Background

There has been renewed focus on advancing inclusivity within organized medicine to reduce health disparities and achieve health equity by addressing the deleterious effects of implicit bias in healthcare and clinical outcomes. It is well documented that negative implicit attitudes and stereotypes perpetuate inequity in healthcare. The aim of this study is to investigate implicit bias training in postgraduate physician assistant (PA) and nurse practitioner (NP) education; describe delivery of content to trainees; and detail program directors' attitudes toward this type of training. Although there is research examining implicit bias training in physician residency education, there are no published studies on implicit bias training in postgraduate PA and NP postgraduate residency/fellowship programs.

Method

A non-experimental, descriptive study was designed to obtain information via survey from members of the Association of Postgraduate Physician Assistant Programs (APPAP).

Results

The response rate was 41%. The majority of respondents (76%) felt that PA and NP postgraduate programs should include implicit bias instruction. Educational strategies used by PA and joint PA/NP postgraduate programs or their sponsoring institution to deliver implicit bias content to trainees include: implicit bias training modules (50%), facilitated group discussions (36%), invited speaker on implicit bias (33%), case studies on implicit bias (16%), and implicit association test (10%); however, 30% of postgraduate programs do not provide implicit bias training to PA and/or NP trainees. Barriers to implementing implicit bias training expressed by some postgraduate programs include: uncertainty in how to incorporate implicit bias training (16%); lack of strategic alignment with training program or sponsoring institution (13%); time constraints (10%); financial constraints (6%); lack of access to content experts (6%); and unfamiliarity with evidence supporting implicit bias training (6%).

Conclusion

The present study sheds some light on the current state of implicit bias training in PA and joint PA/NP postgraduate residency/fellowship programs. While the majority of programs offer some sort of implicit bias training, there is a need to standardize this training in PA and joint PA/NP postgraduate education curricula using an actionable framework.

Following publication of the original article [1], the author informed us that the response rate was incorrectly reported. The updated rate is given below and the changes have been highlighted in bold typeface as follows: Abstract Results: Twenty-three out of 73 postgraduate programs (31.5%) responded to the survey. The study reported that applicant PAs and nurse practitioners (NPs) are largely selected on the basis of several factors. Results Seventy-three postgraduate programs were invited to participate, and 23 programs completed the entire survey. The overall response rate was 31.5%. Limitations Third, this study includes a low response rate of (31.5%), which may have contributed to response bias. The original article has been corrected.

Background

This study aims to investigate the admission criteria used by physician assistant postgraduate education programs in selecting licensed PA applicants for postgraduate training in the United States. To our knowledge, there have been no previously published reports on selection criteria and/or other factors influencing postgraduate PA admission decisions.

Method

A non-experimental, descriptive research study was designed to obtain information from members of the Association of Postgraduate Physician Assistant Programs (APPAP).

Results

Twenty-three out of 73 postgraduate programs (35%) responded to the survey. The study reported that applicant PAs and NPs are largely selected on the basis of several factors. The most heavily weighted factor is the interview itself; other selection criteria perceived to be extremely/very important included board certification/eligibility, letters of recommendation, advanced degree, and personal essay. Survey data suggest that publications, undergraduate transcripts, and class rankings are not considered to be of high importance in applicant selection. The number of PA applicants applying to each postgraduate training program averages around 26 and total number of enrollees is about 3.6 per program. Additionally, some programs reported furloughing of trainees (temporary suspension of didactic and clinical training) during the pandemic, whereas the vast majority of postgraduate PA programs remained operational and some even experienced an increase in application volume. The total cost of training a PA resident or fellow in postgraduate programs is currently $93,000 whereas the average cost of training a categorical physician resident is estimated at $150,000 per year when considering both salary and benefits.

Conclusions

This novel study examined criteria and other factors used by postgraduate PA programs in selecting candidates for admission. Results can be used by postgraduate programs to improve or modify current selection criteria to enhance the quality of trainee selection. Further research is needed to examine correlations between applicant attributes, selection criteria, and trainee success in completing postgraduate training.