Search

Introduction: Urine drug screens (UDS) have unproven clinical utility in emergency department (ED) chest pain presentations. A test with such limited clinical utility may exponentiate biases in care, but little is known about the epidemiology of UDS use for this indication. We hypothesized that UDS utilization varies nationally across race and gender. Methods: This was a retrospective observational analysis of adult ED visits for chest pain in the 2011– 2019 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. We calculated the utilization of UDS across race/ ethnicity and gender and then characterized predictors of use via adjusted logistic regression models. Results: We analyzed 13,567 adult chest pain visits, representative of 85.8 million visits nationally. Use of UDS occurred for 4.6% of visits (95% CI 3.9%-5.4%). White females underwent UDS at 3.3% of visits (95% CI 2.5%-4.2%), and Black females at 4.1% (95% CI 2.9%-5.2%). White males were tested at 5.8% of visits (95% CI 4.4%-7.2%), while Black males were tested at 9.3% of visits (95% CI 6.4%-12.2%). A multivariate logistic regression model including race, gender, and time period shows significantly increased odds of ordering UDS for Black patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.45 (95% CI 1.11-1.90, p = 0.007) and male patients (OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.55-2.58, p < 0.001) as compared to White patients and female patients. Conclusion: We identified wide disparities in the utilization of UDS for the evaluation of chest pain. If UDS were used at the rate observed for White women, Black men would undergo nearly 50,000 fewer tests annually. Future research should weigh the potential of the UDS to magnify biases in care against the unproven clinical utility of the test.

ImportanceSurgeon-scientists are uniquely positioned to facilitate translation between the laboratory and clinical settings to drive innovation in patient care. However, surgeon-scientists face many challenges in pursuing research, such as increasing clinical demands that affect their competitiveness to apply for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding compared with other scientists.ObjectiveTo examine how NIH funding has been awarded to surgeon-scientists over time.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results) database for research project grants awarded to departments of surgery between 1995 and 2020. Surgeon-scientists were defined as NIH-funded faculty holding an MD or MD-PhD degree with board certification in surgery; PhD scientists were NIH-funded faculty holding a PhD degree. Statistical analysis was performed from April 1 to August 31, 2022.Main OutcomeNational Institutes of Health funding to surgeon-scientists compared with PhD scientists, as well as NIH funding to surgeon-scientists across surgical subspecialties.ResultsBetween 1995 and 2020, the number of NIH-funded investigators in surgical departments increased 1.9-fold from 968 to 1874 investigators, corresponding to a 4.0-fold increase in total funding (1995, $214 million; 2020, $861 million). Although the total amount of NIH funding to both surgeon-scientists and PhD scientists increased, the funding gap between surgeon-scientists and PhD scientists increased 2.8-fold from a $73 million difference in 1995 to a $208 million difference in 2020, favoring PhD scientists. National Institutes of Health funding to female surgeon-scientists increased significantly at a rate of 0.53% (95% CI, 0.48%-0.57%) per year from 4.8% of grants awarded to female surgeon-scientists in 1995 to 18.8% in 2020 (P P Conclusion and RelevanceThis study suggests that research performed by surgeon-scientists continues to be underrepresented in the NIH funding portfolio, highlighting a fundamental need to support and fund more surgeon-scientists.

This study examines trends in childhood household income among applicants and matriculants to medical school and the likelihood of acceptance by income.

Microaggressions are an insidious form of racism where members of the white dominant group convey covert hostility towards people of color. Evidence suggests that microaggressions do occur in healthcare education settings, but it relies on ad hoc scales that may limit their generalizability thereby complicating an effort to study and intervene systematically. Data from two national samples of healthcare trainees are leveraged to investigate the factor structure of the HERMS. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis supported a nine-item correlated factors structure with two latent factors representing microinvalidations and microinsults. The screener developed in the current study identifies key microaggressions experienced by healthcare trainees of color.

