29358 Pregnancy and the Plastic Surgery Resident

Saturday, September 24, 2016: 2:40 PM
Rebecca Garza, MD , Plastic Surgery, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
Jane S. Weston, MD , Plastic Surgery, Stanford University, Atherton, CA
Heather J. Furnas, MD , Plastic Surgery, Stanford University, Santa Rosa, CA

Over two decades ago, 36% of plastic surgery program directors surveyed actively discouraged pregnancy among residents. This same survey found that 33% of women plastic surgeons suffered from infertility. Most alarming was the 26% of plastic surgical trainees who had had an elective abortion during residency, though no program director was aware of a single incident.[1]  With a rising number of women training in plastic surgery, this historical lack of support of pregnancy deserves further attention.

To explore the current accommodations made for the pregnant plastic surgical resident, an electronic survey was emailed to all 88 plastic surgery program directors in the United States. Fifty-four responded, for a response rate of 61.4%.

On average, a director had trained 2.7 residents per year over 8.2 years, for a total of 22.14 residents, including 7.9 women. They averaged 1.4 pregnant residents in those 8.2 years, correlating with 1.4 residents taking maternity leave, while 1.8 residents took paternity leave during that time. 

Fewer than half of programs had a formal maternity/paternity leave policy (36.54%). Most established policies were limited to defining the allowed number of weeks off, the time required to fulfill program requirements, and remuneration during leave. Just half (18 % of all programs surveyed) had in place contingency plans in the event a pregnant resident had complications or was near delivery and unable to work.

Though only 14% of all plastic surgeons are women, they make up 37% of those now in training. This survey is a first step in defining the challenges training programs face in providing strong support for the pregnant resident. Directors provided comments describing the challenges they face complying with the Board’s required weeks of training/year and accommodating an absent resident in a small program. A discussion of these challenges is followed by suggested solutions.