Implementation of a Chief Resident Selection Process Designed to Mitigate Bias: Lessons Learned

Rachel J Katz-Sidlow; Kirsten L Roberts; Dacone A Elliott; Edward E Conway Jr

doi:10.7759/cureus.48116

Implementation of a Chief Resident Selection Process Designed to Mitigate Bias: Lessons Learned

Cureus. 2023 Nov 1;15(11):e48116. doi: 10.7759/cureus.48116. eCollection 2023 Nov.

Authors

Rachel J Katz-Sidlow¹, Kirsten L Roberts¹, Dacone A Elliott¹, Edward E Conway Jr¹

Affiliation

¹ Pediatrics, Jacobi Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, USA.

Abstract

Background: Chief residency selection processes are often opaque and beset by bias, which can result in disparities in who is selected for this important role. As a chief residency can lead to future academic and/or leadership positions, efforts to increase diversity in academic medicine and physician leadership may be aided by an inclusive chief resident (CR) selection process designed to mitigate bias. Objective: To implement and evaluate the acceptability of a CR selection process that is inclusive and designed to mitigate bias. Methods: In the 2021-2022 academic year, we designed and implemented a CR selection process aligned with published strategies known to mitigate bias in academic recruitment. The four-step opt-out CR selection process included a nomination survey, structured interviews, a clinical review, and a holistic review of each candidate. Each step was clearly delineated, assigned a specific number of points, and scored on a designated rubric. The candidates with the highest and second-highest number of points were awarded the two CR positions. Our selection process excluded examination scores and precluded consideration of "fit" between the selected CRs, as these are known sources of potential bias. In January 2023, we surveyed our department to obtain post-implementation feedback and to assess satisfaction with the process, before repeating the process for 2022-2023.

Results: Survey response rates were 47% (14/30) for residents and 29% (18/63) for departmental faculty. The majority of responding residents (64%) and faculty (100%) were satisfied with the CR selection process, finding it fair and inclusive. Nearly 80% of residents and 100% of faculty wished to repeat the process in 2022-2023. Conclusions: An inclusive CR selection process utilizing strategies to mitigate bias was feasible, and acceptable to residents and faculty. We recommend that residency training programs make efforts to implement CR selection practices that are inclusive and aim to mitigate bias.

Keywords: chief resident selection; chief residents; diversity; graduate medical education; inclusion.