Not necessarily. It could be that only good doctors treat female patients well, while all doctors treat male patients well. For example, if women patients are in some way harder cases while male patients are not, then treatment of women patients may separate good doctors from the rest.

Alternatively, women patients speak differently to male doctors in ways that make it more difficult to make accurate and reliable diagnoses.

Educated professionals are certainly capable of exhibiting bias. But professionals are also more aware of the issue, and are even taught (formally and informally) compensating strategies. People off the street? Not so much....

OR just that female doctors paid more attention to the fact that heart attack symptoms are different for women than for men. This may be as simple as it affecting them. If the male takes longer to recognise heart attack symptoms of females, it could easily produce worse results.

https://www.healthline.com/health/heart-disease/heart-attack...

Maybe we have?

The article says "the other differences were not significant", but that does not mean there was no difference. It means "there was not enough evidence to reject the assumption that there were no other differences". That's one problem with this kind of statistics: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but people (including head line writers) act as if it was.