the medical workforce is critical to improve health care access and achieve equity for resource-limited communities. Despite increased efforts to recruit diverse medical trainees, there remains a large chasm between the racial and ethnic and socioeconomic composition of the patient population and that of the physician workforce.OBJECTIVE To analyze student attrition from medical school by sociodemographic identities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis retrospective cohort study included allopathic doctor of medicine (MD)-only US medical school matriculants in academic years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The analysis was performed from July to September 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe main outcome was attrition, defined as withdrawal or dismissal from medical school for any reason. Attrition rate was explored across 3 self-reported marginalized identities: underrepresented in medicine (URiM) race and ethnicity, low income, and underresourced neighborhood status. Logistic regression was assessed for each marginalized identity and intersections across the 3 identities. RESULTS Among 33 389 allopathic MD-only medical school matriculants (51.8% male), 938 (2.8%) experienced attrition from medical school within 5 years. Compared with non-Hispanic White students (423 of 18 213 [2.3%]), those without low income (593 of 25 205 [2.3%]), and those who did not grow up in an underresourced neighborhood (661 of 27 487 [2.4%]), students who were URiM (Hispanic [110 of 2096 (5.2%); adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.41; 95% CI, 1.13-1.77], non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander [13 of 118 (11.0%); aOR, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.76-5.80], and non-Hispanic Black/African American [120 of 2104 (5.7%); aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.13-1.77]), those who had low income (345 of 8184 [4.2%]; aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15-1.54), and those from an underresourced neighborhood (277 of 5902 [4.6%]; aOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16-1.58) were more likely to experience attrition from medical school. The rate of attrition from medical school was greatest among students with all 3 marginalized identities (ie, URiM, low income, and from an underresourced neighborhood), with an attrition rate 3.7 times higher than that among students who were not URiM, did not have low income, and were not from an underresourced neighborhood (7.3% [79 of 1086] vs 1.9% [397 of 20 353]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis retrospective cohort study demonstrated a significant association of medical student attrition with individual (race and ethnicity and family income) and structural (growing up in an underresourced neighborhood) measures of marginalization. The findings highlight a need to retain students from marginalized groups in medical school.

Three-digit United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores have assumed an outsized role in residency selection decisions, creating intense pressure for medical students to obtain a high score on this exam. In February 2020, the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners announced that Step 1 would transition to pass/fail scoring beginning in 2022. The authors discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of the pass/fail scoring change for underrepresented-in-medicine (UiM) trainees. UiM students may benefit from this change because it reduces the effect of an inequitable exam; helps correct for students who attend medical schools with a curriculum heavier on nontested formative elements; and decreases stress, improves quality of life, and undermines imposter syndrome. However, this change may also precipitate unforeseen challenges, such as increased discrimination toward UiM trainees, an increase in high-stakes test failures due to a reduced focus on preparing for standardized exams, or the development of new (e.g., subject exams) or overreliance on existing (e.g., school ranking) metrics that would make UiM residency candidates less competitive. To enhance UiM representation in the future health care workforce, it is imperative that national organizations (e.g., accrediting, licensing, regulatory, professional, honor, student, and faculty), hospitals, residency programs, and patient advocacy groups undertake a shared, rigorous approach in assessing the impact of the pass/fail scoring change on UiM applicants’ selection to specialty and subspecialty residencies.

In a cohort of children with sickle cell disease (SCD) and vaso-occlusive pain visits served through South Carolina's Medicaid system over a 6-year period (N 5 523), we compared the number of vaso-occlusive pain or acute chest syndrome (ACS)/pneumonia episodes, and outpatient or acute service costs in those treated or not treated with hydroxyurea (HU). HU may be an underused intervention for SCD in this practice setting, for a variety of reasons. Treatment with HU varied greatly, appears to have been administered to more severely ill children, but was associated with a reduction in vaso-occlusive pain episodes, hospitalizations, and total costs of care within the HU cohort during a 2-3 year period of active HU treatment. Those receiving care through specialized SCD clinics were less likely to have pain or acute care episodes (RR 5 0.79, P < 0.0001; RR 5 0.90, P 5 0.01). Compared with the non-HU cohort, the HU group evinced a significantly higher risk of experiencing vaso-occlusive pain episodes (RR 5 3.32, P < 0.0001) and ACS/pneumonia episodes (RR 5 2.66, P < 0.0001), and higher outpatient, inpatient/emergency, and total service costs (RR 5 1.85, 2.11, 2.10, and P < 0.0001, respectively) over time. HU is clinically effective in reducing pain episodes, hospitalizations, and total care costs, but those receiving it might be more severely ill.Erythrocytes in children with sickle cell disease (SCD) become deoxygenated, dehydrated, and crescent-shaped, and tend to aggregate or stick to blood vessel walls, blocking blood flow within limbs and organs, causing painful episodes. These patients are frequently seen in emergency departments and hospitalized for these severe pain episodes [1]. SCD poses an enormous personal burden to these young patients and is also costly to the family and third-party payer, especially for low-income children [2]. Interventions designed to control vaso-occlusive pain episodes, and avoid hospitalizations may reduce the significant personal and economic burdens of the disease [3,4].Hydroxyurea (HU), a myelosuppressive agent, which raises the levels of Hb F [5] and of hemoglobin [6][7][8], effectively decreases the rate of painful vaso-occlusive and acute chest syndrome (ACS) episodes by 50% in adults [9][10][11][12], and is generally safe and well-tolerated in children older than 5 years of age [13]. There is strong evidence that HU reduces the frequency of hospitalization in children with SCD and moderate evidence that it decreases the frequency of painful crises [14]. Given the short-term safety profile of HU in children and its established efficacy in adults, HU is commonly used, off-label, in children with multiple painful episodes (3 per year) to reduce episode frequency and acute services utilization [15][16][17], even in children as young as 9 months.Results from a multicenter study of HU in sickle-cell anemia demonstrated that adult patients treated with HU had a 44% decrease in hospitalizations compared with those taking placebo, which accounted for the majority of cost savings in ...

