Laura Drudi, MD

PART I
Reports of sexual harassment and gender discrimination have dominated news headlines, and the #MeToo movement has brought the scope and severity of discriminatory behavior to the forefront of public consciousness. The #MeToo movement has raised national and global awareness of gender discrimination and sexual harassment in all industries and has given rise to Time’s Up initiative within health care.
Academic medicine has not been immune to workplace gender discrimination and sexual harassment as has been vastly reported in the literature and clearly documented in the 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, which points out that … “the cumulative effect of sexual harassment is a significant and costly loss of talent in academic science, engineering, and medicine, which has consequences for advancing the nation’s economic and social well-being and its overall public health.”1 
With the increasing recognition that healthcare is an environment especially prone to inequality, gender discrimination and sexual discrimination, the Time’s Up national organization, supported by the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, launched the Time’s Up initiative for health care workers on March 1, 2019.2,3 The overarching goal of this initiative is to expose workplace inequalities; drive policy and legislative changes focused on equal pay, equal opportunity, and equal work environments; and support safe, fair, and dignified work for women in health care. 2,3
This article, presented over the next three issues of Vascular Specialist, will present data on the ongoing problem of sexual harassment in medicine, discuss why the problem is prevalent in academic medicine, and provide recommendations for mitigating the problem in our workplace.

Defining & Measuring Sexual Harassment
Although commonly referred to as “sex discrimination,” sexual harassment differs from sexual discrimination. Sex discrimination refers to an employees’ denial of civil rights, raises, job opportunities, employment or a demotion or other mistreatments based on sex. On the other hand, sexual harassment relates to behavior that is inappropriate or offensive. A 2018 report from the National Academies Press defined sexual harassment (a form of discrimination) as comprising three categories of behavior: gender harassment – verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one sex; unwanted sexual attention – verbal or physical unwelcome sexual advances, which can include assault; and sexual coercion – when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditional based on sexual activity.1
During 1995-2016, more than 7,000 health care service employees filed claims of sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While this number may seem large, the number of official reports severely undervalues the prevalence of sexual discrimination in U.S. health care.1 Prevalence is best determined using representative validated surveys that rely on firsthand experience or observation of the behavior(s) without requiring the respondent to label those behaviors.

Environments at Risk for Sexual Harassment 
Research reveals that academic settings in the fields of science exhibit characteristics that create high levels of risk for sexual harassment to occur. These environments historically are male dominated, tolerate sexually harassing behavior, and create a hierarchy in which men hold most of the positions of power and authority. Moreover, dependent relationships often exist between these gatekeepers and those subordinate to them, with gatekeepers directly influencing the career advancement of those subordinates.1
The greatest predictor of sexual harassment in the workplace is the organizational climate, which refers to the tolerance for sexual harassment and is measured on three elements: a lack of sanctions against offenders; a perceived risk to those who report sexually harassing behavior; and the perception that one’s report of sexually harassing behavior will not be taken seriously.1 Women are less likely to be directly harassed in environments that do not tolerate harassing behaviors or have a strong, clear, transparent consequence for these behaviors.  

Sexual Harassment in Academic Medicine
Academic medicine has the highest rate of gender and sexual harassment in the health care industry, with about 50% of female academic physicians reporting incidents of sexual harassment.1 A recent survey suggests that more than half (58%) of women surgeons experienced sexual harassment within just the previous year alone.4 The conditions that increase the risk of sexual harassment against women – male-dominated hierarchical environments and organizational tolerance of sexual harassment – still prevail in academic medicine. 
Higher-education environments are perceived as permissive environments in part because when targets report sexual harassment, they are retaliated against or there are few consequences for the perpetrator. Academic institutions are replete with cases in which the conduct of offenders is regarded as an open secret, but there are no sanctions for that bad behavior. These offenders often are perceived as superstars in their particular substantive area. Because they hold valued grants or national status within their specialty area, they often receive preferential treatment and are not held accountable for gender-biased and sexually harassing behavior. Interview data regarding sexual harassment in academic medicine reveals that interview respondents and other colleagues often know which individuals have a history of sexually harassing behavior. Both men and women warn colleagues of these perpetrators – knowing that calling out or reporting these behaviors is fruitless – and that the best manner for dealing with their behavior is to avoid or ignore it. This normalization of sexual harassment and gender bias was noted, unfortunately, to fuel similar behavior in new cohorts of medicine faculty.1 
Sexual harassment of women in academic medicine starts in medical school. Female medical students are significantly more likely to experience sexual harassment by faculty and staff than are graduate or undergraduate students. Sexual harassment continues into residency training with residency described as “breeding grounds for abusive behavior by superiors.”1 Interview studies report that both men and women trainees widely accept harassing behavior at this stage of their training. The expectation of abusive and grueling conditions during residency caused several respondents to view sexual harassment as part of a continuum that they were expected to endure. Female residents in surgery and emergency medicine are more likely to be harassed than those in other specialties because of the high value placed on a hierarchical and authoritative workplace. Once out of residency, the sexual harassment of women in the workplace continues. A recent meta-analysis reveals that 58% of women faculty experience sexual harassment at work. Academic medicine has the second-highest rate of sexual harassment, behind the military (69%), as compared with all other workplaces. Women physicians of color experience more harassment (as a combination of sexual and racial harassment) than do white women physicians.1 

