Impact of holistic review on diversity of interviewed and matriculating residents in graduate medical education: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Diversity in the physician workforce improves patient-centred outcomes. Patients are more likely to trust in and comply with care when seeing gender/racially concordant providers. A current emphasis on standardised metrics in academic achievement often serves as a barrier to the recruitment and retention of gender and racial minorities in medicine. Holistic review of residency applicants has been supported as a means of encouraging diversification but is not yet standardised. The current body of evidence examining the effects of holistic review on the recruitment of racial and gender minorities in surgical residencies is small. We therefore propose a systematic review to summarise the state of holistic review in graduate medical education in the USA and its impact on diversification. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our systematic review protocol has been designed with plans to report our review findings in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. PubMed and Embase will be searched with the assistance of a health sciences librarian with expertise in systematic review. We will include studies of graduate medical education programmes that describe the implementation of holistic review, outline the components of their holistic review process and compare proportions of under-represented minorities (URM) and women interviewed and matriculating before and after holistic review implementation. We will first report a summary of the findings regarding the operationalisation of holistic review as described by studies included. We will then pool the percentages of URM and women for interviewee and matriculant populations from each study and report the collective odds ratios of each for holistic review compared with traditional review as our primary outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is a protocol for systematic review, and therefore does not involve any human subjects. Findings will be published in the form of a manuscript submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023401389.

Clinical Outcomes and Hospital Utilization Among Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery With Telemedicine Preoperative Care.

Importance: Bariatric surgery is the mainstay of treatment for medically refractory obesity; however, it is underutilized. Telemedicine affords patient cost and time savings and may increase availability and accessibility of bariatric surgery. Objective: To determine clinical outcomes and postoperative hospital utilization for patients undergoing bariatric surgery who receive fully remote vs in-person preoperative care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study comparing postoperative clinical outcomes and hospital utilization after telemedicine or in-person preoperative surgical evaluation included patients treated at a US academic hospital. Participants underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after telemedicine or in-person preoperative surgical evaluation between July 1, 2020, to December 22, 2021, or January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, respectively. Follow-up was 60 days from date of surgery. Exposures: Telemedicine-based preoperative care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical outcomes, including operating room delay, procedure duration, length of hospital stay (LOS), and major adverse events (MAE), and postoperative hospital resource utilization, including emergency department (ED) visit or hospital readmission within 30 days of the surgical procedure. Results: A total of 1182 patients were included; patients in the telemedicine group were younger (mean [SD] age, 40.8 [12.5] years vs 43.0 [12.2] years; P = .01) and more likely to be female (230 of 257 [89.5%] vs 766 of 925 [82.8%]; P = .01) compared with the control group. The control group had a higher frequency of comorbidity (887 of 925 [95.9%] vs 208 of 257 [80.9%]; P < .001). The telemedicine group was found to be noninferior to the control group with respect to operating room delay (mean [SD] minutes, 7.8 [25.1]; 95% CI, 5.1-10.5 vs 4.2 [11.1]; 95% CI, 1.0-7.4; P = .002), procedure duration (mean [SD] minutes, 134.4 [52.8]; 95% CI, 130.9-137.8 vs 105.3 [41.5]; 95% CI, 100.2-110.4; P < .001), LOS (mean [SD] days, 1.9 [1.1]; 95% CI, 1.8-1.9 vs 2.1 [1.0]; 95% CI, 1.9-2.2; P < .001), MAE within 30 days (3.8%; 95% CI, 3.0%-5.7% vs 1.6%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.9%; P = .001), MAE between 31 and 60 days (2.2%; 95% CI, 1.3%-3.3% vs 1.6%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.9%; P < .001), frequency of ER visits (18.8%; 95% CI, 16.3%-21.4% vs 17.9%; 95% CI, 13.2%-22.6%; P = .03), and hospital readmission (10.1%; 95% CI, 8.1%-12.0% vs 6.6%; 95% CI, 3.9%-10.4%; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, clinical outcomes in the telemedicine group were not inferior to the control group. This observation suggests that telemedicine can be used safely and effectively for bariatric surgical preoperative care.