Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in US Anesthesiology Residency Matching.
Patient outcomes are improved with physician-patient gender, racial, and ethnic concordance. However, female, Black, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian-Pacific Islander (NH-PI), and American Indian-Native Alaskan (AI-AN) physicians are underrepresented in anesthesiology. The American Association of Medical Colleges 2018 Diversity in Medicine Report revealed that women comprise only 35% of anesthesiologists yet nearly half of medical school graduates are women. More than 77% of anesthesiologists are White or Asian. Anesthesiology applicant and match trends may provide insights needed to address underrepresentation within anesthesiology. We hypothesized that proportionally fewer women and racially and ethnically minoritized applicants apply and match into anesthesiology.
This retrospective observational study identified 47,117 anesthesiology applicants among the 546,298 residency applicants in the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) system between 2011 and 2022 and stratified applicants by self-reported gender, race, and ethnicity. The demographics of anesthesiology trainees reported in the 2014 to 2015, 2018 to 2019, and 2022 to 2023 Accreditation Counsel of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Data Resource Books were used as surrogates for matched applicants as demographics are not reported by the National Residency Match Program. To facilitate comparisons, ERAS applicants were grouped into 4-year epochs to align with consolidated ACGME reports corresponding to the application years. Odds ratios (OR); 95% confidence interval of applying to and matching into anesthesiology were analyzed.
Women had lower odds of applying to anesthesiology compared to men overall (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.54-0.56, P < .0001) and maintained significantly lowered odds of applying within each epoch. Women had similar odds of matching into anesthesiology residency compared to men (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14, P < .0001). Black, Hispanic or Latino, Asian and NH-PI, and AI-AN applicants had similar odds to White applicants of applying to anesthesiology but odds of matching were significantly lower overall ( P < .0001) for Asian and NH-PI (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.63-0.70), Black (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.45-0.53), Hispanic or Latino (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.46-0.54), and AI-AN (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.15-0.28) applicants. The odds of matching among some minoritized applicants increased in the ACGME 2022 to 2023 report year.
From 2011 to 2022, women had lower odds of applying to anesthesiology residency than men yet had similar odds of matching. Racial and ethnic minoritized groups had significantly lower odds of matching compared to White applicants despite similar odds of applying. These findings highlight disparities in the anesthesiology match and may help identify opportunities to promote workforce diversity within the field. More detailed reporting of gender, race, and ethnicity in annual match data may better define barriers to entry and identify opportunities for improvement.
Sumarli AN
，Pineda LS
，Vacaru A
，Novak E
，Brandt Z
，Reynoso EE
，Applegate RL 2nd
，McCabe MD
... -
《-》
How Did Black and Hispanic Orthopaedic Applicants and Residents Compare to General Surgery Between 2015 and 2022?
Despite the heavy demand for and knowledge of the benefits of diversity, there is a persistent lack of racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in orthopaedic surgery. Since the implementation of diversity initiatives, data have shown that general surgery has been one of the top competitive surgical fields and has demonstrated growth in racial, ethnic, and gender diversity, making general surgery a good point of reference and comparison when analyzing racial and ethnic growth in orthopaedic surgery.
(1) What were the growth rates for Black and Hispanic orthopaedic residency applicants and residents between 2015 and 2022? (2) How did the growth rates of Black and Hispanic individuals in orthopaedic surgery compare with those of general surgery? (3) How did applicant recruitment and resident acceptance differ between Black and Hispanic people in orthopaedic surgery?
Applicant data were obtained from historical specialty-specific data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Electronic Residency Application Service Statistics database between 2018 and 2022, and resident data were obtained from the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education Data Resource Book between 2015 and 2021. Between 2018 and 2022, the number of residency applicants totaled 216,677, with 17,912 Black residency applicants and 20,413 Hispanic residency applicants. Between 2015 and 2021, the number of active residents totaled 977,877, with 48,600 Black residents and 62,605 Hispanic residents. Because the applicant and resident data do not overlap throughout all years of observation, a sensitivity analysis of overlapping years (between 2018 and 2021) was conducted to ensure observed trends were consistent and valid throughout the study. All datasets obtained were used to establish the different racial and ethnic proportions of Black and Hispanic residency applicants and residents in four nonsurgical primary care specialties and four surgical subspecialties. A reference slope was created using data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education to represent the growth rate for total residency applicants and residents, independently, across all residency specialties reported in each database. This slope was used for comparison among the resident and applicant growth rates for all eight selected specialties. Datapoints were placed into a scatterplot with regression lines, using slope equations to depict rate of growth and R 2 values to depict linear fit. Applicant growth corresponded to applicant recruitment and resident growth corresponded to resident acceptance. Chi-square tests were used to compare residents and residency applicants for the Black and Hispanic populations, separately. Two-way analysis of variance with a time-by-specialty interaction term (F-test) was conducted to determine differences between growth slopes.