IntroductionFewer than half of internal medicine program directors report any health disparities curriculum. We piloted a web-based healthcare disparities module among internal medicine (IM) residents to test effectiveness and feasibility, compared to a convenient sample of graduate students enrolled in a public health equity course.MethodsIM residents participated in an in-person session (module 1: introduction to racial and ethnic health disparities), but first, they completed a pre-module knowledge quiz. Two weeks later, they completed module 2: “unconscious associations” and a post-module knowledge quiz. For the control arm Yale School of Public Health (YSPH) students enrolled in a course on health disparities completed the pre-module knowledge quiz, module 1, and 2 as required by their course instructor.ResultsForty-nine IM residents and 22 YSPH students completed the pre-module quiz and Module 1. The mean (SD) score out of 25 possible points for the IM residents on the pre-module quiz was 16.1/25 (2.8), and 16.6/25 (3.2) for YSPH students, with no statistically significant difference. Nineteen residents (38.8%) completed the post-module quiz with a mean score of 16.7/25 (2.2), Hedge's g =0.23, compared to 18 (81.8%) YSPH students, whose mean (SD) score was 19.5/25 (2.1), Hedge's g=1.05. YSPH students' post-module quiz average was statistically significantly higher than their pre-module test score, as well as the residents' post-module test (P < 0.001). In examining participants' responses to specific questions, we found that 51% (n = 25) of residents wrongly defined discrimination with an emphasis on attitudes and intent as opposed to actions and impact, compared to 22.7% (n = 5) YSPH students before the module, vs. 63.2% (n = 12) and 88.9% (n = 16) respectively after.ConclusionAfter completing a healthcare disparities course, graduate students in public health saw greater gains in knowledge compared to IM residents. Residents' responses showed knowledge gaps such as understanding discrimination, and highlight growth opportunity in terms of health equity education. Furthermore, embedding health equity education in required curricular activities may be a more effective approach.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial research on medical student mistreatment, there is scant quantitative data on microaggressions in US medical education. OBJECTIVE: To assess US medical students’ experiences of microaggressions and how these experiences influenced students’ mental health and medical school satisfaction. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cross-sectional, online survey of US medical students’ experiences of microaggressions. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was a positive depression screen on the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2). Medical school satisfaction was a secondary outcome. We used logistic regression to model the association between respondents’ reported microaggression frequency and the likelihood of a positive PHQ-2 screen. For secondary outcomes, we used the chi-squared statistic to test associations between microaggression exposure and medical school satisfaction. KEY RESULTS: Out of 759 respondents, 61% experienced at least one microaggression weekly. Gender (64.4%), race/ethnicity (60.5%), and age (40.9%) were the most commonly cited reasons for experiencing microaggressions. Increased microaggression frequency was associated with a positive depression screen in a dose-response relationship, with second, third, and fourth (highest) quartiles of microaggression frequency having odds ratios of 2.71 (95% CI: 1–7.9), 3.87 (95% CI: 1.48–11.05), and 9.38 (95% CI: 3.71–26.69), relative to the first quartile. Medical students who experienced at least one microaggression weekly were more likely to consider medical school transfer (14.5% vs 4.7%, p

This cohort study investigates whether different rates of medical student placement into graduate medical education exist by sex, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status from 2018 to 2021.

Background Sepsis affects 1.7 million patients in the US annually, is one of the leading causes of mortality, and is a major driver of US healthcare costs. African American/Black and LatinX populations experience higher rates of sepsis complications, deviations from standard care, and readmissions compared with Non-Hispanic White populations. Despite clear evidence of structural racism in sepsis care and outcomes, there are no prospective interventions to mitigate structural racism in sepsis care, nor are we aware of studies that report reductions in racial inequities in sepsis care as an outcome. Therefore, we will deliver and evaluate a coalition-based intervention to equip health systems and their surrounding communities to mitigate structural racism, driving measurable reductions in inequities in sepsis outcomes. This paper presents the theoretical foundation for the study, summarizes key elements of the intervention, and describes the methodology to evaluate the intervention. Methods Our aims are to: (1) deliver a coalition-based leadership intervention in eight U.S. health systems and their surrounding communities; (2) evaluate the impact of the intervention on organizational culture using a longitudinal, convergent mixed methods approach, and (3) evaluate the impact of the intervention on reduction of racial inequities in three clinical outcomes: a) early identification (time to antibiotic), b) clinical management (in-hospital sepsis mortality) and c) standards-based follow up (same-hospital, all-cause sepsis readmissions) using interrupted time series analysis. Discussion This study is aligned with calls to action by the NIH and the Sepsis Alliance to address inequities in sepsis care and outcomes. It is the first to intervene to mitigate effects of structural racism by developing the domains of organizational culture that are required for anti-racist action, with implications for inequities in complex health outcomes beyond sepsis.

Introduction Violent encounters with police represent a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the USA, especially among Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour (BIPOC). This study characterises trends in fatal police shootings overall and by armed status and quantifies inequities in mortality burden and years of life lost (YLL) across racial/ethnic groups. Methods Longitudinal study of Washington Post data on fatal police shootings in the USA using generalised linear-mixed models to capture trends with time and relative rates. Results This study shows that the rate of fatal police shootings for Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour (BIPOC) is constant from 2015 to 2020. Further, BIPOC have significantly higher death rates compared with Whites in the overall victim pool (Native American RR=3.06, Black RR=2.62, Hispanic RR=1.29) and among unarmed victims (Black RR=3.18, Hispanic RR=1.45). Native American (RR=3.95), Black (overall RR=3.29, unarmed RR=3.49) and Hispanic (RR=1.55, unarmed RR=1.55), victims had similarly high rates of YLL relative to Whites. Conclusion Fatal police shootings are a public health emergency that contribute to poor health for BIPOC. Urgent attention from health professionals is needed to help drive policy efforts that reduce this unjust burden and move us towards achieving health equity in the US.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Purpose To describe how racial microaggressions may affect optimal learning for under-represented health professions students. Method The authors conducted focus groups and individual interviews from November 2017 to June 2018 with 37 students at University of California, Davis and Yale University who self-identified as underrepresented in medicine or nursing. Questions explored incidence, response to, and effects of racial microaggressions, as well as students’ suggestions for change. Data were organized and coded, then thematic analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes. Results The data showed consistent examples of microaggressions across both health professions and schools, with peers, faculty, preceptors, and structural elements of the curricula all contributing to microaggressive behavior. The 3 major themes were: students felt devalued by microaggressions; students identified how microaggressions affected their learning, academic performance, and personal wellness; and students had suggestions for promoting inclusion. Conclusions The data indicated that students perceived that their daily experiences were affected by racial microaggressions. Participants reported strong emotions while experiencing racial microaggressions including feeling stressed, frustrated, and angered by these interactions. Further, students believed microaggressions negatively affected their learning, academic performance, and overall well-being. This study shows the need for leadership and faculty of health professions schools to implement policies, practices, and instructional strategies that support and leverage diversity so that innovative problem-solving can emerge to better serve underserved communities and reduce health disparities.

