AbstractThe persistence of a gender gap in academic medicine has been documented in thousands of studies in the last decade. Notable disparity between representation by men and women is present in leadership positions, invited keynote speakers, and publication counts. The COVID-19 pandemic provided an additional context for this disparity; while many journals continue to experience rapid increases in manuscript submissions, these submissions are disproportionately from men. The results of efforts aimed at raising awareness and advocating for women have been underwhelming. Allowing this disparity to continue significantly limits the diversity and quality of vision in leadership and research. We can—and must—do better. How do we bridge the gaps between intention, interpretation, and results? How can advocates ensure that they aren’t unintentionally creating situations that undermine the very women they seek to empower? Until these questions are answered, the goal of ending gender discrimination risks being unattainable. In this critical review we argue that the gender gap is a symptom of a much larger issue. Specifically, the power of social expectations, culture and gender stereotypes remains a resistant force against calls for action. The power of stereotypes shapes the decisions that men and women make about their careers. In turn, these decisions impact the amount of time that women can dedicate to leadership, self-promotion, and research. Drawing on our combined lived experiences and a rich multidisciplinary literature, we offer a practical guide to allies in the fight against the gender gap.

Rationale, aims, and objectives: The complexity of healthcare systems makes errors unavoidable. To strengthen the dialogue around how physicians experience and share medical errors, the objective of this study was to understand how experienced generalist physicians make meaning of and grow from their medical errors. Methods: This study used a narrative inquiry approach to conduct and analyze in-depth interviews from 26 physicians from the generalist specialties of emergency, internal, and family medicine. We gathered stories via individual interview, analyzed them for key components, and rewrote a ‘meta-story’ in a chronological sequence. We conceptualized the findings into a metaphor to draw similarities, learn from, and apply new principles from other fields of practice. Results: Through analysis we interpreted the story of an elite athlete (physician) who is required to make numerous decisions in a short period of time within the construct of a chaotic sports field (clinical environment) among spectators (the patient’s family) whilst abiding by existing rules and regulations. Through sharing stories of success and failure, the team coach (clinical mentor) helps optimize the players’ professional and psychological development. Similarly, through sharing and learning from stories, team members (colleagues) and junior team members (trainees) also contribute to the growth of the protagonist’s character and the development of the overall team (clinic/hospital) and sport (healthcare system). Conclusion: We draw parallels between the clinical setting and a generalist physician’s experiences of a medical error with the environment and practices within professional sports. Using this comparison, we discuss the potential for meaningful coaching in medical education.