations. The insights generated by our study are particularly relevant in expanding programs and solving problems related to recruitment and retention.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

We appreciate the query by Drs. Douglas and Wilson. We hereby supply additional information that is critical for creating and administering sustainable staffing models.

For programs with a census cap, the majority cited 16 or fewer patients as the trigger for that cap. Nearly all programs with back-up used a census of 16 or fewer. Over 80% of programs cited a “safe 7 am census” as 16 or fewer. These data suggest that a census over 16 is appropriate to trigger additional clinical support.

Regarding clinical weighting of nights, nighttime shifts were often more heavily weighted than day shifts, but approaches to weighting varied and have not been validated. Alternate staffing models for overnight pager calls varied greatly by individual program.

This is a time of significant growth for pediatric hospital medicine, and national workforce data are essential to hospitalists, administrators, and most importantly, patients. Our study¹ provides pediatric hospital medicine leaders with data for discussions regarding appropriate FTE and staffing model considerations. The insights generated by our study are particularly relevant in expanding programs and solving problems related to recruitment and retention.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

We appreciate the query by Drs. Douglas and Wilson. We hereby supply additional information that is critical for creating and administering sustainable staffing models.

For programs with a census cap, the majority cited 16 or fewer patients as the trigger for that cap. Nearly all programs with back-up used a census of 16 or fewer. Over 80% of programs cited a “safe 7 am census” as 16 or fewer. These data suggest that a census over 16 is appropriate to trigger additional clinical support.

Regarding clinical weighting of nights, nighttime shifts were often more heavily weighted than day shifts, but approaches to weighting varied and have not been validated. Alternate staffing models for overnight pager calls varied greatly by individual program.

This is a time of significant growth for pediatric hospital medicine, and national workforce data are essential to hospitalists, administrators, and most importantly, patients. Our study¹ provides pediatric hospital medicine leaders with data for discussions regarding appropriate FTE and staffing model considerations. The insights generated by our study are particularly relevant in expanding programs and solving problems related to recruitment and retention.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.