There was no difference in the growth rate of Black orthopaedic surgery applicants between 2018 and 2022, and there was no difference in the growth rate of Hispanic orthopaedic surgery applicants (R 2 = 0.43; p = 0.23 and R 2 = 0.63; p = 0.11, respectively). However, there was a very slight increase in the growth rate of Black orthopaedic surgery residents between 2015 and 2021, and a very slight increase in the growth rate of Hispanic orthopaedic surgery residents (R 2 = 0.73; p = 0.02 and R 2 = 0.79; p = 0.01, respectively). There were no differences in orthopaedic and general surgery rates of growth for Black applicants between 2018 and 2022 (0.004 applicants/year versus -0.001 applicants/year; p = 0.22), and no differences were found in orthopaedic and general surgery rates of growth for Black residents between 2015 and 2021 (0.003 residents/year versus 0.002 residents/year; p = 0.59). Likewise, Hispanic orthopaedic applicant growth rates did not differ between 2018 and 2022 from the rates of general surgery (0.004 applicants/year versus 0.005 applicants/year; p = 0.68), and there were no differences in orthopaedic and general surgery rates of growth for Hispanic residents (0.007 residents/year versus 0.01 residents/year; p = 0.35). Furthermore, growth rate comparisons between Black orthopaedic applicants and residents between 2018 and 2021 showed applicant growth was larger than resident growth, illustrating that the recruitment of Black applicants increased slightly more rapidly than resident acceptance. Growth rate comparisons between Hispanic applicants and residents showed a larger rate of resident growth, illustrating Hispanic resident acceptance increased slightly faster than applicant recruitment during that time.
We found low acceptance of Black residents compared with the higher recruitment of Black applicants, as well as overall low proportions of Black and Hispanic applicants and residents. Future studies might explore the factors contributing to the higher acceptances of Hispanic orthopaedic residents than Black orthopaedic residents.
We recommend that more emphasis should be placed on increasing Black and Hispanic representation at the department level to ensure cultural considerations remain at the forefront of applicant recruitment. Internal or external reviews of residency selection processes should be considered, and more immersive, longitudinal orthopaedic surgery clerkships and research mentorship experiences should be targeted toward Black and Hispanic students. Holistic reviews of applications and selection processes should be implemented to produce an increased racially and ethnically diverse applicant pool and a diverse residency work force, and implicit bias training should be implemented to address potential biases and diversity barriers that are present in residency programs and leadership.
Williams AJ
，Malewicz JI
，Pum JM
，Zurakowski D
，Day CS
... -
《-》
What are the Trends in Racial Diversity Among Orthopaedic Applicants, Residents, and Faculty?
Orthopaedic surgery has recruited fewer applicants from underrepresented in medicine (UIM) racial groups than many other specialties, and recent studies have shown that although applicants from UIM racial groups are competitive for orthopaedic surgery, they enter the specialty at lower rates. Although previous studies have measured trends in orthopaedic surgery applicant, resident, or attending diversity in isolation, these populations are interdependent and therefore should be analyzed together. It is unclear how racial diversity among orthopaedic applicants, residents, and faculty has changed over time and how it compares with other surgical and medical specialties.
(1) How has the proportion of orthopaedic applicants, residents, and faculty from UIM and White racial groups changed between 2016 and 2020? (2) How does representation of orthopaedic applicants from UIM and White racial groups compare with that of other surgical and medical specialties? (3) How does representation of orthopaedic residents from UIM and White racial groups compare with that of other surgical and medical specialties? (4) How does representation of orthopaedic faculty from UIM and White racial groups compare with that of other surgical and medical specialties?
