Gender and Pathways to Leadership in Academic Anesthesiology: A Qualitative Content Analysis of US Chairpersons' Curricula Vitae.

BACKGROUND: Women are underrepresented in medicine and academic anesthesiology, and especially in leadership positions. We sought to characterize career achievement milestones of female versus male academic anesthesiology chairs to understand possible gender-related differences in pathways to leadership. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational cross-sectional analysis. In November 2019, curricula vitae (CVs) were requested from then-current members of the US Association of Academic Anesthesiology Chairs. Data reflecting accomplishments up to the time of chair appointment were systematically extracted from CVs and analyzed using a mixed methods approach with qualitative content analysis supplemented by descriptive statistics and bivariate statistical testing. Missing data were not imputed. RESULTS: Seventy-two CVs were received from eligible individuals (response rate 67.3%). The respondent sample was 12.5% women (n = 9), 87.5% men (n = 63), and no transgender or nonbinary people; this is similar to the known gender balance in anesthesiology chairs in the United States. No statistically significant differences in objective markers of academic achievement at the time of chair appointment were evident for female versus male chairs, including time elapsed between the first faculty appointment and assumption of the chair role (median 25 vs 18 years, P = .06), number of publications at the time the chair was assumed (101 vs 69, P = .28), or proportion who had ever held a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant as principal investigator (44.4% vs 25.4%, 0.25). Four phenotypes of career paths were discernible in the data: the clinician-administrator, the educator, the investigator, and the well-rounded scholar; these did not differ by gender. CONCLUSIONS: Female chairpersons who were members of the Association of Academic Anesthesiology Chairs in the United States demonstrated similar patterns of academic achievement as compared to male chairpersons at the time the position of chair was assumed, suggesting that they were equally qualified for the role as compared to men. Four patterns of career achievements were evident in the chairperson group, suggesting multiple viable pathways to this leadership position.

Determinants of Plasma Alzheimer's Disease Biomarker Use by Primary Care Providers and Dementia Specialists.

BACKGROUND: The efficiencies of plasma Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers could facilitate early AD diagnosis. Unfortunately, limited knowledge exists about whether and how they would be used by clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare determinants of plasma AD biomarker use reported by primary care providers and dementia specialists. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews with clinicians organized using Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations theory and analyzed using an iterative coding approach. PARTICIPANTS: The subjects were internal and family medicine, neurology, and geriatrics providers with varying degrees of expertise in dementia diagnosis and care. MAIN MEASURES: Factors influencing a clinician's decision to use or not use plasma AD biomarkers in clinical practice. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 30 clinicians (16 family or internal medicine providers, 8 geriatricians, and 6 neurologists). Fifteen were dementia specialists. Hesitance to use plasma AD biomarkers was due to perceived lack of effective treatments for AD, limited access to supports, and stigma. Plasma AD biomarkers would be more readily adopted by clinicians with dementia expertise. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors will influence clinical use of plasma AD biomarkers. Some of them may inform the design of interventions to promote the effective and appropriate clinical translation of these tests.

Caregiver Accounts of Lucid Episodes in Persons With Advanced Dementia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Paradoxical lucidity is defined as an instance of unexpected lucid behavior in a person who is assumed to be noncommunicative due to a progressive and pathophysiologic dementing process. To inform studies of the prevalence, characteristics, and impact of these behaviors, this interview study examined caregivers' experiences of witnessing paradoxical lucidity. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants were family caregivers of persons living with advanced dementia caused by a neurodegenerative disease producing significant impairments in communication. Semistructured interviews elicited the caregivers' experiences of plausible lucid episodes. Data analysis used a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Most caregivers reported at least 1 episode of lucidity. Episodes were typically brief. Most involved utterances, but nonverbal behaviors were also common. The mental capacities associated with these behaviors included recognition, awareness of surroundings, recognizing others' emotions, and goal-directed behavior. Most caregivers' reactions were positive. Episodes did not lead to changes in major medical decisions but instead to efforts to either modify or reinforce daily caregiving efforts. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Episodes of lucidity were common, a finding seen in other studies. If prevalence studies confirm this, the qualifier "paradoxical" should be eliminated. The caregivers' familiarity with the person living with dementia allowed them to attribute meaning to subtle behaviors that might not otherwise be detected or considered lucid. Clinicians who care for persons with advanced-stage dementia should routinely ask caregivers about episodes of lucid communication and their emotional reactions.

