Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma 1991: presidential address

History of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Trauma Surgery: for Our Patients, for Our Profession, and for Ourselves

Purpose of Review

Disparities exist in outcome after injury, particularly related to race, ethnicity, socioeconomics, geography, and age. The mechanisms for this outcome disparity continue to be investigated. As trauma care providers, we are challenged to be mindful of and mitigate the impact of these disparities so that all patients realize the same opportunities for recovery. As surgeons, we also have varied professional experiences and opportunities for achievement and advancement depending upon our gender, ethnicity, race, religion, and sexual orientation. Even within a profession associated with relative affluence, socioeconomic status conveys different professional opportunities for surgeons.

Recent Findings

Fortunately, the profession of trauma surgery has undergone significant progress in raising awareness of patient and professional inequity among trauma patients and surgeons and has implemented systematic changes to diminish these inequities. Herein we will discuss the history of equity and inclusion in trauma surgery as it has affected our patients, our profession, and our individual selves.

Summary

Our goal is to provide a historical context, a status report, and a list of key initiatives or objectives on which all of us must focus. In doing so, the best possible clinical outcomes can be achieved for patients and the best professional and personal "outcomes" can be achieved for practicing and future trauma surgeons.

Training in trauma surgery: quantitative and qualitative aspects of a new paradigm for fellowship

OBJECTIVE

To describe outcomes from a clinical trauma surgical education program that places the board-eligible/board-certified fellow in the role of the attending surgeon (fellow-in-exception [FIE]) during the latter half of a 2-year trauma/surgical critical care fellowship.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

National discussions have begun to explore the question of optimal methods for postresidency training in surgery. Few objective studies are available to evaluate current training models.

METHODS

We analyzed provider-specific data from both our trauma registry and performance improvement (PI) databases. In addition, we performed TRISS analysis when all data were available. Registry and PI data were analyzed as 2 groups (faculty trauma surgeons and FIEs) to determine experience, safety, and trends in errors. We also surveyed graduate fellows using a questionnaire that evaluated perceptions of training and experience on a 6-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

During a 4-year period 7,769 trauma patients were evaluated, of which 46.3% met criteria to be submitted to the PA Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS, ie, more severe injury). The faculty group saw 5,885 patients (2,720 PTOS); the FIE group saw 1,884 patients (879 PTOS). The groups were similar in respect to mechanism of injury (74% blunt; 26% penetrating both groups) and injury severity (mean ISS faculty 10.0; FIEs 9.5). When indexed to patient contacts, FIEs did more operations than the faculty group (28.4% versus 25.6%; P < 0.05). Death rates were similar between groups (faculty 10.5%; FIEs 10.0%). Analysis of deaths using PI and TRISS data failed to demonstrate differences between the groups. Analysis of provider-specific errors demonstrated a slightly higher rate for FIEs when compared with faculty when indexed to PTOS cases (4.1% versus 2.1%; P < 0.01). For both groups, errors in management were more common than errors in technique. Twenty-one (91%) of twenty-three surveys were returned. Fellows' feelings of preparedness to manage complex trauma patients improved during the fellowship (mean 3.2 prior to fellowship versus 4.5 after first year versus 5.8 after FIE year; P < 0.05 by ANOVA). Eighty percent rated the FIE educational experience "great -5" or "exceptional- 6." Eighty-five percent consider the current structure of the fellowship (with FIE year) as ideal. Ninety percent would repeat the fellowship.

CONCLUSION

The educational experience and training improvement offered by the inclusion of a FIE period during a trauma fellowship is exceptional. Patient outcomes are unchanged. The potential for an increased error rate is present during this period of clinical autonomy and must be addressed when designing the methods of supervision of care to assure concurrent senior staff review.

Trauma care fellowships: current status and future survival

BACKGROUND AND METHODS

To determine the current status and future direction of trauma care fellowships, a phone survey was conducted with the 45 program directors reporting information to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

RESULTS

Forty programs (89%) were operational, with 86 positions. The duration of the fellowship was 1 year for 16 (40%) and 2 or more years for 24 (60%). Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accreditation (ACGME) (for surgical critical care) was held by 28 (70%). Mean salary was $39,600 at the first-year level. A funding shift from institutional to practice revenue sources is foreseen. Thirteen directors (32.5%) saw future recruitment potential as increasing and 11 (27.5%) saw it as decreasing.

CONCLUSION

The essence, structure, and funding of trauma fellowships are changing. One-year exclusive trauma fellowships are being replaced by 1- to 2-year trauma or surgical critical care fellowships with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accreditation increasingly seen as essential. The challenge for fellowships in an era of budgetary constraints will be to provide adequate training in the full spectrum of tramatology within a reasonable time frame supported by a predictable funding mechanism.