Increasing medical school faculty diversity is an urgent priority. National Institutes of Health (NIH) diversity supplements, which provide funding and career development opportunities to individuals underrepresented in research, are an important mechanism to increase faculty diversity.Analyze diversity supplement utilization by medical schools.Retrospective cohort study.All R01 grant-associated diversity supplements awarded to medical schools from 2005 to 2020. Diversity supplements were identified using the publicly available NIH RePORTER database.Main measures were the number of R01-associated diversity supplements awarded to medical schools each year by medical school NIH funding status and the number of R01-associated diversity supplements awarded to individual medical schools in the NIH top 40 by funding status. We also examined the percentage of R01 grants with an associated diversity supplement by NIH funding status and individual medical school in the NIH top 40.From 2005 to 2020, US medical school faculty received 1389 R01-associated diversity supplements. The number of diversity supplements awarded grew from 2012 to 2020, from ten to 187 for top 40 schools, and from seven to 83 for non-top 40 schools. The annual growth rate for diversity supplement awards at NIH top 40 schools (44.2%) was not significantly different than the annual growth rate among non-top 40 schools (36.2%; p = 0.68). From 2005 to 2020, the highest number of diversity supplements that an individual medical school received was 56 and the lowest number was four (mean = 24.6, SD = 11.7). The highest percentage of R01 grants with an associated diversity supplement received by a school was 4.5% and the lowest percentage was 0.79% (mean = 2.3%, SD = 0.98).Medical schools may be missing an opportunity to address the continuing shortage of individuals historically underrepresented in biomedical science and should consider additional mechanisms to enhance diversity supplement utilization.

ImportanceSince 1964, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) MD-PhD program at medical schools across the US to support training physician-scientists. Recent studies have suggested that MSTPs have consistently matriculated more students from racial and ethnic backgrounds historically underrepresented in science than MD-PhD programs without NIH funding; however, the underlying basis for the increased diversity seen in NIH-funded MSTPs is poorly understood.ObjectiveTo investigate how administrators and faculty perceive the impact of MSTP status on MD-PhD program matriculant racial and ethnic diversity.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis qualitative study used a positive deviance approach to identify 9 high-performing and 3 low-performing MSTPs based on the percentage of students underrepresented in science who matriculated into the program between 2014 and 2018. This study, a subanalysis of a larger study to understand recruitment of students underrepresented in science at MSTPs, focused on in-depth qualitative interviews, conducted from October 26, 2020, to August 31, 2022, of 69 members of MSTP leadership, including program directors, associate and assistant program directors, and program administrators.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe association of NIH funding with institutional priorities, programs, and practices related to MD-PhD program matriculant racial and ethnic diversity.ResultsThe study included 69 participants (mean [SD] age, 53 [10] years; 38 women [55%]; 13 African American or Black participants [19%], 6 Asian participants [9%], 12 Hispanic participants [17%], and 36 non-Hispanic White participants [52%]). A total of 51 participants (74%) were in administrative roles, and 18 (26%) were faculty involved in recruitment. Five themes emerged from the data: (1) by tying MSTP funding to diversity efforts, the NIH created a sense of urgency among MSTP leadership to bolster matriculant diversity; (2) MD-PhD program leadership leveraged the changes to MSTP grant review to secure new institutional investments to promote recruitment of students underrepresented in science; (3) MSTPs increasingly adopted holistic review to evaluate applicants to meet NIH funding requirements; (4) MSTP leadership began to systematically assess the effectiveness of their diversity initiatives and proactively identify opportunities to enhance matriculant diversity; and (5) although all MSTPs were required to respond to NIH criteria, changes made by low-performing programs generally lacked the robustness demonstrated by high-performing programs.Conclusions and RelevanceThis study suggests that NIH funding requirements may be a powerful incentive to promote diversity and positively affect representation of students underrepresented in science in the biomedical scientific workforce.