Why Women Are Not Likely to Report Sexual Harassment
Only 25% of targets file formal reports with their employer, with even fewer taking claims to court. These numbers are even lower for women in the military and academic medicine, where formal reporting is the last resort for the victims. The reluctance to use formal reporting mechanisms is rooted in the “fear of blame, disbelief, inaction, retaliation, humiliation, ostracism, and the damage to one’s career and reputation.”1 Targets may perceive that there seem to be few benefits and high costs for reporting. Women and nonwhites often resist calling bad behavior “discrimination” because that increases their loss of control and victimhood.1 Women frequently perceive that grievance procedures favor the institution over the individual, and research has proven that women face retaliation, both professional and social, for speaking out. Furthermore, stark power differentials between the target and the perpetrator exacerbate the reluctance to report and the fear of retaliation. The overall effects can be long lasting. 

References:
1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2018. doi. 10.17226/24994.
2. Choo EK et al. From #MeToo to #TimesUp in Health Care: Can a Culture of Accountability End Inequity and Harassment? Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):499-502.
3. Choo EK et al. Time’s Up for Medicine? Only Time Will Tell. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 25;379(17):1592-3.
4. Medicine Has Its Own #MeToo Problems. Can Time’s Up Healthcare Fix It? 

Dr. Mitchell is a vascular surgeon at Salem (Ore.) Hospital; Dr. Drudi is as vascular surgery resident at McGill University, Montreal; Dr. Brown is a professor of surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Milwaukee; Dr. Sachdev-Ost is an associate professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

PART I
Reports of sexual harassment and gender discrimination have dominated news headlines, and the #MeToo movement has brought the scope and severity of discriminatory behavior to the forefront of public consciousness. The #MeToo movement has raised national and global awareness of gender discrimination and sexual harassment in all industries and has given rise to Time’s Up initiative within health care.
Academic medicine has not been immune to workplace gender discrimination and sexual harassment as has been vastly reported in the literature and clearly documented in the 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, which points out that … “the cumulative effect of sexual harassment is a significant and costly loss of talent in academic science, engineering, and medicine, which has consequences for advancing the nation’s economic and social well-being and its overall public health.”1 
With the increasing recognition that healthcare is an environment especially prone to inequality, gender discrimination and sexual discrimination, the Time’s Up national organization, supported by the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, launched the Time’s Up initiative for health care workers on March 1, 2019.2,3 The overarching goal of this initiative is to expose workplace inequalities; drive policy and legislative changes focused on equal pay, equal opportunity, and equal work environments; and support safe, fair, and dignified work for women in health care. 2,3
This article, presented over the next three issues of Vascular Specialist, will present data on the ongoing problem of sexual harassment in medicine, discuss why the problem is prevalent in academic medicine, and provide recommendations for mitigating the problem in our workplace.

Defining & Measuring Sexual Harassment
Although commonly referred to as “sex discrimination,” sexual harassment differs from sexual discrimination. Sex discrimination refers to an employees’ denial of civil rights, raises, job opportunities, employment or a demotion or other mistreatments based on sex. On the other hand, sexual harassment relates to behavior that is inappropriate or offensive. A 2018 report from the National Academies Press defined sexual harassment (a form of discrimination) as comprising three categories of behavior: gender harassment – verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one sex; unwanted sexual attention – verbal or physical unwelcome sexual advances, which can include assault; and sexual coercion – when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditional based on sexual activity.1
During 1995-2016, more than 7,000 health care service employees filed claims of sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While this number may seem large, the number of official reports severely undervalues the prevalence of sexual discrimination in U.S. health care.1 Prevalence is best determined using representative validated surveys that rely on firsthand experience or observation of the behavior(s) without requiring the respondent to label those behaviors.

Environments at Risk for Sexual Harassment 
Research reveals that academic settings in the fields of science exhibit characteristics that create high levels of risk for sexual harassment to occur. These environments historically are male dominated, tolerate sexually harassing behavior, and create a hierarchy in which men hold most of the positions of power and authority. Moreover, dependent relationships often exist between these gatekeepers and those subordinate to them, with gatekeepers directly influencing the career advancement of those subordinates.1
The greatest predictor of sexual harassment in the workplace is the organizational climate, which refers to the tolerance for sexual harassment and is measured on three elements: a lack of sanctions against offenders; a perceived risk to those who report sexually harassing behavior; and the perception that one’s report of sexually harassing behavior will not be taken seriously.1 Women are less likely to be directly harassed in environments that do not tolerate harassing behaviors or have a strong, clear, transparent consequence for these behaviors.  

