Faculty Bibliography

To dismantle racism in U.S. medical education, people must understand how the history of Christian Europe, Enlightenment-era racial science, colonization, slavery, and racism shaped modern American medicine. Beginning with the coalescence of Christian European identity and empire, the authors trace European racial reasoning through the racial science of the Enlightenment into the White supremacist and anti-Black ideology behind Europe's global system of racialized colonization and enslavement. The authors then follow this racist ideology as it becomes an organizing principle of Euro-American medicine and examine how it manifests in medical education in the United States today. Within this historical context, the authors expose the histories of violence underlying contemporary terms such as implicit bias and microaggressions. Through this history, they also gain a deeper appreciation of why racism is so prevalent in medical education and how it affects admissions, assessments, faculty and trainee diversity, retention, racial climate, and the physical environment. The authors then recommend 6 historically informed steps for confronting racism in medical education: (1) incorporate the history of racism into medical education and unmask institutional histories of racism, (2) create centralized reporting mechanisms and implement systematic reviews of bias in educational and clinical activities, (3) adopt mastery-based assessment in medical education, (4) embrace holistic review and expand its possibilities in admissions, (5) increase faculty diversity by using holistic review principles in hiring and promotions, and (6) leverage accreditation to combat bias in medical education. These strategies will help academic medicine begin to acknowledge the harms propagated throughout the history of racism in medicine and start taking meaningful steps to address them. Although the authors have focused on racism in this paper, they recognize there are many forms of bias that impact medical education and intersect with racism, each with its particular history, that deserve their own telling and redress.

BACKGROUND:Cricothyrotomy is a critical technique for rescue of the failed airway in the emergency department (ED). Since the adoption of video laryngoscopy, the incidence of rescue surgical airways (those performed after at least one unsuccessful orotracheal or nasotracheal intubation attempt), and the circumstances where they are attempted, has not been characterized. OBJECTIVE:We report the incidence and indications for rescue surgical airways using a multicenter observational registry. METHODS:We performed a retrospective analysis of rescue surgical airways in subjects ≥14 years of age. We describe patient, clinician, airway management, and outcome variables. RESULTS:Of 19,071 subjects in NEAR, 17,720 (92.9%) were ≥14 years old with at least one initial orotracheal or nasotracheal intubation attempt, 49 received a rescue surgical airway attempt, an incidence of 2.8 cases per 1000 (0.28% [95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.37]). The median number of airway attempts prior to rescue surgical airways was 2 (interquartile range 1, 2). Twenty-five were in trauma victims (51.0% [36.5 to 65.4]), with neck trauma being the most common traumatic indication (n = 7, 14.3% [6.4 to 27.9]). CONCLUSION:Rescue surgical airways occurred infrequently in the ED (0.28% [0.21 to 0.37]), with approximately half performed due to a trauma indication. These results may have implications for surgical airway skill acquisition, maintenance, and experience.

INTRODUCTION:Medicine is increasingly influenced by politics, but physicians have historically had lower voter turnout than the general public. Turnout is even lower for younger voters. Little is known about the political interests, voting activity, or political action committee (PAC) involvement of emergency physicians in training. We evaluated EM trainees' political priorities, use of and barriers to voting, and engagement with an emergency medicine (EM) PAC. METHODS:Resident/medical student Emergency Medicine Residents' Association members were emailed a survey between October-November 2018. Questions involved political priorities, perspective on single-payer healthcare, voting knowledge/behavior, and EM PACs participation. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics. RESULTS:Survey participants included 1,241 fully responding medical students and residents, with a calculated response rate of 20%. The top three healthcare priorities were as follows: 1) high cost of healthcare/price transparency; 2) decreasing the number of uninsured; and 3) quality of health insurance. The top EM-specific issue was ED crowding and boarding. Most trainees (70%) were supportive of single-payer healthcare: "somewhat favor" (36%) and "strongly favor" (34%). Trainees had high rates of voting in presidential elections (89%) but less frequent use of other voting options: 54% absentee ballots; 56% voting in state primary races; and 38% early voting. Over half (66%) missed voting in prior elections, with work cited as the most frequent (70%) barrier. While overall, half of respondents (62%) reported awareness of EM PACs, only 4% of respondents had contributed. CONCLUSION:The high cost of healthcare was the top concern among EM trainees. Survey respondents had a high level of knowledge of absentee and early voting but less frequently used these options. Encouragement of early and absentee voting can improve voter turnout of EM trainees. Concerning EM PACs, there is significant room for membership growth. With improved knowledge of the political priorities of EM trainees, physician organizations and PACs can better engage future physicians.