ImportanceSurgical diseases account for approximately 30% of the global burden of disease. Gender diversity in biomedical research is critical to generate innovative patient-centered research in surgery.ObjectiveTo examine the distribution of biomedical research funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) among women and men surgeon-scientists during a 25-year period.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools: Expenditures and Results) database for research project grants awarded to women and men surgeon-scientists who were principal investigators between 1995 and 2020. Data were retrieved between January 20 and March 20, 2022. The representation of women surgeon-scientists among academic surgeons was compared with the representation of men surgeon-scientists over time.Main Outcomes and MeasuresDistribution of NIH funding to women and men surgeon-scientists was examined via 2 metrics: holding a large-dollar (ie, R01-equivalent) grant and being a super principal investigator (SPI) with $750 000 or more in total annual research funding. Statistical analysis was performed between April 1 and August 31, 2022.ResultsBetween 1995 and 2020, 2078 principal investigator surgeons received funding from the NIH. The proportion of women academic surgeons who were surgeon-scientists remained unchanged during this same period (1995, 14 of 792 [1.8%] vs 2020, 92 of 3834 [2.4%]; P = .10). Compared with their men counterparts, women surgeon-scientists obtained their first NIH grant earlier in their career (mean [SD] years after first faculty appointment, 8.8 [6.2] vs 10.8 [7.9] years; P Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional study of NIH-funded surgeons suggest that women surgeons remained underrepresented among surgeon-scientists over a 25-year period despite early career success in receiving NIH funding. This is concerning and warrants further investigation to increase the distribution of NIH funding among women surgeon-scientists.

ImportanceDiversity in the biomedical research workforce is essential for addressing complex health problems. Female investigators and investigators from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups generate novel, impactful, and innovative research, yet they are significantly underrepresented among National Institutes of Health (NIH) investigators.ObjectiveTo examine the gender, ethnic, and racial distribution of super NIH investigators who received 3 or more concurrent NIH grants.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study included a national cohort of NIH-funded principal investigators (PIs) from the NIH Information for Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination (IMPAC II) database from 1991 to 2020.ExposuresSelf-identified gender, race and ethnicity, annual number of NIH grant receipt, career stage, and highest degree.Main Outcomes and MeasuresDistribution of investigators receiving 3 or more research project grants, referred to as super principal investigators (SPIs), by gender, race, and ethnicity.ResultsAmong 33 896 investigators in fiscal year 2020, 7478 (22.01%) identified as Asian, 623 (1.8%) as Black, 1624 (4.8%) as Hispanic, and 22 107 (65.2%) as White; 21 936 (61.7%) identified as men; and 8695 (35.3%) were early-stage investigators. Between 1991 and 2020, the proportion of SPIs increased 3-fold from 704 (3.7%) to 3942 (11.3%). However, SPI status was unequal across gender, ethnic, and racial groups. Women and Black PIs were significantly underrepresented among SPIs, even after adjusting for career stage and degree, and were 34% and 40% less likely than their male and White colleagues, respectively, to be an SPI. Black women PIs were the least likely to be represented among SPIs and were 71% less likely to attain SPI status than White men PIs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.21-0.41).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study of a national cohort of NIH-funded investigators, the gender, ethnic, and racial gaps in receipt of multiple research project grants among NIH investigators was clearly apparent and warrants further investigation and interventions.

ImportancePrevious studies have demonstrated racial and ethnic inequities in medical student assessments, awards, and faculty promotions at academic medical centers. Few data exist about similar racial and ethnic disparities at the level of graduate medical education.ObjectiveTo examine the association between race and ethnicity and performance assessments among a national cohort of internal medicine residents.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study evaluated assessments of performance for 9026 internal medicine residents from the graduating classes of 2016 and 2017 at Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)–accredited internal medicine residency programs in the US. Analyses were conducted between July 1, 2020, and June 31, 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was midyear and year-end total ACGME Milestone scores for underrepresented in medicine (URiM [Hispanic only; non-Hispanic American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander only; or non-Hispanic Black/African American]) and Asian residents compared with White residents as determined by their Clinical Competency Committees and residency program directors. Differences in scores between Asian and URiM residents compared with White residents were also compared for each of the 6 competency domains as supportive outcomes.ResultsThe study cohort included 9026 residents from 305 internal medicine residency programs. Of these residents, 3994 (44.2%) were female, 3258 (36.1%) were Asian, 1216 (13.5%) were URiM, and 4552 (50.4%) were White. In the fully adjusted model, no difference was found in the initial midyear total Milestone scores between URiM and White residents, but there was a difference between Asian and White residents, which favored White residents (mean [SD] difference in scores for Asian residents: −1.27 [0.38]; P P P Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, URiM and Asian internal medicine residents received lower ratings on performance assessments than their White peers during the first and second years of training, which may reflect racial bias in assessment. This disparity in assessment may limit opportunities for physicians from minoritized racial and ethnic groups and hinder physician workforce diversity.