Sexual Harassment in Academic Medicine
Academic medicine has the highest rate of gender and sexual harassment in the health care industry, with about 50% of female academic physicians reporting incidents of sexual harassment.1 A recent survey suggests that more than half (58%) of women surgeons experienced sexual harassment within just the previous year alone.4 The conditions that increase the risk of sexual harassment against women – male-dominated hierarchical environments and organizational tolerance of sexual harassment – still prevail in academic medicine. 
Higher-education environments are perceived as permissive environments in part because when targets report sexual harassment, they are retaliated against or there are few consequences for the perpetrator. Academic institutions are replete with cases in which the conduct of offenders is regarded as an open secret, but there are no sanctions for that bad behavior. These offenders often are perceived as superstars in their particular substantive area. Because they hold valued grants or national status within their specialty area, they often receive preferential treatment and are not held accountable for gender-biased and sexually harassing behavior. Interview data regarding sexual harassment in academic medicine reveals that interview respondents and other colleagues often know which individuals have a history of sexually harassing behavior. Both men and women warn colleagues of these perpetrators – knowing that calling out or reporting these behaviors is fruitless – and that the best manner for dealing with their behavior is to avoid or ignore it. This normalization of sexual harassment and gender bias was noted, unfortunately, to fuel similar behavior in new cohorts of medicine faculty.1 
Sexual harassment of women in academic medicine starts in medical school. Female medical students are significantly more likely to experience sexual harassment by faculty and staff than are graduate or undergraduate students. Sexual harassment continues into residency training with residency described as “breeding grounds for abusive behavior by superiors.”1 Interview studies report that both men and women trainees widely accept harassing behavior at this stage of their training. The expectation of abusive and grueling conditions during residency caused several respondents to view sexual harassment as part of a continuum that they were expected to endure. Female residents in surgery and emergency medicine are more likely to be harassed than those in other specialties because of the high value placed on a hierarchical and authoritative workplace. Once out of residency, the sexual harassment of women in the workplace continues. A recent meta-analysis reveals that 58% of women faculty experience sexual harassment at work. Academic medicine has the second-highest rate of sexual harassment, behind the military (69%), as compared with all other workplaces. Women physicians of color experience more harassment (as a combination of sexual and racial harassment) than do white women physicians.1 

Why Women Are Not Likely to Report Sexual Harassment
Only 25% of targets file formal reports with their employer, with even fewer taking claims to court. These numbers are even lower for women in the military and academic medicine, where formal reporting is the last resort for the victims. The reluctance to use formal reporting mechanisms is rooted in the “fear of blame, disbelief, inaction, retaliation, humiliation, ostracism, and the damage to one’s career and reputation.”1 Targets may perceive that there seem to be few benefits and high costs for reporting. Women and nonwhites often resist calling bad behavior “discrimination” because that increases their loss of control and victimhood.1 Women frequently perceive that grievance procedures favor the institution over the individual, and research has proven that women face retaliation, both professional and social, for speaking out. Furthermore, stark power differentials between the target and the perpetrator exacerbate the reluctance to report and the fear of retaliation. The overall effects can be long lasting. 

References:
1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2018. doi. 10.17226/24994.
2. Choo EK et al. From #MeToo to #TimesUp in Health Care: Can a Culture of Accountability End Inequity and Harassment? Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):499-502.
3. Choo EK et al. Time’s Up for Medicine? Only Time Will Tell. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 25;379(17):1592-3.
4. Medicine Has Its Own #MeToo Problems. Can Time’s Up Healthcare Fix It? 

Dr. Mitchell is a vascular surgeon at Salem (Ore.) Hospital; Dr. Drudi is as vascular surgery resident at McGill University, Montreal; Dr. Brown is a professor of surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Milwaukee; Dr. Sachdev-Ost is an associate professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

PART I
Reports of sexual harassment and gender discrimination have dominated news headlines, and the #MeToo movement has brought the scope and severity of discriminatory behavior to the forefront of public consciousness. The #MeToo movement has raised national and global awareness of gender discrimination and sexual harassment in all industries and has given rise to Time’s Up initiative within health care.
Academic medicine has not been immune to workplace gender discrimination and sexual harassment as has been vastly reported in the literature and clearly documented in the 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, which points out that … “the cumulative effect of sexual harassment is a significant and costly loss of talent in academic science, engineering, and medicine, which has consequences for advancing the nation’s economic and social well-being and its overall public health.”1 
With the increasing recognition that healthcare is an environment especially prone to inequality, gender discrimination and sexual discrimination, the Time’s Up national organization, supported by the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, launched the Time’s Up initiative for health care workers on March 1, 2019.2,3 The overarching goal of this initiative is to expose workplace inequalities; drive policy and legislative changes focused on equal pay, equal opportunity, and equal work environments; and support safe, fair, and dignified work for women in health care. 2,3
This article, presented over the next three issues of Vascular Specialist, will present data on the ongoing problem of sexual harassment in medicine, discuss why the problem is prevalent in academic medicine, and provide recommendations for mitigating the problem in our workplace.

