Designing Prefaculty Competencies for Diverse Learners Through a Modified Delphi Process.

Importance: Faculty diversity in academic medicine may better prepare the next generation of equity-minded health care practitioners and leaders. Prefaculty development is an emerging concept to support trainees in achieving key knowledge, skills, and experiences to become successful faculty. Objective: To outline competencies, with corresponding milestones, to support the academic career development of learners, inclusive of racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender identities minoritized in medicine. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using a modified Delphi process, a national working group consisting of 13 members was established. The group used the published literature and listening sessions with diverse stakeholders to draft a set of competencies and milestones in July 2022. Diverse expert panelists reviewed the draft set over 2 rounds between September 2022 and January 2023. The group considered qualitative data to further refine the draft set between rounds. Consensus was reached when competencies and milestones were rated as agree or strongly agree on importance or appropriateness by 75% or greater of expert panelists after the second round. A final set of competencies and milestones was generated in February 2023. Data from round 1 were analyzed in October 2022 and data from round 2 were analyzed in January 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The development of prefaculty competencies with corresponding milestones by expert panel rankings and comments. Results: The national working group consisted of 13 members who represented diversity across racial, ethnic, and gender identities and academic and career tracks. The working group developed an initial set of 36 competencies and corresponding milestones across 12 domains. After 2 rounds, consensus among 46 expert panelists generated a final list of 32 competencies with corresponding milestones across 11 domains. A total of 26 panelists (56.5%) were women, 11 (23.9%) were Black or African American, 17 (37.0%) were Latina/o/x/e, Hispanic, or of Spanish origin, and 10 (21.7%) were White. Competency domains were divided into 2 groups: foundational (academic career choice and professional identity, mentorship, networking, financial skills, diversity and inclusion, personal effectiveness and self-efficacy, and leadership) and focused (education, community engagement, research, and clinical medicine). Consensus for inclusion or elimination of items was greater than 90% between the 2 rounds. Conclusions and Relevance: There was consensus among the working group and expert panelists regarding the importance and appropriateness of the competencies and milestones for diverse trainees to successfully obtain faculty positions. Institutions and national organizations can use these competencies as a framework to develop curricula that support diverse learners' career development toward academia.

Evaluating Disparities in Colon Cancer Survival in American Indian/Alaskan Native Patients Using the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Studies demonstrate higher mortality rates from colon cancer in American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) patients compared to non-Hispanic White (nHW). We aim to identify factors that contribute to survival disparities. METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database to identify AI/AN (n = 2127) and nHW (n = 527,045) patients with stage I-IV colon cancer from 2004 to 2016. Overall survival among stage I-IV colon cancer patients was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis; Cox proportional hazard ratios were used to identify independent predictors of survival. RESULTS: AI/AN patients with stage I-III disease had significantly shorter median survival than nHW (73 vs 77 months, respectively; p < 0.001); there were no differences in survival for stage IV. Adjusted analyses demonstrated that AI/AN race was an independent predictor of higher overall mortality compared to nHW (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.33, p = 0.002). Importantly, compared to nHW, AI/AN were younger, had more comorbidities, had greater rurality, had more left-sided colon cancers, had higher stage but lower grade tumors, were less frequently treated at an academic facility, were more likely to experience a delay in initiation of chemotherapy, and were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III disease. We found no differences in sex, receipt of surgery, or adequacy of lymph node dissection. CONCLUSION: We found patient, tumor, and treatment factors that potentially contribute to worse survival rates observed in AI/AN colon cancer patients. Limitations include the heterogeneity of AI/AN patients and the use of overall survival as an endpoint. Additional studies are needed to implement strategies to eliminate disparities.

In-hospital Substance Use Policies: An Opportunity to Advance Equity, Reduce Stigma, and Offer Evidence-based Addiction Care.