"A Raw Blessing" - Caregivers' Experiences Providing Care to Persons Living with Dementia in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers. While prior research has documented these effects, it has not delved into their specific causes or how they are modified by contextual variation in caregiving circumstances.

Does Masked Interviewing Encourage Holistic Review in Residency Selection? A Mixed-Methods Study.

Problem: Medical educators increasingly champion holistic review. However, in U.S. residency selection, holistic review has been difficult to implement, hindered by a reliance on standardized academic criteria such as board scores. Masking faculty interviewers to applicants' academic files is a potential means of promoting holistic residency selection by increasing the interview's ability to make a discrete contribution to evaluation. However, little research has directly analyzed the effects of masking on how residency selection committees evaluate applicants. This mixed-methods study examined how masking interviews altered residency selection in an anesthesiology program at a large U.S. academic medical center. Intervention: During the 2019-2020 residency selection season in the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care, we masked interviewers to the major academic components of candidates' application files (board scores, transcripts, letters) on approximately half of interview days. The intent of the masking intervention was to mitigate the tendency of interviewers to form predispositions about candidates based on standardized academic criteria and thereby allow the interview to make a more independent contribution to candidate evaluation. Context: Our examination of the masking intervention used a concurrent, partially mixed, equal-status mixed-methods design guided by a pragmatist approach. We audio-recorded selection committee meetings and qualitatively analyzed them to explore how masking affected the process of candidate evaluation. We also collected independent candidate ratings from interviewers and consensus committee ratings and statistically compared ratings of candidates interviewed on masked days to ratings from conventional days. Impact: In conventional committee meetings, interviewers focused on how to reconcile academic metrics and interviews, and their evaluations of interviews were framed according to predispositions about candidates formed through perusal of application files. In masked meetings, members instead spent considerable effort evaluating candidates' "fit" and whether they came off as tactful. Masked interviewers gave halting opinions of candidates and sometimes pushed for committee leaders to reveal academic information, leading to masking breaches. Higher USMLE Step 1 score and higher medical school ranking were statistically associated with more favorable consensus rating. We found no significant differences in rating outcomes between masked and conventional interview days. Lessons learned: Elimination of academic metrics during the residency interview phase does not straightforwardly promote holistic review. While critical reflection among medical educators about the fairness and utility of such metrics has been productive, research and intervention should focus on the more proximate topic of how programs apply academic and other criteria to evaluate applicants.

What is the patient experience of surgical care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic? A mixed-methods study at a single institution.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak has spread worldwide and has resulted in hospital restrictions. The perceived impact of these practices on patients undergoing essential surgeries is less understood. METHODS: Adult (≥18 years) patients who underwent medically necessary surgical procedures spanning multiple surgical specialties from March 23, 2020, to April 24, 2020, during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic were identified as eligible for a phone survey. Survey responses were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach involving descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of coded and annotated survey results. RESULTS: Of the 212 patients who underwent medically necessary surgical procedures during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the majority of these patients were male (61.3%), White (83.5%), married or with a domestic partner (68.9%), and underwent oncologic procedures (69.3%). Of the 46 patients (21.7%) who completed the survey, the majority of these patients indicated that coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic restrictions had no impact on their inpatient hospital stay and were satisfied with their decision to proceed with surgery. Severity of patient condition (44.4%), the risk/benefit discussion with the surgeon (24.4%), and coronavirus disease 2019 education and testing (19.5%) were the most important factors in proceeding with surgery during the pandemic; 34.4% of patients said their inpatient postoperative course was negatively affected by the lack of visitors. CONCLUSION: Medically necessary, time-sensitive surgical procedures, as determined by the surgeon, can be performed during a pandemic with good patient satisfaction provided there is an appropriate discussion between the surgeon and patient about the risks and benefits.