Defining & Measuring Sexual Harassment
Although commonly referred to as “sex discrimination,” sexual harassment differs from sexual discrimination. Sex discrimination refers to an employees’ denial of civil rights, raises, job opportunities, employment or a demotion or other mistreatments based on sex. On the other hand, sexual harassment relates to behavior that is inappropriate or offensive. A 2018 report from the National Academies Press defined sexual harassment (a form of discrimination) as comprising three categories of behavior: gender harassment – verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one sex; unwanted sexual attention – verbal or physical unwelcome sexual advances, which can include assault; and sexual coercion – when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditional based on sexual activity.1
During 1995-2016, more than 7,000 health care service employees filed claims of sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While this number may seem large, the number of official reports severely undervalues the prevalence of sexual discrimination in U.S. health care.1 Prevalence is best determined using representative validated surveys that rely on firsthand experience or observation of the behavior(s) without requiring the respondent to label those behaviors.

Environments at Risk for Sexual Harassment 
Research reveals that academic settings in the fields of science exhibit characteristics that create high levels of risk for sexual harassment to occur. These environments historically are male dominated, tolerate sexually harassing behavior, and create a hierarchy in which men hold most of the positions of power and authority. Moreover, dependent relationships often exist between these gatekeepers and those subordinate to them, with gatekeepers directly influencing the career advancement of those subordinates.1
The greatest predictor of sexual harassment in the workplace is the organizational climate, which refers to the tolerance for sexual harassment and is measured on three elements: a lack of sanctions against offenders; a perceived risk to those who report sexually harassing behavior; and the perception that one’s report of sexually harassing behavior will not be taken seriously.1 Women are less likely to be directly harassed in environments that do not tolerate harassing behaviors or have a strong, clear, transparent consequence for these behaviors.  

Sexual Harassment in Academic Medicine
Academic medicine has the highest rate of gender and sexual harassment in the health care industry, with about 50% of female academic physicians reporting incidents of sexual harassment.1 A recent survey suggests that more than half (58%) of women surgeons experienced sexual harassment within just the previous year alone.4 The conditions that increase the risk of sexual harassment against women – male-dominated hierarchical environments and organizational tolerance of sexual harassment – still prevail in academic medicine. 
Higher-education environments are perceived as permissive environments in part because when targets report sexual harassment, they are retaliated against or there are few consequences for the perpetrator. Academic institutions are replete with cases in which the conduct of offenders is regarded as an open secret, but there are no sanctions for that bad behavior. These offenders often are perceived as superstars in their particular substantive area. Because they hold valued grants or national status within their specialty area, they often receive preferential treatment and are not held accountable for gender-biased and sexually harassing behavior. Interview data regarding sexual harassment in academic medicine reveals that interview respondents and other colleagues often know which individuals have a history of sexually harassing behavior. Both men and women warn colleagues of these perpetrators – knowing that calling out or reporting these behaviors is fruitless – and that the best manner for dealing with their behavior is to avoid or ignore it. This normalization of sexual harassment and gender bias was noted, unfortunately, to fuel similar behavior in new cohorts of medicine faculty.1 
Sexual harassment of women in academic medicine starts in medical school. Female medical students are significantly more likely to experience sexual harassment by faculty and staff than are graduate or undergraduate students. Sexual harassment continues into residency training with residency described as “breeding grounds for abusive behavior by superiors.”1 Interview studies report that both men and women trainees widely accept harassing behavior at this stage of their training. The expectation of abusive and grueling conditions during residency caused several respondents to view sexual harassment as part of a continuum that they were expected to endure. Female residents in surgery and emergency medicine are more likely to be harassed than those in other specialties because of the high value placed on a hierarchical and authoritative workplace. Once out of residency, the sexual harassment of women in the workplace continues. A recent meta-analysis reveals that 58% of women faculty experience sexual harassment at work. Academic medicine has the second-highest rate of sexual harassment, behind the military (69%), as compared with all other workplaces. Women physicians of color experience more harassment (as a combination of sexual and racial harassment) than do white women physicians.1 

Why Women Are Not Likely to Report Sexual Harassment
Only 25% of targets file formal reports with their employer, with even fewer taking claims to court. These numbers are even lower for women in the military and academic medicine, where formal reporting is the last resort for the victims. The reluctance to use formal reporting mechanisms is rooted in the “fear of blame, disbelief, inaction, retaliation, humiliation, ostracism, and the damage to one’s career and reputation.”1 Targets may perceive that there seem to be few benefits and high costs for reporting. Women and nonwhites often resist calling bad behavior “discrimination” because that increases their loss of control and victimhood.1 Women frequently perceive that grievance procedures favor the institution over the individual, and research has proven that women face retaliation, both professional and social, for speaking out. Furthermore, stark power differentials between the target and the perpetrator exacerbate the reluctance to report and the fear of retaliation. The overall effects can be long lasting. 