In-hospital substance use is common among patients with addiction because of undertreated withdrawal, undertreated pain, negative feelings, and stigma. Health care system responses to in-hospital substance use often perpetuate stigma and criminalization of people with addiction, long etched into our culture by the racist War on Drugs. In this commentary, we describe how our hospital convened an interprofessional workgroup to revise our in-hospital substance use policy. Our updated policy recommends health care workers respond to substance use concerns by offering patients adequate pain control, evidence-based addiction treatment, and supportive services instead of punitive responses. We provide best-practice recommendations for in-hospital substance use policies.

Endoscopic approach to eosinophilic esophagitis: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Consensus Conference.

Endoscopy plays a critical role in caring for and evaluating the patient with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Endoscopy is essential for diagnosis, assessment of response to therapy, treatment of esophageal strictures, and ongoing monitoring of patients in histologic remission. To date, less-invasive testing for identifying or grading EoE severity has not been established, whereas diagnostic endoscopy as integral to both remains the criterion standard. Therapeutic endoscopy in patients with adverse events of EoE may also be required. In particular, dilation may be essential to treat and attenuate progression of the disease in select patients to minimize further fibrosis and stricture formation. Using a modified Delphi consensus process, a group of 20 expert clinicians and investigators in EoE were assembled to provide guidance for the use of endoscopy in EoE. Through an iterative process, the group achieved consensus on 20 statements yielding comprehensive advice on tissue-sampling standards, gross assessment of disease activity, use and performance of endoscopic dilation, and monitoring of disease, despite an absence of high-quality evidence. Key areas of controversy were identified when discussions yielded an inability to reach agreement on the merit of a statement. We expect that with ongoing research, higher-quality evidence will be obtained to enable creation of a guideline for these issues. We further anticipate that forthcoming expert-generated and agreed-on statements will provide valuable practice advice on the role and use of endoscopy in patients with EoE.

Interventions to improve the performance of upper GI endoscopy quality indicators.

The promotion of quality and best practices in gastroenterology and endoscopy is an ongoing effort. For upper GI endoscopy, quality indicators derived from clinical studies and expert consensus have been long established but remain variably obtained. To date, data on interventions aimed to improve these indicators are scarce. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify interventions and measures demonstrated to improve the performance of previously established upper endoscopy quality indicators. We also identified evidence gaps and opportunities for improvement in this area.

Effect of individualized feedback on learning curves in EGD and colonoscopy: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gastroenterology fellowships need to ensure that trainees achieve competence in upper endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. Because the impact of structured feedback remains unknown in endoscopy training, this study compared the effect of structured feedback with standard feedback on trainee learning curves for EGD and colonoscopy. METHODS: In this multicenter, cluster, randomized controlled trial, trainees received either individualized quarterly learning curves or feedback standard to their fellowship. Assessment was performed in all trainees using the Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy tool on 5 consecutive procedures after every 25 EGDs and colonoscopies. Individual learning curves were created using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. The primary outcome was the mean CUSUM score in overall technical and overall cognitive skills. RESULTS: In all, 13 programs including 132 trainees participated. The intervention arm (6 programs, 51 trainees) contributed 558 EGD and 600 colonoscopy assessments. The control arm (7 programs, 81 trainees) provided 305 EGD and 468 colonoscopy assessments. For EGD, the intervention arm (-.7 [standard deviation {SD}, 1.3]) had a superior mean CUSUM score in overall cognitive skills compared with the control arm (1.6 [SD, .8], P = .03) but not in overall technical skills (intervention, -.26 [SD, 1.4]; control, 1.76 [SD, .7]; P = .06). For colonoscopy, no differences were found between the 2 arms in overall cognitive skills (intervention, -.7 [SD, 1.3]; control, .7 [SD, 1.3]; P = .95) or overall technical skills (intervention, .1 [SD, 1.5]; control, -.1 [SD, 1.5]; P = .77). CONCLUSIONS: Quarterly feedback in the form of individualized learning curves did not affect learning curves for EGD and colonoscopy in a clinically meaningful manner. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02891304.).