COVID-19 vaccine research success and emergency use authorizations (EUAs) have shown the life sciences’ potential for positive health impact. But they also underscore potentially divergent and conf...

Background Early identification of trauma patients who need specialized healthcare resources may facilitate goal-directed resuscitation and effective secondary triage. Objective To estimate associations between Denver Emergency Department (ED) Trauma Organ Failure (TOF) Score and healthcare resource utilization. Methods Retrospective study of adult trauma patients at Denver Health Medical Center. The outcome was resource utilization including: intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, procedures, and costs. Multivariable regression analyses were used to estimate associations between moderate- or high-risk patients, as determined by the Denver ED TOF Score, and healthcare resource utilization. Results We included 3000 patients with a median age of 42 (IQR 27–56) years, 71% male, median injury severity score 9 (IQR 5–16), and 83% blunt mechanism. Among the cohort, 1379 patients (46%) were admitted to the ICU and 122 (4%) died. The adjusted relative risk for high- and moderate-risk as compared to low risk for number of procedures performed was 2.31 (95% CI 2.07–2.57) and 1.80 (95% CI 1.59–2.03) respectively; ICU LOS was 2.87 (95% CI 2.70–3.05) and 1.71 (95% CI 1.60–1.83) respectively; hospital LOS was 3.33 (95% CI 3.21–3.45) and 1.97 (95% CI 1.90–2.05) respectively. The adjusted geometric mean for high-, moderate-, and low-risk for costs was $48,881 (95% CI $43,799–$54,552), $27,890 (95% CI $25,460–$30,551), and $12,983 (95% CI $12,493–$13,492), respectively. Conclusions The Denver ED TOF Score predicts healthcare resource utilization, and is a useful bedside tool to identify patients early after injury that are likely to require significant healthcare resources and specialized trauma care.

ImportanceDiverse research teams are critical to solving complex health problems and producing high-quality medical research.ObjectiveTo examine the associations of student sex and racial and ethnic identity with publication rates during medical school.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study assessed individual-level data of US MD graduates from medical school who matriculated in academic years 2014 to 2015 and 2015 to 2016. Data were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges and analyzed from October 2021 to January 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOutcomes of interest included students’ self-reported participation in unique research experiences, number of publications, and computed publications per research experience. Poisson regressions were constructed to determine the association of sex and racial and ethnic identity with research outcomes using adjusted rate ratios (aRRs).ResultsAmong 31 474 graduates, 15 159 (48.2%) identified as women and 4344 (13.8%) identified as underrepresented in medicine by race and ethnicity (URIM; including American Indian, Alaska Native, Black, Hawaiian Native, Hispanic/Latinx, and Pacific Islander individuals). Students who attended National Institutes of Health (NIH) top 40 research-ranked schools reported higher number of research experiences and publication counts, resulting in a higher publication rate compared with students from non–top 40 schools (median [IQR] 1.60 [1.00-3.00] vs 1.25 [0.50-2.33]; P Conclusions and RelevanceThese findings illustrate that inequities in the physician-scientist workforce began early in training and highlight key areas for intervention, such as funding support and mentorship training during undergraduate medical education, that may promote the future success of a diverse physician-scientist workforce.

Diversity in the medical workforce is critical to improve health care access and achieve equity for resource-limited communities. Despite increased efforts to recruit diverse medical trainees, there remains a large chasm between the racial and ethnic and socioeconomic composition of the patient population and that of the physician workforce.To analyze student attrition from medical school by sociodemographic identities.This retrospective cohort study included allopathic doctor of medicine (MD)-only US medical school matriculants in academic years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The analysis was performed from July to September 2021.The main outcome was attrition, defined as withdrawal or dismissal from medical school for any reason. Attrition rate was explored across 3 self-reported marginalized identities: underrepresented in medicine (URiM) race and ethnicity, low income, and underresourced neighborhood status. Logistic regression was assessed for each marginalized identity and intersections across the 3 identities.Among 33 389 allopathic MD-only medical school matriculants (51.8% male), 938 (2.8%) experienced attrition from medical school within 5 years. Compared with non-Hispanic White students (423 of 18 213 [2.3%]), those without low income (593 of 25 205 [2.3%]), and those who did not grow up in an underresourced neighborhood (661 of 27 487 [2.4%]), students who were URiM (Hispanic [110 of 2096 (5.2%); adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.41; 95% CI, 1.13-1.77], non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander [13 of 118 (11.0%); aOR, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.76-5.80], and non-Hispanic Black/African American [120 of 2104 (5.7%); aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.13-1.77]), those who had low income (345 of 8184 [4.2%]; aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15-1.54), and those from an underresourced neighborhood (277 of 5902 [4.6%]; aOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16-1.58) were more likely to experience attrition from medical school. The rate of attrition from medical school was greatest among students with all 3 marginalized identities (ie, URiM, low income, and from an underresourced neighborhood), with an attrition rate 3.7 times higher than that among students who were not URiM, did not have low income, and were not from an underresourced neighborhood (7.3% [79 of 1086] vs 1.9% [397 of 20 353]; P .001).This retrospective cohort study demonstrated a significant association of medical student attrition with individual (race and ethnicity and family income) and structural (growing up in an underresourced neighborhood) measures of marginalization. The findings highlight a need to retain students from marginalized groups in medical school.

