BACKGROUND: Competency-based medical education relies on meaningful resident assessment. Implicit gender bias represents a potential threat to the integrity of resident assessment. We sought to examine the available evidence of the potential for and impact of gender bias in resident assessment in graduate medical education. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to evaluate the presence and influence of gender bias on resident assessment. We searched Medline and Embase databases to capture relevant articles using a tiered strategy. Review was conducted by two independent, blinded reviewers. We included studies with primary objective of examining the impact of gender on resident assessment in graduate medical education in the USA or Canada published from 1998 to 2018. RESULTS: Nine studies examined the existence and influence of gender bias in resident assessment and data included rating scores and qualitative comments. Heterogeneity in tools, outcome measures, and methodologic approach precluded meta-analysis. Five of the nine studies reported a difference in outcomes attributed to gender including gender-based differences in traits ascribed to residents, consistency of feedback, and performance measures. CONCLUSION: Our review suggests that gender bias poses a potential threat to the integrity of resident assessment in graduate medical education. Future study is warranted to understand how gender bias manifests in resident assessment, impact on learners and approaches to mitigate this bias.

IMPORTANCE Gender bias may affect assessment in competency-based medical education. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association of gender with assessment of internal medicine residents.

No abstract

PurposeTo assess the association between internal medicine (IM) residents' race/ ethnicity and clinical performance assessments. MethodThe authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of clinical performance assessment scores at 6 U.S. IM residency programs from 2016 to 2017. Residents underrepresented in medicine (URiM) were identified using self-reported race/ ethnicity. Standardized scores were calculated for Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies. Cross-classified mixed-effects regression assessed the association between race/ethnicity and competency scores, adjusting for rotation time of year and setting; resident gender, postgraduate year, and IM In-Training Examination percentile rank; and faculty gender, rank, and specialty. Results Data included 3,600 evaluations by 605 faculty of 703 residents, including 94 (13.4%) URiM residents. Resident race/ethnicity was associated with competency scores, with lower scores for URiM residents (difference in adjusted standardized scores between URiM and non-URiM residents, mean [standard error]) in medical knowledge (−0.123 [0.05], P = .021), systemsbased practice (−0.179 [0.05], P = .005), practice-based learning and improvement (−0.112 [0.05], P = .032), professionalism (−0.116 [0.06], P = .036), and interpersonal and communication skills (−0.113 [0.06], P = .044).Translating this to a 1 to 5 scale in 0.5 increments, URiM resident ratings were 0.07 to 0.12 points lower than non-URiM resident ratings in these 5 competencies. The interaction with faculty gender was notable in professionalism (difference between URiM and non-URiM for men faculty −0.199 [0.06] vs women faculty −0.014 [0.07], P = .01) with men more than women faculty rating URiM residents lower than non-URiM residents. Using the 1 to 5 scale, men faculty rated URiM residents 0.13 points lower than non-URiM residents in professionalism. ConclusionsResident race/ethnicity was associated with assessment scores to the disadvantage of URiM residents. This may reflect bias in faculty assessment, effects of a noninclusive learning environment, or structural inequities in assessment.

Problem Gender equity in leadership across academic medicine remains a concern. The case of chief resident (CR) offers an opportunity to explore novel strategies in leadership selection in graduate medical education (GME). Means of identifying potential candidates for CR often rely on faculty assessment of resident performance, yet implicit gender bias has the potential to influence this assessment. Approach To diversify the metrics used in CR selection, an intervention was implemented to solicit resident input to identify candidates for CR at 2 U.S. internal medicine residency programs in 2018 and 2019. This involved a simple, cross-sectional survey of residents in which they were asked to identify individual residents as good candidates for consideration for CR. Outcomes There were 298 of 518 internal medicine resident responses to this intervention across sites and years (mean 58.2% response rate). Nomination patterns of residents and program leaders correlated significantly (correlation coefficient 0.62, P < .001). Controlling for site and year, gender was a significant factor associated with who residents nominated for CR (β-coefficient 0.325, P = .004) with women residents more likely to identify women for CR (odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.11–1.73). Fifty residents nominated themselves for CR, and there was no significant difference by gender (β-coefficient 0.038, P = .91). Next Steps Soliciting resident input to identify candidates for CR may enable gender representation of candidates for this position. Influencing candidate choices may be a promising way to impact leadership selection in medicine.