Socioeconomic Status and Mock Interview Performance among Prospective Medical School Applicants.

We aim to evaluate the association between family income and mock multiple mini interview (MMI) performance for prospective medical school applicants. Each applicant participated in a three-station mock MMI and were scored on four items, each on a sevenpoint scale. Of the 48 prospective applicants participating, 29 (60% survey response rate) completed the survey. Hispanic applicants were significantly more likely to have a family income of less than or equal to $20,000 versus more than $20,000 (p<.05). The adjusted analysis suggested mock MMI total score was significantly lower for prospective medical school applicants with family incomes of less than or equal to $20,000 versus more than $20,000 (ß coefficient 5.37, 95% CI 0.05-10.69, p = .048). The mock MMI performance of prospective applicants with lower family incomes indicates the need for further interview skill preparation or new interview scoring protocols.

Dedicated Diagnostic Radiology/Radiation Oncology Rounds: Added Value Beyond Traditional Tumor Boards.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the impact of collaborative discussion between diagnostic radiologists and radiation oncologists on radiation oncology management for thoracic oncology patients. METHODS: We reviewed cases presented at multidisciplinary thoracic tumor boards (TTB) (n = 122) and diagnostic radiology/radiation oncology rounds (DR/ROR) (n = 45). Changes in planned radiation management following imaging discussion were categorized-no change, timing change, and treatment volume change. Phase of care was also classified. In DR/ROR, radiation oncologists were surveyed regarding (1) change in radiation oncology management and (2) change in confidence (both 5-point Likert scales). RESULTS: Discussion of imaging with a radiologist changed radiation oncology management in 31.1% of TTB cases and 68.9% of DR/ROR cases (P < 0.001). Changes to the timing of initiating radiation therapy occurred with similar frequency in the 2 settings (31.1% vs 46.7%, P = 0.063). Changes to target volume occurred more frequently in DR/ROR (35.6% vs <1%), P < 0.001. Over half of imaging discussions in DR/ROR resulted in at least "moderate" change in radiation oncology management, and the level of confidence held by the radiation oncologists increased following discussion with radiologists in 95.6% of cases. CONCLUSION: Collaborative discussions between radiation oncologists and diagnostic radiologists in a multispecialty tumor board and in targeted 2-specialty rounds are not redundant, but result in different management changes and at different phases of care. Our study emphasizes the importance of consultation with physicians as an area where radiologists can add value, specifically the added benefit of smaller collaborative discussions.