Diversity and Inclusion on General Surgery, Integrated Thoracic Surgery, and Integrated Vascular Surgery Residency Program Websites.

BACKGROUND: Increasing diversity in medicine is receiving more attention, yet underrepresented in medicine (UiM) surgeons remain a small fraction of all surgeons. Whether surgical training programs attempt to attract UiM applicants to their programs, and therefore their specialties, through program website information is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the scope of diversity and inclusion (D&I) related information on US allopathic and osteopathic general surgery, integrated thoracic surgery, and integrated vascular surgery residency program websites. METHODS: Residency programs were identified through the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) in July 2020. We searched surgical program websites and collected data on the presence or absence of variables labeled "diversity & inclusion" or "underrepresented in medicine." Variables found on program websites as well as sites linked to the program website were included. We excluded programs identified in ERAS as fellowship training programs. Programs without webpages were also excluded. RESULTS: We identified 425 residency programs and excluded 22 from data analysis. Only 75 of the 403 included programs (18.6%) contained D&I-related information. The presence of individual variables was also low, ranging from 4.5% for opportunities related to early exposure to the specialty to 11.1% for a written or video statement of commitment to D&I. CONCLUSIONS: In 2020, as recruitment and interviews moved entirely online, few US allopathic and osteopathic general surgery, integrated thoracic surgery, and integrated vascular surgery residency programs provided D&I-related information for residency applicants on their program websites.

Medical Student Attitudes toward USMLE Step 1 and Health Systems Science - A Multi-Institutional Survey.

Phenomenon: Because of its importance in residency selection, the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 occupies a critical position in medical education, stimulating national debate about appropriate score use, equitable selection criteria, and the goals of undergraduate medical education. Yet, student perspectives on these issues and their implications for engagement with health systems science-related curricular content are relatively underexplored. Approach: We conducted an online survey of medical students at 19 American allopathic medical schools from March-July, 2019. Survey items were designed to elicit student opinions on the Step 1 examination and the impact of the examination on their engagement with new, non-test curricular content related to health systems science. Findings: A total of 2856 students participated in the survey, representing 23.5% of those invited. While 87% of students agreed that doing well on the Step 1 exam was their top priority, 56% disagreed that studying for Step 1 had a positive impact on engagement in the medical school curriculum. Eighty-two percent of students disagreed that Step 1 scores should be the top item residency programs use to offer interviews. When asked whether Step 1 results should be reported pass/fail with no numeric score, 55% of students agreed, while 33% disagreed. The majority of medical students agreed that health systems science topics were important but disagreed that studying for Step 1 helped learn this content. Students reported being more motivated to study a topic if it was on the exam, part of a course grade, prioritized by residency program directors, or if it would make them a better physician in the future. Insights: These results confirm the primacy of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 exam in preclinical medical education and demonstrate the need to balance the objectives of medical licensure and residency selection with the goals of the broader medical profession. The survey responses suggest several potential solutions to increase student engagement in health systems science curricula which may be especially important after Step 1 examination results are reported as pass/fail.

Evaluating oral case presentations using a checklist: how do senior student-evaluators compare with faculty?

PURPOSE: Previous studies have shown student-evaluators to be reliable assessors of some clinical skills, but this model has not been studied for oral case presentations (OCPs). The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of student-evaluators in assessing OCP by comparing them with faculty. METHOD: In 2010, the authors developed a dichotomous checklist. They trained 30 fourth-year medical students (student-evaluators) to use it to assess 170 second-year medical students' OCPs in real time during a year-end objective structured clinical examination. Ten faculty physicians then scored videos of a random sample of these OCPs. After discarding items with poor faculty reliability, the authors assessed agreement between faculty and student-evaluators on 18 individual items, total scores, and pass/fail decisions. RESULTS: The total score correlation between student-evaluators and faculty was 0.84 (P < .001) and was somewhat better than the faculty-faculty intraclass correlation (r = 0.71). Using a 70% pass/fail cutoff, faculty and student-evaluator agreement was 74% (Kappa = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.20-0.72). Overall, student-evaluator scores were more lenient than faculty scores (72% versus 56% pass rates; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Senior student-evaluators were able to reliably assess second-year medical students' OCP skills. The results support the use of student-evaluators for peer assessment of OCPs in low-stakes settings, but evidence of leniency compared with faculty assessment suggests caution in using student-evaluators in high-stakes settings. Extending peer assessment to OCPs provides a practical approach for low-resource evaluation of this essential skill.

Racial and ethnic disparities in health: an emergency medicine perspective.

Significant disparities exist in health care based on race. Even when controlling for socioeconomic factors, minorities still have lower rates of utilization for certain procedures, higher mortality rates, and differences in usual source of care. There are a multitude of causes for these disparities, including differences based on access to care, the patient-doctor relationship, and insurance status. This article addresses possible factors that account for persistent disparities in health based on race and suggests approaches to remedying these disparities. Although many studies have been done on this topic, further research is needed to examine factors specifically in the emergency department setting.