The prevalence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health education and training in emergency medicine residency programs: Where are we now?

BACKGROUND: Despite identified inequities and disparities in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ+) health, past studies have shown little or no education at the medical school or residency level for emergency physicians. With increased focus on health inequities and disparities, we sought to reexamine the status of sexual and gender minority health education in U.S. emergency medicine (EM) residencies. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to determine how many EM residencies offer education on LGBTQ+ health. Secondary objectives included the number of actual versus preferred hours of LGBTQ+ training, identification of barriers to providing education, and correlation of education with program demographics. Finally, we compared our current data with past results of our 2013 study. METHODS: The initial survey that sought to examine LGBTQ+ training in 2013 was used and sent in 2020 via email to EM programs accredited by the American Council for Graduate Medical Education who had at least one full class of residents in 2019. Reminder emails and a reminder post on the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine listserv were used to increase participation. RESULTS: A total of 229 programs were eligible, with a 49.3% response rate (113/229). The majority (75%) offered education content on LGBTQ+ health, for a median (IQR) of 2 (1-3) hours and a range of 0 to 22 hours. Respondents preferred more hours of education than offered (median desired hours = 4, IQR = 2-5 hours; p < 0.001). The largest barrier identified was lack of time in curriculum (63%). The majority of programs had known LGBTQ+ faculty and residents. Inclusion and amount of education hours positively correlated with presence of LGBTQ+ faculty or residents; university- and county-based programs were more likely to deliver education content than private groups (p = 0.03). Awareness of known LGBTQ+ residents but not faculty differed by region, but there was no significant difference in actual or preferred content by region. CONCLUSION: The majority of respondents offer education in sexual and gender minority health, although there remains a gap between actual and preferred hours. This is a notable increase from 26% of responding programs providing education in 2013. Several barriers still exist, and the content, impact, and completeness of education remain areas for further study.

Attitudes, Behavior, and Comfort of Emergency Medicine Residents in Caring for LGBT Patients: What Do We Know?

BACKGROUND: Although lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) patients are ubiquitous in emergency medicine (EM), little education is provided to EM physicians on LGBT health care needs and disparities. There is also limited information on EM physician behavior, comfort, and attitudes toward LGBT patients. The objective of this study was to assess EM residents behavior, comfort, and attitudes in LGBT health. METHODS: An anonymous survey link was sent to EM programs via the Council of Residency Director listserv. The primary outcome of the 24-item descriptive survey was the self-reported comfort levels and self-reported practice in LGBT health care. Secondary outcomes included individual comfort toward LGBT colleagues and patients who are LGBT, and the frequency of colleagues making discriminatory statements toward LGBT patients and staff in the emergency department setting. Associations between personal and program demographics and survey responses were also examined. RESULTS: There were 319 responses The majority of respondents were male (63.4%), Caucasian (69.1%), and heterosexual (92.4%). A sizeable minority of respondents felt histories and physical examinations were more challenging for lesbian, gay, or bisexual patients (24.6%) and more so for transgender patients (42.6%). Most residents do not ask patients to identify sexual orientation when presenting with abdominal or genital complaints (63%). Discriminatory LGBT comments were reported from both fellow residents (16.6%) and faculty (10%). A total of 2.5% of respondents were uncomfortable with other LGBT physicians, and 6% did not agree that LGBT patients deserve the same quality care as others. CONCLUSION: A number of residents find caring for LGBT patients more challenging than heterosexual patients. Even with professed comfort with LGBT health care, most residents report taking incomplete sexual histories that may affect patient care. Attitudes toward LGBT patients are mainly, but not completely, positive in this cohort.

The prevalence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health education and training in emergency medicine residency programs: what do we know?

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine, The Joint Commission, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services all have recently highlighted the need for cultural competency and provider education on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) health. Forty percent of LGBT patients cite lack of provider education as a barrier to care. Only a few hours of medical school curriculum are devoted to LGBT education, and little is known about LGBT graduate medical education. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to perform a needs assessment to determine to what degree LGBT health is taught in emergency medicine (EM) residency programs and to determine whether program demographics affect inclusion of LGBT health topics. METHODS: An anonymous survey link was sent to EM residency program directors (PDs) via the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors listserv. The 12-item descriptive survey asked the number of actual and desired hours of instruction on LGBT health in the past year. Perceived barriers to LGBT health education and program demographics were also sought. RESULTS: There were 124 responses to the survey out of a potential response from 160 programs (response rate of 78%). Twenty-six percent of the respondents reported that they have ever presented a specific LGBT lecture, and 33% have incorporated topics affecting LGBT health in the didactic curriculum. EM programs presented anywhere from 0 to 8 hours on LGBT health, averaging 45 minutes of instruction in the past year (median = 0 minutes, interquartile range [IQR] = 0 to 60 minutes), and PDs support inclusion of anywhere from 0 to 10 hours of dedicated time to LGBT health, with an average of 2.2 hours (median = 2 hours, IQR = 1 to 3.5 hours) recommended. The majority of respondents have LGBT faculty (64.2%) and residents (56.2%) in their programs. The presence of LGBT faculty and previous LGBT education were associated with a greater number of desired hours on LGBT health. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of EM residency programs have not presented curricula specific to LGBT health, although PDs desire inclusion of these topics. Further curriculum development is needed to better serve LGBT patients.