Characteristics of Designated Institutional Officials and Sponsoring Institutions of ACGME-Accredited Training Programs

Abstract

Background Since the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) established the designated institutional official (DIO) role in 1998, there have been major changes in sponsoring institutions (SIs) and DIO responsibilities. Yet there remains a large gap in our knowledge regarding baseline SI and DIO characteristics as well as a need for institutions wanting to increase diversity in the DIO role and other leadership positions within the medical education community. Objective We sought to characterize demographics of DIOs and the SIs they oversee. Methods We identified SIs and DIOs on the ACGME website on February 15, 2020. Reviewed data included SI accreditation status, number of programs and resident/fellow positions, and DIO characteristics. Results We identified 831 SIs. SIs with continued accreditation sponsored more programs (median 4.0) than SIs with initial accreditation (median 1.0, P < .001). DIO age ranged from 29–81 years (median 57 years). Two-hundred eighty-three of 831 (34%) DIOs were women. Of 576 DIOs with known academic rank, 356 (62%) DIOs held senior academic rank. A higher proportion of male DIOs had senior academic rank (68% vs 52%; OR 1.90 [95% CI 1.34–2.70]; P < .001) and professor rank (39% vs 24%; OR 2.01 [95% CI 1.38–2.94]; P < .001) compared to female DIOs. Female gender was associated with a greater number of ACGME-accredited programs and filled resident/fellow positions per SI (P < .001 for both). Conclusions This study describes characteristics of DIOs and SIs and offers insights for those pursuing a DIO position.

Sex Disparity Persists in Pain Medicine: A Cross-Sectional Study of Chairpersons Within ACGME-Accredited Chronic Pain Fellowship Programs in the United States

“…The finding of fewer publications among female chairpersons has been demonstrated consistently in the current literature across other leadership positions in pain medicine, as well as other medical and surgical specialties, which generally highlight that male leaders have produced more publications, achieved higher H-indices, and accomplished greater publication visibility. 4,[8][9][10][11][12] Potential explanations for the underrepresentation of female chairpersons and other female leaders in scientific publications may include tendency for fewer authorship invitations offered to women and preference for trainees and junior researchers to select male supervisors as research mentors. 4,13 Another notable finding is the preponderance of male chairpersons compared with female chairpersons (80.5% vs 19.5%).…”

Speaker Gender Representation at the North American Neuromodulation Society Annual Meeting (2017–2021): Have We Made Progress in Closing the Gender Gap?

“…2 Yet, gender inequalities persist in academic institutions, 3 as highlighted by fewer women achieving professorship rank, holding chairperson appointments, receiving invitations to journal editorial roles, or occupying other leadership roles. [4][5][6][7][8] While these disparities are evident across most medical disciplines, they are even more prominent in interventional and surgical subspecialties, such as interventional pain medicine. 4,5 A significant issue is the "leaky pipeline" where women fall from the academic ladder, which in turn depletes the potential pool of female candidates for senior academic ranks and leadership positions.…”