References:
1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2018. doi. 10.17226/24994.
2. Choo EK et al. From #MeToo to #TimesUp in Health Care: Can a Culture of Accountability End Inequity and Harassment? Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):499-502.
3. Choo EK et al. Time’s Up for Medicine? Only Time Will Tell. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 25;379(17):1592-3.
4. Medicine Has Its Own #MeToo Problems. Can Time’s Up Healthcare Fix It? 

Dr. Mitchell is a vascular surgeon at Salem (Ore.) Hospital; Dr. Drudi is as vascular surgery resident at McGill University, Montreal; Dr. Brown is a professor of surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Milwaukee; Dr. Sachdev-Ost is an associate professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Vascular Surgery has evolved to balance clinical medicine, open and minimally invasive surgical interventions, and innovation into a unique career where technological advancement is constantly pushing the boundaries of what is possible in surgical capabilities.

Being awed and inspired by the Vascular Surgery specialty, we have put together the 6Ps for pursuing a career in Vascular Surgery in the spirit of the notorious 6Ps for acute limb ischemia.

1. Patients: Vascular patients are a unique and complex population of patients burdened with numerous comorbidities. Approaching and managing vascular patients requires a good understanding of preoperative medical assessment, risk factor modification, and clinical medicine. Moreover, the nature of vascular disease allows vascular surgeons to develop longstanding relationships with their patients and their families, and follow them through numerous stages of their illness and recovery.

2. Procedures: Performing vascular surgery is a delicate and exhilarating experience operating on arteries, veins, and lymphatics virtually in every part of the body, from the neck, chest, abdomen, and upper and lower limbs. We perform complex procedures from minimally invasive routes to intricate open procedures. Vascular surgeons offer lifesaving, limb-salvaging and quality of life-improving procedures on a daily basis.

3. Problem solving: As medical students and residents can appreciate in vascular teaching rounds, there is never one answer to a clinical situation. Each particular case may be considered through multiple approaches – open surgery, endovascular surgery, hybrid surgery, or medical management. Strikingly, within each category there are further numerous options to consider. Trying to develop the solutions and clinical judgment around a case is what makes this specialty tantalizing. 4. People: Vascular surgeons are the nicest group of surgeons we have ever worked with (there might be a large bias in this statement). They are passionate about their specialty, dedicated to patient care, enthusiastic to teach students, and always easily approachable. We have both been fortunate to be mentored by vascular surgeons and as such decided to pursue careers in this extremely patient-centered field. Given that it is a small community, it truly feels like you are part of the vascular family.

5. Potential: Technology is advancing at an extraordinarily fast pace and the vascular community fosters innovation from preventative strategies, new imaging modalities, and new graft designs just to name a few. The big question is, where will the vascular specialty be in 10 years? And our belief is that it depends on the limits of our imagination. We need to challenge conventional thinking with courage and imagination, bringing innovation to the health care platform.

And finally, one should pursue a career in vascular surgery because it is simply ...

6. Pretty awesome.

As the frontiers of science and technology push forward, so too do the ideas, creativity, and innovation of talented people. Our hope is to be at that cutting edge leading the development of improved medical care and surgical delivery as vascular surgeons.

Vascular Surgery has evolved to balance clinical medicine, open and minimally invasive surgical interventions, and innovation into a unique career where technological advancement is constantly pushing the boundaries of what is possible in surgical capabilities.

Being awed and inspired by the Vascular Surgery specialty, we have put together the 6Ps for pursuing a career in Vascular Surgery in the spirit of the notorious 6Ps for acute limb ischemia.

1. Patients: Vascular patients are a unique and complex population of patients burdened with numerous comorbidities. Approaching and managing vascular patients requires a good understanding of preoperative medical assessment, risk factor modification, and clinical medicine. Moreover, the nature of vascular disease allows vascular surgeons to develop longstanding relationships with their patients and their families, and follow them through numerous stages of their illness and recovery.

2. Procedures: Performing vascular surgery is a delicate and exhilarating experience operating on arteries, veins, and lymphatics virtually in every part of the body, from the neck, chest, abdomen, and upper and lower limbs. We perform complex procedures from minimally invasive routes to intricate open procedures. Vascular surgeons offer lifesaving, limb-salvaging and quality of life-improving procedures on a daily basis.

