Fellowships are competitive training posts, often in a subspecialty area. We performed a quality assessment of potential interviewer bias on anaesthesia Fellow selection. After research locality approval, we analysed interview scores for all Fellowship applications to our department over six years. Panel interviewers participated in a structured interview process, asking a series of standardised questions to rate applicants. A mixed model analysis of total applicant rating with crossed effects of applicants and interviewers was used. A total of 94 applicants were interviewed by 27 panel members, with between two and four panel members per interview, giving a total of 329 applicant ratings. The random effect of applicants accounted for 45.8% of total variance in ratings (95% confidence intervals (CI) for intraclass correlation (ICC) 35.8%-57.2%) while interviewer effects accounted for 13.4% of total variance (95% CI for ICC 5.3%-30.0%). We found no evidence of bias for most potential sources after analysing multiple applicant and interviewer factors. After adjusting for interviewer training programme, applicants from other training programmes were rated a mean of 1.87 points lower than Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) applicants (95% CI 0.62-3.12, P = 0.003) and 1.84 points lower than Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA) applicants (95% CI 0.37-3.32, P = 0.014). After adjusting for applicant gender, female clinicians rated applicants 1.12 points higher (95% CI 0.19-2.06, P = 0.019) on average than male clinicians. The observed differences in interview scores amongst male and female clinicians and lower scores in applicants from programmes other than ANZCA/RCoA were small, and require confirmation in independent studies.

For at least the past two decades, medical educators have worked to improve patient communication and health care delivery to diverse patient populations; despite efforts, patients continue to report prejudice and bias during their clinical encounters. Targeted instruction in implicit bias recognition and management may promote the delivery of equitable care, but students at times resist this instruction. Little guidance exists to overcome this resistance and to engage students in implicit bias instruction; instruction over time could lead to eventual skill development that is necessary to mitigate the influence of implicit bias on clinical practice behaviors.
To explore student perceptions of challenges and opportunities when participating in implicit bias instruction.
We conducted a qualitative study that involved 11 focus groups with medical students across each of the four class years to explore their perceptions of challenges and opportunities related to participating in such instruction. We analyzed transcripts for themes.
Our analysis suggests a range of attitudes toward implicit bias instruction and identifies contextual factors that may influence these attitudes. The themes were (1) resistance; (2) shame; (3) the negative role of the hidden curriculum; and (4) structural barriers to student engagement. Students expressed resistance to implicit bias instruction; some of these attitudes are fueled from concerns of anticipated shame within the learning environment. Participants also indicated that student engagement in implicit bias instruction was influenced by the hidden curriculum and structural barriers.
These insights can inform future curriculum development efforts. Considerations related to instructional design and programmatic decision-making are highlighted. These considerations for implicit bias instruction may provide useful frameworks for educators looking for opportunities to minimize student resistance and maximize engagement in multi-session instruction in implicit bias recognition and management.