Microaggressions are thought to negatively impact learning and mental health in underrepresented (UR) nursing students.The purpose of this study was to investigate three hypotheses in a sample of nursing students: (a) whether, compared to White nursing students, UR nursing students experienced higher frequency of microaggressions, (b) whether microaggressions predict lesser satisfaction with nursing training and (c) whether microaggressions are associated with higher depression screening scores.A survey during Summer 2020 assessed 862 nursing students (71.8% female, Mean age = 28.8, SD = 9.27, 61.4% White, 20.0% UR) on microaggressions, satisfaction with their nursing program, and depression symptoms.We found that compared to White nursing students, UR nursing students reported significantly greater microaggression frequency (with Black students reporting the highest frequency), lesser nursing training satisfaction, and equivalent potential depression rates.Microaggressions deteriorate indicators of wellbeing, especially in UR nursing students. Strategic action to mitigate microaggressions and promote inclusion is needed.

Despite a lack of intent to discriminate, physicians educated in United States medical schools and residency programs often take actions that systematically disadvantage minority patients. The approach to assessment of learner performance in medical education can similarly disadvantage minority learners. The adoption of holistic admissions strategies to increase the diversity of medical training programs has not been accompanied by increases in diversity in honor societies, selective residency programs, medical specialties, and medical school faculty. These observations prompt justified concerns about structural and interpersonal bias in assessment. This manuscript characterizes equity in assessment as a "wicked problem" with inherent conflicts, uncertainty, dynamic tensions, and susceptibility to contextual influences. The authors review the underlying individual and structural causes of inequity in assessment. Using an organizational model, they propose strategies to achieve equity in assessment and drive institutional and systemic improvement based on clearly articulated principles. This model addresses the culture, systems, and assessment tools necessary to achieve equitable results that reflect stated principles. Three components of equity in assessment that can be measured and evaluated to confirm success include intrinsic equity (selection and design of assessment tools), contextual equity (the learning environment in which assessment occurs), and instrumental equity (uses of assessment data for learner advancement and selection and program evaluation). A research agenda to address these challenges and controversies and demonstrate reduction in bias and discrimination in medical education is presented.

Social and economic factors have a profound impact on patient health. However, education about these factors has been inconsistently incorporated into residency training. Neighbourhood walking tours may help physician-residents learn about the social determinants of health (SDoH). We assessed the impact of a neighbourhood walking tour on physician-residents’ perceptions of SDoH, plans for counselling patients and knowledge of community resources. Using a community-based participatory research approach, in 2017 we implemented a neighbourhood walking tour curriculum for physician-residents in internal medicine, internal medicine/primary care, emergency medicine, paediatrics, combined internal medicine/paediatrics and obstetrics/gynaecology. In both pre-tour and post-tour, we asked participants to (1) rank the importance of individual-level and neighbourhood-level factors affecting patients' health, (2) describe strategies used to improve health behaviours and (3) describe knowledge of community resources. Eighty-one physician-residents participated in walks (pre-tour surveys (93% participation rate (n=75)), and post-tour surveys (53% participation rate (n=43)). Pre-tour, the factor ranked most frequently affecting patient health was ‘access to primary care’ (67%) compared with post-tour: ‘income’ (44%) and ‘transportation’ (44%). In describing ways to improve diet and exercise, among pre-tour survey respondents, 67% discussed individual-level strategies and 16% discussed neighbourhood-level, while among post-tour survey respondents, 39% of respondents discussed individual-level strategies and 37% discussed neighbourhood-level. Percentage of respondents aware of community resources changed from 5% to 76% (p

Objective To improve resident diversity, emergency medicine (EM) residencies across the United States have implemented financial scholarships to attract visiting medical students underrepresented in medicine (URiM). The impact of these scholarships on changes in residency racial and ethnic diversity is currently unknown. In this study, we describe characteristics of these visiting elective scholarships for underrepresented students and evaluate changes in residency racial and ethnic diversity after program implementation. Methods From 2018 to 2019, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of EM residency programs with a visiting clerkship rotation scholarship for medical students URiM. Programs were identified for study inclusion using the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine's online directory of Visiting Elective Scholarship Programs for Underrepresented Minorities. Program characteristics were analyzed descriptively. Changes in residency racial and ethnic diversity were evaluated using an interrupted time series analysis. Results Of 34 programs contacted, 20 responded. While there was some variability in funding sources, scholarship amounts, and application review, most scholarships were similar in implementation practices. Of the 20 program respondents, nine were able to provide complete data on residency race and ethnicity and were included in the time series analysis. After program implementation, the time series analysis showed a significant increase in both underrepresented minority EM residents overall and Black and Latinx EM residents in particular. Conclusion Emergency medicine visiting clerkship scholarship programs for medical students URiM vary in funding type and application review but had similar implementation practices. Residency programs increased their racial and ethnic diversity after program implementation. Future investigations are needed to determine specific factors contributing to the successful implementation of scholarship programs.