3. Problem solving: As medical students and residents can appreciate in vascular teaching rounds, there is never one answer to a clinical situation. Each particular case may be considered through multiple approaches – open surgery, endovascular surgery, hybrid surgery, or medical management. Strikingly, within each category there are further numerous options to consider. Trying to develop the solutions and clinical judgment around a case is what makes this specialty tantalizing. 4. People: Vascular surgeons are the nicest group of surgeons we have ever worked with (there might be a large bias in this statement). They are passionate about their specialty, dedicated to patient care, enthusiastic to teach students, and always easily approachable. We have both been fortunate to be mentored by vascular surgeons and as such decided to pursue careers in this extremely patient-centered field. Given that it is a small community, it truly feels like you are part of the vascular family.

5. Potential: Technology is advancing at an extraordinarily fast pace and the vascular community fosters innovation from preventative strategies, new imaging modalities, and new graft designs just to name a few. The big question is, where will the vascular specialty be in 10 years? And our belief is that it depends on the limits of our imagination. We need to challenge conventional thinking with courage and imagination, bringing innovation to the health care platform.

And finally, one should pursue a career in vascular surgery because it is simply ...

6. Pretty awesome.

As the frontiers of science and technology push forward, so too do the ideas, creativity, and innovation of talented people. Our hope is to be at that cutting edge leading the development of improved medical care and surgical delivery as vascular surgeons.

Vascular Surgery has evolved to balance clinical medicine, open and minimally invasive surgical interventions, and innovation into a unique career where technological advancement is constantly pushing the boundaries of what is possible in surgical capabilities.

Being awed and inspired by the Vascular Surgery specialty, we have put together the 6Ps for pursuing a career in Vascular Surgery in the spirit of the notorious 6Ps for acute limb ischemia.

1. Patients: Vascular patients are a unique and complex population of patients burdened with numerous comorbidities. Approaching and managing vascular patients requires a good understanding of preoperative medical assessment, risk factor modification, and clinical medicine. Moreover, the nature of vascular disease allows vascular surgeons to develop longstanding relationships with their patients and their families, and follow them through numerous stages of their illness and recovery.

2. Procedures: Performing vascular surgery is a delicate and exhilarating experience operating on arteries, veins, and lymphatics virtually in every part of the body, from the neck, chest, abdomen, and upper and lower limbs. We perform complex procedures from minimally invasive routes to intricate open procedures. Vascular surgeons offer lifesaving, limb-salvaging and quality of life-improving procedures on a daily basis.

3. Problem solving: As medical students and residents can appreciate in vascular teaching rounds, there is never one answer to a clinical situation. Each particular case may be considered through multiple approaches – open surgery, endovascular surgery, hybrid surgery, or medical management. Strikingly, within each category there are further numerous options to consider. Trying to develop the solutions and clinical judgment around a case is what makes this specialty tantalizing. 4. People: Vascular surgeons are the nicest group of surgeons we have ever worked with (there might be a large bias in this statement). They are passionate about their specialty, dedicated to patient care, enthusiastic to teach students, and always easily approachable. We have both been fortunate to be mentored by vascular surgeons and as such decided to pursue careers in this extremely patient-centered field. Given that it is a small community, it truly feels like you are part of the vascular family.

5. Potential: Technology is advancing at an extraordinarily fast pace and the vascular community fosters innovation from preventative strategies, new imaging modalities, and new graft designs just to name a few. The big question is, where will the vascular specialty be in 10 years? And our belief is that it depends on the limits of our imagination. We need to challenge conventional thinking with courage and imagination, bringing innovation to the health care platform.

And finally, one should pursue a career in vascular surgery because it is simply ...

6. Pretty awesome.

As the frontiers of science and technology push forward, so too do the ideas, creativity, and innovation of talented people. Our hope is to be at that cutting edge leading the development of improved medical care and surgical delivery as vascular surgeons.

In 2002, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, or ACGME, rocked traditional residency training paradigms by proposing a regulated residency call schedule.¹ Revised standards were implemented in 2011 throughout the United States prohibiting first-year residents from spending more than 16 consecutive hours in the hospital and restricting senior residents from working more than 80 hr/week averaged over the month.² In Canada, there is no national agreement on residency restriction hours; however, in 2011, the province of Quebec mandated that 24-hour in-hospital call represents a violation of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and implemented a 16-hour call duty schedule for all Quebec trainees.³

JAMA recently published two observational cohort studies that included over 2 million hospitalized adults across the United States from 2009 to 2012.^4,5 Patient outcomes (including 30-day mortality and readmissions) were compared before the 2011 reforms in duty hours and after 2011.

The key finding from these studies, albeit from a retrospective observational standpoint, demonstrated that even with the introduction of resident restriction duty hours there has been no effect on these patient outcomes. The authors wrote that such an observational study lacks the power to produce the highest level of scientific evidence that will guide practice and policy decisions. But it remains astonishing, that without any evidence in place to support, inform, or implement decisions, a change to the entire paradigm of residency training was made despite the considerable time, effort, and cost involved in implementation of these actions.

Unfortunately, the implementation of these guidelines puts evidence-based medicine to shame.

