DOI: 10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.15642 ISSN: 0009-7322

Abstract 15642: Discrimination Against Physicians in Interventional Cardiology

Athanasios Rempakos, Michaella Alexandrou, Bahadir Simsek, Spyridon Kostantinis, Judit A Karacsonyi, Deniz Mutlu, Allison Hall, Arnold Seto, Barbara A Danek, Binita Shah, Courtney Baechler, Delaine Thomas, James Choi, Jeremy Rier, Kathleen Kearney, Ki Park, Mosi Bennett, Santiago A Garcia, Thao Duong, Jimmy Kerrigan, Ahmed Al-ogaili, Bavana V Rangan, Olga Mastrodemos, Salman S Allana, Yader Sandoval, M Nicholas Burke, Emmanouil S Brilakis
  • Physiology (medical)
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Background: Data on discrimination against physicians in the field of interventional cardiology are limited.

Methods: We performed an online, anonymous, international survey of interventional cardiologists.

Results: A total of 445 interventional cardiologists participated in the survey. Median age was 46-50 years and most (61%) practice in the United States. Among the participants, 13% were women and 13% belonged to underrepresented minority groups. Participants were asked to discern which characteristics contribute to discrimination against physicians in their workplace. Several characteristics were identified (Figure): language accent (48%), race/ethnicity (44%), age (44%), gender (43%), and appearance/clothing (40%). Women were more likely to have experienced discrimination by patients and families (81% vs 54%; p<0.001), peers (81% vs 45%; p<0.001), supervisors (73% vs 43%; p<0.001), support staff (64% vs 36%; p<0.001), and nursing staff (63% vs 37%; p=0.001), compared with men. Similarly, among participants who practice in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia (n=296), physicians whose first language was not English were more likely to have experienced discrimination from patients and families (73% vs 46%; p<0.001), peers (63% vs 35%; p<0.001), supervisors (56% vs 33%; p<0.001), support staff (51% vs 28%; p<0. 001), and nursing staff (52% vs 31%; p=0.001), compared with native English speakers. Both women (60% vs 7%; p<0.001) and underrepresented minority groups (28% vs 12%; p=0.003) were more likely to be mistaken for a non-physician employee, compared with men and non-underrepresented minority groups respectively. While 9% (n=42) of the total participants reported incidents of discrimination to their respective organizations, only 19% of those (n=8) expressed satisfaction with the response received.

Conclusions: Our survey provides a snapshot of the current status of discrimination faced by interventional cardiologists.

More from our Archive