IMPORTANCE:Since 1964, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) MD-PhD program at medical schools across the US to support training physician-scientists. Recent studies have suggested that MSTPs have consistently matriculated more students from racial and ethnic backgrounds historically underrepresented in science than MD-PhD programs without NIH funding; however, the underlying basis for the increased diversity seen in NIH-funded MSTPs is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE:To investigate how administrators and faculty perceive the impact of MSTP status on MD-PhD program matriculant racial and ethnic diversity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This qualitative study used a positive deviance approach to identify 9 high-performing and 3 low-performing MSTPs based on the percentage of students underrepresented in science who matriculated into the program between 2014 and 2018. This study, a subanalysis of a larger study to understand recruitment of students underrepresented in science at MSTPs, focused on in-depth qualitative interviews, conducted from October 26, 2020, to August 31, 2022, of 69 members of MSTP leadership, including program directors, associate and assistant program directors, and program administrators. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The association of NIH funding with institutional priorities, programs, and practices related to MD-PhD program matriculant racial and ethnic diversity. RESULTS:The study included 69 participants (mean [SD] age, 53 [10] years; 38 women [55%]; 13 African American or Black participants [19%], 6 Asian participants [9%], 12 Hispanic participants [17%], and 36 non-Hispanic White participants [52%]). A total of 51 participants (74%) were in administrative roles, and 18 (26%) were faculty involved in recruitment. Five themes emerged from the data: (1) by tying MSTP funding to diversity efforts, the NIH created a sense of urgency among MSTP leadership to bolster matriculant diversity; (2) MD-PhD program leadership leveraged the changes to MSTP grant review to secure new institutional investments to promote recruitment of students underrepresented in science; (3) MSTPs increasingly adopted holistic review to evaluate applicants to meet NIH funding requirements; (4) MSTP leadership began to systematically assess the effectiveness of their diversity initiatives and proactively identify opportunities to enhance matriculant diversity; and (5) although all MSTPs were required to respond to NIH criteria, changes made by low-performing programs generally lacked the robustness demonstrated by high-performing programs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:This study suggests that NIH funding requirements may be a powerful incentive to promote diversity and positively affect representation of students underrepresented in science in the biomedical scientific workforce.

BACKGROUND:Increasing medical school faculty diversity is an urgent priority. National Institutes of Health (NIH) diversity supplements, which provide funding and career development opportunities to individuals underrepresented in research, are an important mechanism to increase faculty diversity. OBJECTIVE:Analyze diversity supplement utilization by medical schools. DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:All R01 grant-associated diversity supplements awarded to medical schools from 2005 to 2020. Diversity supplements were identified using the publicly available NIH RePORTER database. MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:Main measures were the number of R01-associated diversity supplements awarded to medical schools each year by medical school NIH funding status and the number of R01-associated diversity supplements awarded to individual medical schools in the NIH top 40 by funding status. We also examined the percentage of R01 grants with an associated diversity supplement by NIH funding status and individual medical school in the NIH top 40. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:From 2005 to 2020, US medical school faculty received 1389 R01-associated diversity supplements. The number of diversity supplements awarded grew from 2012 to 2020, from ten to 187 for top 40 schools, and from seven to 83 for non-top 40 schools. The annual growth rate for diversity supplement awards at NIH top 40 schools (44.2%) was not significantly different than the annual growth rate among non-top 40 schools (36.2%; p = 0.68). From 2005 to 2020, the highest number of diversity supplements that an individual medical school received was 56 and the lowest number was four (mean = 24.6, SD = 11.7). The highest percentage of R01 grants with an associated diversity supplement received by a school was 4.5% and the lowest percentage was 0.79% (mean = 2.3%, SD = 0.98). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Medical schools may be missing an opportunity to address the continuing shortage of individuals historically underrepresented in biomedical science and should consider additional mechanisms to enhance diversity supplement utilization.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Urine drug screens (UDS) have unproven clinical utility in emergency department (ED) chest pain presentations. A test with such limited clinical utility may exponentiate biases in care, but little is known about the epidemiology of UDS use for this indication. We hypothesized that UDS utilization varies nationally across race and gender. METHODS:This was a retrospective observational analysis of adult ED visits for chest pain in the 2011-2019 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. We calculated the utilization of UDS across race/ethnicity and gender and then characterized predictors of use via adjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS:We analyzed 13,567 adult chest pain visits, representative of 85.8 million visits nationally. Use of UDS occurred for 4.6% of visits (95% CI 3.9%-5.4%). White females underwent UDS at 3.3% of visits (95% CI 2.5%-4.2%), and Black females at 4.1% (95% CI 2.9%-5.2%). White males were tested at 5.8% of visits (95% CI 4.4%-7.2%), while Black males were tested at 9.3% of visits (95% CI 6.4%-12.2%). A multivariate logistic regression model including race, gender, and time period shows significantly increased odds of ordering UDS for Black patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.45 (95% CI 1.11-1.90, p = 0.007)) and male patients (OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.55-2.58, p < 0.001) as compared to White patients and female patients. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We identified wide disparities in the utilization of UDS for the evaluation of chest pain. If UDS were used at the rate observed for White women, Black men would undergo nearly 50,000 fewer tests annually. Future research should weigh the potential of the UDS to magnify biases in care against the unproven clinical utility of the test.