Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Milestones: Creation of a Tool to Evaluate Graduate Medical Education Programs.

Background: As the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) began to ask programs to report their efforts surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), program directors felt ill prepared to evaluate their programs and measure change. Objective: To develop a tool that would allow graduate medical education (GME) programs to evaluate the current state of DEI within their residencies, identify areas of need, and track progress; to evaluate feasibility of using this assessment method within family medicine training programs; and to analyze and report pilot data from implementation of these milestones within family medicine residency programs. Methods: The Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors (AFMRD) Diversity and Health Equity (DHE) Task Force developed a tool for program DEI evaluation modeled after the ACGME Milestones. These milestones focus on DEI assessment in 5 key domains: Institution, Curriculum, Evaluation, Resident Personnel, and Faculty Personnel. After finalizing a draft, a pilot implementation of the milestones was conducted by a convenience sample of 10 AFMRD DHE Task Force members for their own programs. Results: Scores varied widely across surveyed programs for all milestones. Highest average scores were seen for the Curriculum milestone (2.65) and the lowest for the Faculty Personnel milestone (2.0). Milestone assessments were completed within 10 to 40 minutes using various methods. Conclusions: The AFMRD DEI Milestones were developed for program assessment, goal setting, and tracking of progress related to DEI within residency programs. The pilot implementation showed these milestones were easily used by family medicine faculty members in diverse settings.

Telemedicine Familiarity and Post-Disaster Utilization of Emergency and Hospital Services for Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we examined the association between telemedicine use before a disaster and utilization of emergency or hospital services for ambulatory care sensitive conditions post-disaster. METHODS: Difference-in-differences analyses were conducted in 2020‒2021 to assess pre- to post-fire changes in emergency or hospital utilization for 5 ambulatory care sensitive conditions: asthma, diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and heart failure across all Kaiser Permanente Santa Rosa patients (N=108,113) based on telemedicine utilization before the 2017 Tubbs wildfire. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was employed for cohort balancing across telemedicine familiar status. RESULTS: Utilization for any ambulatory care sensitive condition increased from 9.03% pre-fire to 9.45% post-fire across the full cohort. Telemedicine familiarity (ref: not familiar) was associated with decreased absolute risk in pre- to post-fire inpatient and emergency department utilization for 4 conditions: asthma (absolute risk= -1.59%, 95% CI= -2.02%, -1.16%), diabetes (absolute risk= -0.68%, 95% CI= -0.89%, -0.47%), hypertension (absolute risk= -2.07%, 95% CI= -2.44%, -1.71%), and coronary artery disease (absolute risk= -0.43%, 95% CI= -0.61%, -0.24%). Telemedicine familiarity was associated with decreased relative change in pre- to post-fire utilization for 5 conditions: asthma (RRR=0.70, 95% CI=0.64, 0.75), diabetes (RRR=0.54, 95% CI=0.47, 0.63), hypertension (RRR=0.57, 95% CI=0.52, 0.62), heart failure (RRR=0.64, 95% CI=0.50, 0.82), and coronary artery disease (RRR=0.56, 95% CI=0.47, 0.67). Similar results were seen among patients residing in evacuation zones. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine familiarity pre-fire was associated with decreased inpatient and emergency department utilization for certain ambulatory care sensitive conditions for 1-year post-fire. These results suggest a role for telemedicine in preventing unnecessary emergency and hospital utilization following disasters.

Regeneration and repair: new findings in stem cell research and aging.

When it comes to the capacity to regenerate damaged parts of the body, humans are by no means the most advanced among animal species. At the level of single cell populations, humans do exhibit some degree of regenerative potential--for example, hepatocytes have the ability to restore up to 75% of a surgically removed or damaged liver. However, as every schoolchild knows, salamanders and starfish can regrow entire amputated appendages, a remarkable feat well beyond the scope of human capacity. Accordingly, the standing consensus position of the scientific community has deemed mammals fundamentally and unalterably different from those more "primitive" yet regeneration-competent species. Current approaches for the restoration of organ function in humans have therefore been limited to allogeneic organ or cell transplantation--strategies that, while effective, nonetheless exhibit major limitations based on availability of donor tissues and the risk of rejection unless extensive immunosuppression is induced.