130 - Contemporary Landscape of Recruitment in Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Fellowship Programs

Poster Number: 130
Publication Number: 130.217

Lindsay Johnston, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States; Megan Gray, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States; Elizabeth Bonachea, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Dublin, OH, United States; Heather French, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States; Melissa Carbajal, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States; Heidi E. Karpen, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, United States; Patrick Myers, Northwestern University The Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States

Background:
Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine (NPM) fellowship program directors (PD) must adjust their recruitment strategy to address challenges, including attracting underrepresented in medicine (URiM) candidates, optimizing program complement, and recruiting virtually.

Objective: To describe the current landscape of NPM fellowship recruitment from the PDs’ standpoint.

Design/Methods: In April 2021, NPM PDs from ACGME-accredited programs in the US were invited to complete an electronic survey through the Organization of Neonatal Training Program Directors (ONTPD) on the current status of their program.  Specific questions addressed recruitment issues, especially virtual recruitment and recruitment of URiM candidates.

Results:
Representatives from 70 NPM fellowships provided data (response rate 70/102 = 69%).  Despite 23% of programs not filling in the last 4 years, 10% of programs planned a complement increase in 2021; no programs planned a complement decrease.  Reasons cited include increased clinical demands, obtaining additional funding, and identifying research opportunities.  Pre-pandemic, only 41% of programs interviewed 10+ candidates per open slot; this rose to 49% in 2021.

 

Sixty-four percent of programs and 67% of their respective institutions tracked URiM-specific recruiting data.  A small majority of programs involved URiM faculty (55%) and fellows (51%) in screening applications.  Significant variability existed in the number of URiM applications received by individual programs, as well as those who were selected for interviews (Figure 1).  Overall, programs conducted 482 interviews with URiM candidates (median 7, IQR 2-10), ranked 409 (median 6, IQR 3-10), and matched 53 (median 0, IQR 0-1). Only half of programs ranked all interviewed URiM candidates, and only half matched one of the 53 URiM candidates in this sample (16% of programs matched >2 URiM candidates). 

 

PDs suggested strategies to mitigate barriers to URiM recruitment, including best-practice guidelines, QI-based data collection instruments, ideas to enhance social media presence and create an inclusive educational culture, development of national mentorship programs, and funding opportunities for URiM candidates.
Conclusion(s): NPM PDs identified numerous challenges in contemporary recruitment.  Assessing these areas nationally, the NPM fellowship community can develop shared strategies and resources to improve the subspecialty’s ability to recruit a diverse provider group, which is critical for future success.
URiM candidate consideration for NPM fellowship programsBased upon responses in the annual NPM fellowship survey, programs reported the number of URiM applications their program received (purple), URiM candidates they ranked (blue), and URiM candidates they matched (green).