Beyond recognition: Practical steps to inclusion in academic surgery

How Do Academic Medicine Pathways Differ for Underrepresented Trainees and Physicians? A Critical Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Academic medicine faces difficulty recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce. The proportion of medical students who are underrepresented in medicine (URiM) is smaller than the proportion of URiM's in the general population, and these numbers worsen with each step up the academic medicine ladder. Previously known as the "leaky pipeline," this phenomenon may be better understood as disparate "pathways with potholes," which acknowledges the different structural barriers that URiM trainees and faculty face in academic medicine. This critical scoping review analyzed current literature to determine what variables contribute to the inequitable "pathways and potholes" URiM physicians experience in academic medicine.

METHOD

The authors combined scoping review methodology with a critical lens. The comprehensive search strategy used terms about academic medicine, underrepresented groups, and leaving academic medical careers. One reviewer conducted screening, full text review, and data extraction while in consultation with members of the research team. Data extraction focused on themes related to pathways and potholes, such as attrition, recruitment, and retention in academic medicine. Themes were iteratively merged, and quality of contribution to the field and literature gaps were noted.

RESULTS

Included papers clustered into attrition, recruitment, and retention. Those pertaining to attrition noted that URiM faculty are less likely to get promoted even when controlling for scholarly output, and a hostile work environment may exacerbate attrition. Recruitment and retention strategies were most effective when multi-pronged approaches changed every step of the recruitment and promotion processes.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies provide examples of various "potholes" that can affect representation in academic medicine of URiM trainees and faculty. However, only a few studies examined the link between isolating and hostile work environments, the so-called "chilly climate," and attrition from academic medicine. Understanding these concepts is key to producing the most effective interventions to improve diversity in medicine.

Analysis of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives Presented Across US Academic Department of Surgery Websites in 2021

Despite increased attention devoted to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within academic medicine, representation, lack of workforce and leadership diversity, and bias within medicine remain persistent problems. The purpose of the current study was to understand the current efforts and attention to DEI within academic departments of surgery in the United States. 251 department of surgery websites were reviewed, using a standardized data collection form and scoring procedure, accompanied by a 10 percent fidelity check by an independent reviewer. Only 16% of departments of surgery included DEI-specific information, such as a DEI mission statement or initiatives on their departmental sites, with less than seven percent of departments reporting a DEI committee. Such public information may have implications for recruitment and retention of diverse faculty and trainees, downstream effects for patient care, and could be critical to public accountability to improve diversity and create a culture of equity and inclusion.

Leadership Diversity in the Association of Program Directors in Surgery: A Report of Progress

BACKGROUND

Across the last several years, numerous surgical departments and societies have focused on addressing the lack of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the field. Since the Association of Program Directors in Surgery (APDS) Diversity and Inclusion Taskforce was created in 2017 (and solidified as a formal committee in 2018, herein referred to as the APDS-DIC), it has sought to address gaps in diversity at various phases of training and development from medical student to surgical leader.

OBJECTIVE

In follow-up to a 2018 study that benchmarked leadership demographics of the APDS, this study analyzed how the APDS' efforts have aligned with recommended DEI strategies and whether this produced demographic changes in organizational leadership.

METHODS

Fifteen years (2008-2022) of publicly available APDS annual meeting program data and APDS membership lists were analyzed. Leadership positions in the organization were examined by officer, program/vice chair, executive committee, and board of directors. A 2-tailed T-test compared differences in the average proportion of leaders from specific demographic groups before and after the APDS-DIC inception (2008-2016 vs. 2017-2022).

RESULTS

APDS has 724 unique faculty and 140 resident members. The majority of both groups identified as White (68% of faculty and 58% of residents). Over 15 years, there have been 307 available leadership positions held by 67 individuals. All presidents and president-elect positions have been held by White surgeons; nearly 80% have been men. The average proportion of female leaders and the average proportion of racial/ethnic minority leaders were both significantly higher after implementation of the APDS-DIC in 2017 (p=0.0009 for gender and p=0.036 for racial/ethnic minorities).

CONCLUSIONS

The APDS' commitment to DEI efforts and establishment of the APDS-DIC in 2017 was associated with a significant increase in women and non-White minorities in organizational leadership positions. The specific role of the APDS-DIC in propelling surgeons from underrepresented groups into leadership and promoting key DEI efforts is broadly applicable to other surgical organizations.

Confronting the Scope of LGBT Inequity in Surgery

This landmark paper traces anti-LGBT discrimination in surgery from history to present with particular analysis of discrimination against patients, providers, and within faith-based and military While research alone will not end healthcare iniquity, the work cannot begin until the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” era of scholarship on ends. institutions.

Discrimination against marginalized individuals is an epidemic in American Healthcare. Research regarding gender- and race- based discrimination in healthcare and surgery is robust; scholarship on anti-LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender; see Table 1 for explanations of commonly used terms) discrimination is woefully lacking. A Pubmed search of the top 10 Surgical Journals by h-index for the terms “Gay” “Lesbian” “LGBT” or “LGBTQ” turns up a single relevant article (1 ). This is despite the myriad of inequities LGBT surgeons and LGBT surgical patients face. The history of LGBT identity and discrimination has led to inequitable systems at both the structural and interpersonal level which are mutually reinforcing and synergistically harmful to patients (see figure 1 ). Addressing such inequities in surgery will require continual individual, systemic, and structural changes. Delineating all these changes is beyond the scope of any one paper. However, improving and sustaining LGBT equity cannot begin without first providing a common background to create change upon.

This paper seeks to correct the discursive gap.

Surgical research journals - Under review: An assessment of diversity among editorial boards and outcomes of peer review

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed racism as a public health crisis embedded in structural processes. Editors of surgical research journals pledged their commitment to improve structure and process through increasing diversity in the peer review and editorial process; however, little benchmarking data are available.

Methods

A survey of editorial board members from high impact surgical research journals captured self-identified demographics. Analysis of manuscript submissions from 2016 to 2020 compared acceptance for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-focused manuscripts to overall rates.

Results

25.6% of respondents were female, 2.9% Black, and 3.3% Hispanic. There was variation in the diversity among journals and in the proportion of DEI submissions they attract, but no clear correlation between DEI acceptance rates and board diversity.

Conclusions

Diversity among board members reflects underrepresentation of minorities seen among surgeons nationally. Recruitment and retention of younger individuals, representing more diverse backgrounds, may be a strategy for change. DEI publication rates may benefit from calls for increasing DEI scholarship more so than changes to the peer review process.