Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; University of California, San Francisco Fellowship in Family Planning, San Francisco, CA.
Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; University of California, San Francisco Fellowship in Family Planning, San Francisco, CA.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Aug;221(2):156.e1-156.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.04.026. Epub 2019 Jun 18.
Only 64% of obstetrics and gynecology program directors report routine, scheduled training in abortion, despite the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's requirements for routine training. Most report that exposure to training is limited to specific clinical circumstances.
We sought to describe residency program directors' perspectives of support for and resistance to abortion training in residency training programs in the United States.
A national survey of directors explored the availability of abortion training as well as support for and resistance to abortion training within their departments and institutions. In addition, directors who indicated that training was not available at all, available only as an elective, or as routine but limited to specific clinical circumstances, were also asked which procedures were limited, in what ways, and by whom. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed.
A total of 190 residency program directors (79%) responded from throughout the United States (30% in the Northeast, 30% in the South, 23% in the Midwest, and 16% in the West), and 14% described their program as religiously affiliated. Most directors (73%) reported at least some institutional or government restrictions to training, and reported an average of 3 types of restrictions. Hospital policy was the most commonly reported restriction, followed by state law. Programs with routine abortion training reported an average of 2 restrictions, compared with 4 restrictions in programs with optional training, and 5 restrictions in programs with no abortion training.
Significant barriers to integrating abortion training into residents' schedules continue to exist decades after the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education training mandate. We should use these data to develop better support and targeted strategies for increasing the number of trained abortion providers in the United States.
尽管毕业后医学教育认证委员会要求常规培训堕胎，但只有 64%的妇产科项目主管报告有例行的、有计划的堕胎培训。大多数人报告说，培训的接触仅限于特定的临床情况。
我们旨在描述美国住院医师培训项目主管对住院医师培训项目中堕胎培训的支持和抵制的看法。
一项针对主任的全国性调查探讨了堕胎培训的可用性，以及他们所在部门和机构对堕胎培训的支持和抵制。此外，那些表示培训根本不可用、仅作为选修课程可用、或常规但仅限于特定临床情况的主任，还被问及哪些程序受到限制、以何种方式受到限制以及由谁受到限制。进行了描述性和双变量分析。
共有 190 名住院医师培训项目主任（79%）来自美国各地（东北部 30%，南部 30%，中西部 23%，西部 16%），14%的主任表示他们的项目与宗教有关。大多数主任（73%）报告说至少有一些机构或政府对培训的限制，并报告了平均 3 种类型的限制。医院政策是最常报告的限制，其次是州法律。有例行堕胎培训的项目报告平均有 2 项限制，而选修培训的项目有 4 项限制，没有堕胎培训的项目有 5 项限制。
在毕业后医学教育认证委员会培训要求出台几十年后，将堕胎培训纳入住院医师日程的重大障碍仍然存在。我们应该利用这些数据，为增加美国受过培训的堕胎提供者的数量制定更好的支持和有针对性的策略。