BACKGROUND: To increase diversity and inclusion in graduate medical education, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) issued a revision to their Common Program Requirements during the 2019–2020 academic year mandating that all residency programs must have policies and practices to achieve appropriate diversity among trainees and faculty. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of internal medicine program directors (PDs) and associate program directors (APDs) on the ACGME diversity standard. DESIGN: Qualitative study of internal medicine residency program leadership from academic and community programs across the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Current PDs (n = 12) and APDs (n = 8) of accredited US internal medicine residency programs. APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews. Data was analyzed using the constant comparative method to extract recurrent themes. KEY RESULTS: Three main themes, described by participants, were identified: (1) internal medicine PDs and APDs had limited knowledge of the new Common Program Requirement relating to diversity; (2) program leaders expressed concern that the diversity standard reaches beyond the PDs’ scope of influence and lack of institutional commitment to the successful implementation of diversity standards; (3) participants described narrow view of diversity and inclusion efforts focusing on recruitment strategies during the interview season. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings of lack of familiarity with the new diversity standards, and limited institutional investment in diversity and inclusion efforts raise a concern about successful implementation across GME programs. Nevertheless, our finding suggests that structured implementation in the form of education, guideposts, and financial allocation can alleviate some of the concerns of program leadership in meeting the new ACGME diversity standard in a meaningful way. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06825-2.

The perspectives of gay, lesbian, bisexual (sexual minority [SM]) students about their medical school learning environment and how they relate to burnout is poorly understood.To understand SM medical students' perceptions of the medical school learning environment and how this is associated with reported burnout.This cross-sectional study included medical students graduating from Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)-accredited allopathic US medical schools in 2016 and 2017 and responding to the AAMC Graduation Questionnaire. Data analysis was conducted from June 2021 to March 2022.Sexual orientation, based on self-identification, and categorized as bisexual, gay or lesbian, or heterosexual or straight.Primary outcomes included burnout as measured by Oldenburg Burnout Inventory for Medical Students (OLBI-MS; two 24-point scales [range, 0-48], with higher scores indicating greater burnout) and student perceptions of the medical school learning environment (0-5-point scales for emotional climate [range, 0-20] and student-faculty interactions [range, 0-15], with higher scores indicating more positive perceptions). Logistic regression was used to model the association between burnout, SM status, and learning environment while controlling for demographic characteristics.A total of 25 757 respondents (12 527 [48.6%] women; 5347 [20.8%] Asian; 2255 [8.8%] underrepresented in medicine; 15 651 [60.8%] White; 10 726 [41.6%] aged ≤26 years) were included in the analysis: 568 (2.2%) self-identified as bisexual, 854 (3.3%) as gay or lesbian, and 24 335 (94.5%) as heterosexual or straight. Both bisexual students and gay or lesbian students reported less favorable perceptions of their learning environments than heterosexual students (mean [SD] emotional climate score, bisexual students: 8.56 [3.29]; gay or lesbian students: 9.22 [3.33]; heterosexual or straight students: 9.71 [3.20]; P .001; mean [SD] faculty-student interaction score, bisexual students: 13.46 [3.69]; gay or lesbian students: 14.07 [3.45]; heterosexual or straight students: 14.32 [3.37]; P .001). Bisexual and gay or lesbian students were more likely to be in the top quartile for burnout scores (bisexual: odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.42-2.07; P .001; gay or lesbian: OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.31-1.79; P .001). This association was attenuated when accounting for student perceptions of the learning environment (bisexual: OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.67; P .001; gay or lesbian: OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.19-1.68; P .001), with poorer perceptions of the medical school learning environment associated with higher burnout symptoms.In this cross-sectional study, SM students had less favorable perceptions of the medical school learning environment compared with heterosexual students. Results suggest the medical school environment may be associated with higher rates of burnout in SM students. Future research should explore interventions to improve the learning environment for SM students.