Now, after a few years of integrating these duty-hour reforms, the observational and longitudinal evidence has failed to demonstrate improved patient safety. If the primary goal was to demonstrate that the imposition of duty-hour restriction would improve patient safety, it has been unsuccessful to date.

Putting the debate aside, we currently work and live in an era of restricted resident duty hours. Looking ahead 10-15 years, we have to question what type of physicians we will be with the current duty-hour restrictions in place, and then reflect on the type of physicians we want and strive to be.

Especially in surgical residency training programs, the overarching goal is for programs to train a safe, competent, and independent surgeon within 5 years. With the current work-hour restrictions, I am not confident this can be achieved.

Many eloquent debates have been written on lack of patient ownership, professionalism, and clinical judgment in our current training paradigm that I won’t belabor. Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Outliers” repeatedly mentioned the “10,000-hour rule” and the principle holds that 10,000 hours of “deliberate practice” are needed to become world-class in any field.

This speaks volumes to surgical trainees who will be required to master complex technical skills and even more multifaceted appropriate judgments, which I doubt can be achieved in the current work-hour restrictions. I am from the camp that if we remain in our present work-hour restriction schedules, there will be a need to modify training to conform to these duty-hour restrictions in order to prepare residents optimally for practice.

Perhaps moving toward a competency-based curriculum would ensure that a surgical trainee is in fact, safe and proficient and ready to transition into practice.

So we now find ourselves working backward trying to validate the system we are presently working in. To that effect, a multicenter randomized controlled trial (The Flexibility in Duty Hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees trial) is underway with study end date projected for June 2015.

FIRST aims to determine if increasing flexibility of surgical resident duty-hour requirements affects patient care, surgical outcomes, and resident perceptions. Hospitals or programs will be randomized to either an intervention group with flexibility of duty-hour restrictions with the elimination of current duty-hour requirements or a control group with continued adherence to current requirements.

I cannot foresee what the future may hold, but I will continue to strive for excellence and hope that when my time comes to transition from trainee into independent practice, I will be ready.

References

1. JAMA 2002;288:1112-4.

2. ACGME Duty Hours. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, 2014 (www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/tabid/271/GraduateMedicalEducation/DutyHours.aspx).

3. Towards a Pan-Canadian Consensus on Resident Duty Hours. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, 2014 (www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/advocacy/educational_initiatives/resident_duty_hours).

4. JAMA 2014;312:2364-73.5. JAMA 2014;312:2374-84.

In 2002, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, or ACGME, rocked traditional residency training paradigms by proposing a regulated residency call schedule.¹ Revised standards were implemented in 2011 throughout the United States prohibiting first-year residents from spending more than 16 consecutive hours in the hospital and restricting senior residents from working more than 80 hr/week averaged over the month.² In Canada, there is no national agreement on residency restriction hours; however, in 2011, the province of Quebec mandated that 24-hour in-hospital call represents a violation of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and implemented a 16-hour call duty schedule for all Quebec trainees.³

JAMA recently published two observational cohort studies that included over 2 million hospitalized adults across the United States from 2009 to 2012.^4,5 Patient outcomes (including 30-day mortality and readmissions) were compared before the 2011 reforms in duty hours and after 2011.

The key finding from these studies, albeit from a retrospective observational standpoint, demonstrated that even with the introduction of resident restriction duty hours there has been no effect on these patient outcomes. The authors wrote that such an observational study lacks the power to produce the highest level of scientific evidence that will guide practice and policy decisions. But it remains astonishing, that without any evidence in place to support, inform, or implement decisions, a change to the entire paradigm of residency training was made despite the considerable time, effort, and cost involved in implementation of these actions.

Unfortunately, the implementation of these guidelines puts evidence-based medicine to shame.

Now, after a few years of integrating these duty-hour reforms, the observational and longitudinal evidence has failed to demonstrate improved patient safety. If the primary goal was to demonstrate that the imposition of duty-hour restriction would improve patient safety, it has been unsuccessful to date.

Putting the debate aside, we currently work and live in an era of restricted resident duty hours. Looking ahead 10-15 years, we have to question what type of physicians we will be with the current duty-hour restrictions in place, and then reflect on the type of physicians we want and strive to be.

Especially in surgical residency training programs, the overarching goal is for programs to train a safe, competent, and independent surgeon within 5 years. With the current work-hour restrictions, I am not confident this can be achieved.

Many eloquent debates have been written on lack of patient ownership, professionalism, and clinical judgment in our current training paradigm that I won’t belabor. Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Outliers” repeatedly mentioned the “10,000-hour rule” and the principle holds that 10,000 hours of “deliberate practice” are needed to become world-class in any field.

This speaks volumes to surgical trainees who will be required to master complex technical skills and even more multifaceted appropriate judgments, which I doubt can be achieved in the current work-hour restrictions. I am from the camp that if we remain in our present work-hour restriction schedules, there will be a need to modify training to conform to these duty-hour restrictions in order to prepare residents optimally for practice.

