Addressing Structural Racism Using a Whole-Scale Planning Process in a Single Academic Center.

Purpose: The murder of George Floyd in 2020 prompted a national demand for cultural transformation to confront the systemic racism prevalent in the country. Academic medical centers were not exempt from this urgent call. This article evaluates the efficacy of a strategic process in fostering cultural transformation within an academic medical system. Methods: A whole-scale strategic planning process was implemented over 13 months, involving multiple working groups representing key stakeholders from each entity across the system, an anonymous survey, a communication plan, and a balanced scorecard to monitor progress. More than 5500 voices, 160 recommendations, 122 data gathering sessions, and town hall meetings contributed to the creation and implementation of vital action items and a strategic framework. The Diversity Engagement Survey (DES) was administered 18 months following the process launch. Results: Of the 45,554 employees, students, faculty, and trainees, 96.5% completed unconscious bias education within the fiscal year and 76% of action items, termed "Just Do Its," were completed. Mission, vision, values, and strategic priorities were crafted to serve as a framework for intermediate and long-term actions. The DES revealed improvement in the "respect" attribute of an inclusive culture, and 64% of respondents confirmed that action for cultural transformation is addressing racism both within and outside of the institution. Conclusion: Implementing a shared purpose, engaging multiple working groups representing key stakeholders, and empowerment of stakeholders to implement changes, in conjunction with the development of a strategic framework addressing structural racism, resulted in the completion of vital action items to initiate cultural change.

Asserting Accountability to Address Diversity: Report Card as a System of Measurement.

Problem: To the best of our knowledge, there are no standard accountability measures for diversity efforts at the departmental level. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate a multiprong report card as a structure for evaluation, tracking, and reporting as well as to examine any relationships between expenditures and outcomes. Approach: We instituted an intervention that offered leadership a report card of metrics related to diversity efforts. Included are diversity expenditures, benchmark demographic and departmental data, applications to support faculty salaries, participation in clerkship programs focused on attracting diverse candidates, and requests for candidate lists. The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate the impact of the intervention. Outcomes: A significant relationship was found between faculty funding applications and under-represented minority (URM) representation in a department (0.19; confidence interval [95% CI] 0.17-0.21; p<0.001). An association was also found between total expenditures and URM representation in a department (0.002; 95% CI 0.002-0.003; p<0.001). Other outcomes include the following: (1) women, URM, and minority faculty have all increased in representation since tracking began; (2) diversity expenditures and faculty opportunity fund and presidential professorship applications have increased over time; and (3) a steady decline in departments with zero URM representation after the tracking of diversity expenditures in both clinical and basic science departments. Next Steps: Our findings suggest that standardized metrics for inclusion and diversity initiatives promote accountability and buy-in from executive leadership. Departmental detail enables tracking of progress longitudinally. Future work will continue to evaluate the downstream effects of diversity expenditures.

Gender Diversity on Corporate Boards Associated with Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: Enhancing diversity on boards has been linked to greater profitability and innovation. Unfortunately, there remains an underrepresentation of women in executive management and leadership positions in the ophthalmic corporate world. The purpose of these analyses was to examine the gender composition of directors for boards associated with the discipline of ophthalmology. DESIGN: Cross-sectional research design. METHODS: Using contemporary data, we examined a specific cohort, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Foundation Ophthalmic Business Council corporate members as reported in the annual 2019 meeting program (N = 23). The board composition was analyzed using an online search of publicly available information in January and February 2020. The specific outcome measures included the number and percentage of women board members and their roles. RESULTS: There were a total of 23 Ophthalmic Business Council members with publicly available data; 37 of 195 total directorship seats (19%) were held by women, and 9 of 23 companies (39%) listed women as previous or current chairs of committees or outside corporations. Four of the 23 (17%) members of the Ophthalmic Business Council corporations had no women directors. CONCLUSIONS: The boards of directors of the AAO Foundation Ophthalmic Business Council corporate members remain predominately male. Despite the increasing number of women entering the specialty, women remain underrepresented in the corporate world of ophthalmology. Gender parity on boards is essential for the economic well-being of ophthalmic corporations as well as the relationship of the Ophthalmic Business Council with AAO members, health care systems, insurance carriers, government officials, and the public.

The Influence of Gender and Underrepresented Minority Status on Medical Student Ranking of Residency Programs.

BACKGROUND: Physician diversity is linked to improved quality of care of diverse patient populations. The transition from medical school to residency is an opportunity to improve and increase workforce diversity in all specialties. However, there is limited published literature on the factors contributing to the ranking of residency programs on women and underrepresented minorities (URMs). OBJECTIVE: To characterize factors medical students used to rank residency programs and describe any differences based on race/ethnicity or gender. METHODS: A mixed-methods study consisting of a web-based survey and semi-structured interviews with National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) participating graduates over a two-year period. The survey assessed demographics and a 6-point Likert scale rating of various factors used to rank residency programs. Unpaired student t-tests were used to compare means. A subset of students was interviewed and a modified grounded theory approach identified decision-making themes as well as the role of gender and URM status. RESULTS: Out of a total of 316 invitations sent, 148 completed the survey (46.8% response rate), of which 21% of respondents self-identified as URMs. The majority of respondents graduated in 2014 (53%), and were male (51%). Participants ranked program atmosphere, reputation, location, and proximity to family the highest. URM students ranked patient population (p < 0.01), revisit opportunities (p = 0.04), gender diversity (p < 0.01), and ethnic diversity (p < 0.01) significantly higher than non-URM students. Female students ranked patient population (p < 0.01) and gender diversity (p < 0.01) significantly higher than males. Qualitative findings revealed differences in perceptions by URMs and non-URMs of patient population, revisit opportunities, gender diversity, and ethnic diversity. CONCLUSIONS: While all students prioritized pragmatic factors, women and URM students assess and weigh additional factors related to culture, inclusion, and diversity more than others. By tailoring recruitment strategies to meet the expectations of women and URMs, residency programs can better meet goals in becoming more diverse and inclusive.