No abstract

Even though OTFC reduced early postoperative agitation the increase in side effects, namely PONV and prolonged recovery times, limits its clinical usefulness. The study demonstrates the tradeoffs between anxiety and agitation vs vomiting, respiratory events and prolonged recovery times. Ambulatory pediatric patients undergoing procedures in which opioids would be routinely used might benefit the most from OTFC combined with ondansetron as part of the anesthetic technique.

ImportanceClosing the diversity gap is critical to ensure equity in medical education and health care quality. Nevertheless, evidence-based strategies and best practices to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the biomedical workforce remain poorly understood and underused. To improve the culture of DEI in graduate medical education (GME), in 2020 the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) launched the Barbara Ross-Lee, DO, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Award to recognize exceptional DEI efforts in US residency programs.ObjectiveTo identify strategies and best practices that exemplary US GME programs use to improve DEI.Design and SettingThis qualitative study performed an exploratory content analysis of award applications submitted to the ACGME over 2 cycles in 2020 and 2021, using the constant comparative method. The research team first acknowledged their own biases related to DEI, used caution to not overinterpret the data, and performed several cross-checks during data analysis to ensure confirmability of the results. A preliminary codebook was developed and used during regular adjudication sessions. Disagreements were discussed until agreements were reached.Main Outcomes and MeasuresFoundational (ie, commonly cited, high-impact, and small-effort strategies considered achievable by all programs) and aspirational (ie, potential for high impact but requiring greater effort and investment) DEI strategies used by exemplary GME programs.ResultsThis qualitative study included 29 award applications submitted between August 17, 2020, and January 11, 2022. Strategies spanned the education continuum from premedical students through faculty. Foundational strategies included working with schools, community colleges, and 4-year college campuses; providing structured support for visiting students; mission-driven holistic review for admissions and selection; interviewer trainings on implicit bias mitigation and on how racism and discrimination impact admission processes and advancement; interview-day DEI strategies; inclusive selection and DEI committees; mission statements that include DEI; and retention efforts to improve faculty diversity. Aspirational strategies included development of longitudinal bidirectional collaborations (eg, articulation agreements, annual workshops, funded rotations and/or research) with organizations working with applicants who were historically excluded and underrepresented in medicine, blinding metrics in residency applications, longitudinal curricula on DEI and health equity, and faculty mentoring such as affinity groups, mentored research, and joint academic-community recruitments. Findings provide residency program leadership with a menu of options at various inflection points to foster DEI within their programs.Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this qualitative study suggest that GME programs might adopt strategies of exemplary programs to improve DEI in residency, ensure compliance with accreditation standards, and improve health outcomes for all.

, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Board of Directors formed a planning committee to assess the state of diversity and inclusion in the graduate medical education (GME) space. The planning committee set the following as its charge: & Consider current practices in US GME focused on enhancing the clinical learning environment as it pertains to diversity and inclusion.

vation consistent across all racial and ethnic groups (Table 2). Controlling for sex and age, telemedicine was associated with lower no-show odds only for LPED patient visits (aOR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90; P < .001 vs HPED aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.12; P = .35).Discussion | We found that differences in clinic no-show rates are associated with a patient's level of economic disadvantage. The finding that telemedicine was associated with an overall improvement in clinic attendance supports previous studies; however, this improvement was not observed in visits for patients with HPED. 5,6 This lack of improvement may reflect the disproportionate COVID-19 pandemic-related stressors experienced by families using public health insurance and residing in communities with higher poverty rates.Limitations of this study include unmeasured confounders influencing clinic attendance (ie, severity of symptoms and diagnosis); the lack of individually validated patient statuses for LPED or HPED; and the unexamined generalizability to other subspecialties. However, as telemedicine continues to shape the clinical encounter landscape, these findings show that efforts are needed to ensure that all patients receive equitable care.