Trainee Perspectives Regarding the Effect of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court Decision on Obstetrics and Gynecology Training.

Objectives: We aimed to describe obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) trainees' anticipation of how the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs) U.S. Supreme Court decision may affect their training. Methods: A REDCap survey of OBGYN residents and fellows in the United States from September 19, 2022, to December 1, 2022, queried trainees' anticipated achievement of relevant Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) training milestones, their concerns about the ability to provide care and concern about legal repercussions during training, and the importance of OBGYN competence in managing certain clinical situations for residency graduates. The primary outcome was an ACGME program trainee feeling uncertain or unable to obtain the highest level queried for a relevant ACGME milestone, including experiencing 20 abortion procedures in residency. Results: We received 469 eligible responses; the primary outcome was endorsed by 157 respondents (33.5%). After correction for confounders, significant predictors of the primary outcome were state environment (aOR = 3.94 for pending abortion restrictions; aOR = 2.71 for current abortion restrictions), trainee type (aOR = 0.21 for fellow vs. resident), and a present or past Ryan Training Program in residency (aOR = 0.55). Although the vast majority of trainees believed managing relevant clinical situations are key to OBGYN competence, 10%-30% of trainees believed they would have to stop providing the standard of care in clinical situations during training. Conclusions: This survey of OBGYN trainees indicates higher uncertainty about achieving ACGME milestones and procedural competency in clinical situations potentially affected by the Dobbs decision in states with legal restrictions on abortion.

Implementation of pharmacy access to hormonal contraception.

BACKGROUND: States throughout the country are enacting legislation to authorize pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraception to decrease barriers to access. Little is known about the process of state implementation of pharmacist prescriptive authority for hormonal contraception. OBJECTIVES: To understand the state-level steps to enable pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraception, including implementation challenges and facilitators. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of interviews with 18 key individuals, including pharmacists and other stakeholders, from ten states with laws permitting pharmacist-prescribed hormonal contraception from March 2021 to April 2022. We analyzed data using directed qualitative analysis principles and compared experiences across states. We organized the data using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework and evaluated relevant constructs in states' implementation efforts. RESULTS: Participants identified four key steps to implement pharmacist prescribing at the state level, including development of state rules and regulations, educational programs, reimbursement mechanisms, and expansion strategies to pharmacists and pharmacies. Participants identified early involvement of key stakeholders and a culture of support for clinical pharmacists as facilitators to implementation. Challenges included complexity and cost of billing mechanisms, lack of funding for implementation efforts, and competing priorities of pharmacies/pharmacists. CONCLUSION: Participants in states with pharmacist prescriptive authority for hormonal contraception identified development of reimbursement and billing mechanisms as the most critical state-level step in implementation. Focusing on facilitators of key steps can guide states in developing successful implementation strategies to improve contraceptive access.