Perhaps moving toward a competency-based curriculum would ensure that a surgical trainee is in fact, safe and proficient and ready to transition into practice.

So we now find ourselves working backward trying to validate the system we are presently working in. To that effect, a multicenter randomized controlled trial (The Flexibility in Duty Hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees trial) is underway with study end date projected for June 2015.

FIRST aims to determine if increasing flexibility of surgical resident duty-hour requirements affects patient care, surgical outcomes, and resident perceptions. Hospitals or programs will be randomized to either an intervention group with flexibility of duty-hour restrictions with the elimination of current duty-hour requirements or a control group with continued adherence to current requirements.

I cannot foresee what the future may hold, but I will continue to strive for excellence and hope that when my time comes to transition from trainee into independent practice, I will be ready.

References

1. JAMA 2002;288:1112-4.

2. ACGME Duty Hours. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, 2014 (www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/tabid/271/GraduateMedicalEducation/DutyHours.aspx).

3. Towards a Pan-Canadian Consensus on Resident Duty Hours. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, 2014 (www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/advocacy/educational_initiatives/resident_duty_hours).

4. JAMA 2014;312:2364-73.5. JAMA 2014;312:2374-84.

In 2002, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, or ACGME, rocked traditional residency training paradigms by proposing a regulated residency call schedule.¹ Revised standards were implemented in 2011 throughout the United States prohibiting first-year residents from spending more than 16 consecutive hours in the hospital and restricting senior residents from working more than 80 hr/week averaged over the month.² In Canada, there is no national agreement on residency restriction hours; however, in 2011, the province of Quebec mandated that 24-hour in-hospital call represents a violation of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and implemented a 16-hour call duty schedule for all Quebec trainees.³

JAMA recently published two observational cohort studies that included over 2 million hospitalized adults across the United States from 2009 to 2012.^4,5 Patient outcomes (including 30-day mortality and readmissions) were compared before the 2011 reforms in duty hours and after 2011.

The key finding from these studies, albeit from a retrospective observational standpoint, demonstrated that even with the introduction of resident restriction duty hours there has been no effect on these patient outcomes. The authors wrote that such an observational study lacks the power to produce the highest level of scientific evidence that will guide practice and policy decisions. But it remains astonishing, that without any evidence in place to support, inform, or implement decisions, a change to the entire paradigm of residency training was made despite the considerable time, effort, and cost involved in implementation of these actions.

Unfortunately, the implementation of these guidelines puts evidence-based medicine to shame.

Now, after a few years of integrating these duty-hour reforms, the observational and longitudinal evidence has failed to demonstrate improved patient safety. If the primary goal was to demonstrate that the imposition of duty-hour restriction would improve patient safety, it has been unsuccessful to date.

Putting the debate aside, we currently work and live in an era of restricted resident duty hours. Looking ahead 10-15 years, we have to question what type of physicians we will be with the current duty-hour restrictions in place, and then reflect on the type of physicians we want and strive to be.

Especially in surgical residency training programs, the overarching goal is for programs to train a safe, competent, and independent surgeon within 5 years. With the current work-hour restrictions, I am not confident this can be achieved.

Many eloquent debates have been written on lack of patient ownership, professionalism, and clinical judgment in our current training paradigm that I won’t belabor. Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Outliers” repeatedly mentioned the “10,000-hour rule” and the principle holds that 10,000 hours of “deliberate practice” are needed to become world-class in any field.

This speaks volumes to surgical trainees who will be required to master complex technical skills and even more multifaceted appropriate judgments, which I doubt can be achieved in the current work-hour restrictions. I am from the camp that if we remain in our present work-hour restriction schedules, there will be a need to modify training to conform to these duty-hour restrictions in order to prepare residents optimally for practice.

Perhaps moving toward a competency-based curriculum would ensure that a surgical trainee is in fact, safe and proficient and ready to transition into practice.

So we now find ourselves working backward trying to validate the system we are presently working in. To that effect, a multicenter randomized controlled trial (The Flexibility in Duty Hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees trial) is underway with study end date projected for June 2015.

FIRST aims to determine if increasing flexibility of surgical resident duty-hour requirements affects patient care, surgical outcomes, and resident perceptions. Hospitals or programs will be randomized to either an intervention group with flexibility of duty-hour restrictions with the elimination of current duty-hour requirements or a control group with continued adherence to current requirements.

I cannot foresee what the future may hold, but I will continue to strive for excellence and hope that when my time comes to transition from trainee into independent practice, I will be ready.

References

1. JAMA 2002;288:1112-4.

2. ACGME Duty Hours. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, 2014 (www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/tabid/271/GraduateMedicalEducation/DutyHours.aspx).

3. Towards a Pan-Canadian Consensus on Resident Duty Hours. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, 2014 (www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/advocacy/educational_initiatives/resident_duty_hours).

4. JAMA 2014;312:2364-73.5. JAMA 2014;312:2374-84.