Burnout is a highly prevalent issue among medical trainees, but there has been limited research characterizing burnout specifically among medical students from groups who are underrepresented in medicine (URIM).To assess the association between components of the medical school learning environment and burnout among medical students who are URIM vs those who are not.This retrospective cross-sectional survey study evaluated responses of allopathic medical students graduating from all US allopathic medical schools in 2016 and 2017 to the American Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire. Analysis was completed between December 1, 2019, and July 1, 2020.Self-identification as a medical student who is URIM.Self-reported measures of medical student overall, disengagement, and exhaustion-related burnout using the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory for Medical Students.The American Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire had an 81% response rate, yielding 26 567 complete participant responses that were included the analysis. A total of 13 645 individuals (51.4%) were male, and 3947 (14.9%) identified as URIM (ie, Alaska Native, Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Native American, and/or Pacific Islander). Medical students who are URIM reported modestly higher levels of exhaustion-related burnout (mean [SD], 11.84 [3.62] vs 11.48 [3.61]; P .001) and modestly lower mean burnout scores associated with disengagement (mean [SD], 9.24 [3.56] vs 9.36 [3.58]; P = .047). Medical students who are URIM also reported marginally less favorable student-faculty interactions in the learning environment (mean [SD], 14.09 [3.45] vs 14.29 [3.35]; P .001). Medical students who are URIM were more likely to be in the top quartile of those who experienced exhaustion-related burnout (odds ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.09-1.29]) but less likely to be in the top quartile for disengagement (odds ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.80-0.94]). Regardless of URIM status, those who reported learning environment scores in the bottom quartile were more likely to experience higher rates of burnout as were those who experienced at least 1 episode of discrimination.This survey study found that medical students who are URIM had a higher risk for exhaustion-related burnout. This burnout is likely multifactorial and could represent a resiliency or survival bias, the burden of increased responsibility, and/or recurrent discrimination. The learning environment can play a key role in mitigating burnout in both medical students who are URIM and those who are not and is deserving of further research.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of a diverse workforce in medicine have been previously described. While the population of the United States has become increasingly diverse, this has not occurred in the physician workforce. In academic medicine, underrepresented in medicine (URiM) faculty are less likely to be promoted or retained in academic institutions. Studies suggest that mentorship and engagement increase the likelihood of development, retention, and promotion. However, it is not clear what form of mentorship creates these changes. The Academy for Diversity and Inclusion in Emergency Medicine (ADIEM), an academy within the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, is a group focused on advancing diversity and inclusion as well as promoting the development of its URiM students, residents, and faculty. The Academy serves many of the functions of a mentoring program. We assessed whether active involvement in ADIEM led to increased publications, promotion, or leadership advancement in the areas of diversity, equity, and inclusion. METHODS: We performed a survey of ADIEM members to determine if career development and productivity, defined as written scholarly products, presentations, and mentorship in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion was enhanced by the establishment of the academy. To determine whether there were significant changes in academic accomplishments after the formation of ADIEM, two groups, ADIEM leaders and ADIEM nonleader members, were examined. RESULTS: Thirteen ADIEM leaders and 14 ADIEM nonleader members completed the survey. Academic productivity in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion increased significantly among ADIEM leaders when compared to ADIEM nonleader members after the founding of ADIEM. In particular, in the ADIEM leader group, there were significant increases in manuscript publications (1.31 ± 1.6 to 5.5 ± 7.96, p = 0.12), didactic presentations (3.85 ± 7.36 to 23.46 ± 44.52, p

Decision aids are evidenced-based tools designed to increase patient understanding of medical options and possible outcomes, facilitate conversation between patients and clinicians, and improve patient engagement. Decision aids have been used for shared decision-making (SDM) interventions outside of the ED setting for more than a decade. Their use in the ED has only recently begun to be studied. This article provides background on this topic and the conclusions of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference SDM in practice work group regarding “Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-Relevant, Patient-Centered Research Agenda.” The goal was to determine a prioritized research agenda for the development and testing of shared decision-making interventions for use in emergency care that was most important to patients, clinicians, caregivers, and other key stakeholders. Using the nominal group technique, the consensus working group proposed prioritized research questions in six key domains: (1) content (i.e., clinical scenario or decision area), (2) level of evidence available, (3) tool design strategies, (4) risk communication, (5) stakeholders, and (6) outcomes.

Importance Previous studies have shown that medical student mistreatment is common. However, few data exist to date describing how the prevalence of medical student mistreatment varies by student sex, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Objective To examine the association between mistreatment and medical student sex, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study analyzed data from the 2016 and 2017 Association of American Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire. The questionnaire annually surveys graduating students at all 140 accredited allopathic US medical schools. Participants were graduates from allopathic US medical schools in 2016 and 2017. Data were analyzed between April 1 and December 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures Prevalence of self-reported medical student mistreatment by sex, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Results A total of 27 504 unique student surveys were analyzed, representing 72.1% of graduating US medical students in 2016 and 2017. The sample included the following: 13 351 female respondents (48.5%), 16 521 white (60.1%), 5641 Asian (20.5%), 2433 underrepresented minority (URM) (8.8%), and 2376 multiracial respondents (8.6%); and 25 763 heterosexual (93.7%) and 1463 lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) respondents (5.3%). At least 1 episode of mistreatment was reported by a greater proportion of female students compared with male students (40.9% vs 25.2%,P Conclusions and Relevance Female, URM, Asian, multiracial, and LGB students seem to bear a disproportionate burden of the mistreatment reported in medical schools. It appears that addressing the disparate mistreatment reported will be an important step to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in medical education.