We drew racial representation data for applicants, residents, and faculty between 2016 and 2020. Applicant data on racial groups was obtained for 10 surgical and 13 medical specialties from the Association of American Medical Colleges Electronic Residency Application Services report, which annually publishes demographic data on all medical students applying to residency through Electronic Residency Application Services. Resident data on racial groups were obtained for the same 10 surgical and 13 medical specialties from the Journal of the American Medical Association Graduate Medical Education report, which annually publishes demographic data on residents in residency training programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Faculty data on racial groups were obtained for four surgical and 12 medical specialties from the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster United States Medical School Faculty report, which annually publishes demographic data of active faculty at United States allopathic medical schools. UIM racial groups include American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and Native American or Other Pacific Islander. Chi-square tests were performed to compare representation of UIM and White groups among orthopaedic applicants, residents, and faculty between 2016 and 2020. Further, chi-square tests were performed to compare aggregate representation of applicants, residents, and faculty from UIM and White racial groups in orthopaedic surgery to aggregate representation among other surgical and medical specialties with available data.
The proportion of orthopaedic applicants from UIM racial groups increased between 2016 to 2020 from 13% (174 of 1309) to 18% (313 of 1699, absolute difference 0.051 [95% CI 0.025 to 0.078]; p < 0.001). The proportion of orthopaedic residents (9.6% [347 of 3617] to 10% [427 of 4242]; p = 0.48) and faculty (4.7% [186 of 3934] to 4.7% [198 of 4234]; p = 0.91) from UIM racial groups did not change from 2016 to 2020. There were more orthopaedic applicants from UIM racial groups (15% [1151 of 7446]) than orthopaedic residents from UIM racial groups (9.8% [1918 of 19,476]; p < 0.001). There were also more orthopaedic residents from UIM groups (9.8% [1918 of 19,476]) than orthopaedic faculty from UIM groups (4.7% [992 of 20,916], absolute difference 0.051 [95% CI 0.046 to 0.056]; p < 0.001). The proportion of orthopaedic applicants from UIM groups (15% [1151 of 7446]) was greater than that of applicants to otolaryngology (14% [446 of 3284], absolute difference 0.019 [95% CI 0.004 to 0.033]; p = 0.01), urology (13% [319 of 2435], absolute difference 0.024 [95% CI 0.007 to 0.039]; p = 0.005), neurology (12% [1519 of 12,862], absolute difference 0.036 [95% CI 0.027 to 0.047]; p < 0.001), pathology (13% [1355 of 10,792], absolute difference 0.029 [95% CI 0.019 to 0.039]; p < 0.001), and diagnostic radiology (14% [1635 of 12,055], absolute difference 0.019 [95% CI 0.009 to 0.029]; p < 0.001), and it was not different from that of applicants to neurosurgery (16% [395 of 2495]; p = 0.66), plastic surgery (15% [346 of 2259]; p = 0.87), interventional radiology (15% [419 of 2868]; p = 0.28), vascular surgery (17% [324 of 1887]; p = 0.07), thoracic surgery (15% [199 of 1294]; p = 0.94), dermatology (15% [901 of 5927]; p = 0.68), internal medicine (15% [18,182 of 124,214]; p = 0.05), pediatrics (16% [5406 of 33,187]; p = 0.08), and radiation oncology (14% [383 of 2744]; p = 0.06). The proportion of orthopaedic residents from UIM groups (9.8% [1918 of 19,476]) was greater than UIM representation among residents in otolaryngology (8.7% [693 of 7968], absolute difference 0.012 [95% CI 0.004 to 0.019]; p = 0.003), interventional radiology (7.4% [51 of 693], absolute difference 0.025 [95% CI 0.002 to 0.043]; p = 0.03), and radiation oncology (7.9% [289 of 3659], absolute difference 0.020 [95% CI 0.009 to 0.029]; p < 0.001), and it was not different from UIM representation among residents in plastic surgery (9.3% [386 of 4129]; p = 0.33), urology (9.7% [670 of 6877]; p = 0.80), dermatology (9.9% [679 of 6879]; p = 0.96), and diagnostic radiology (10% [2215 of 22,076]; p = 0.53). The proportion of orthopaedic faculty from UIM groups (4.7% [992 of 20,916]) was not different from UIM representation among faculty in otolaryngology (4.8% [553 of 11,413]; p = 0.68), neurology (5.0% [1533 of 30,871]; p = 0.25), pathology (4.9% [1129 of 23,206]; p = 0.55), and diagnostic radiology (4.9% [2418 of 49,775]; p = 0.51). Compared with other surgical and medical specialties with available data, orthopaedic surgery had the highest proportion of White applicants (62% [4613 of 7446]), residents (75% [14,571 of 19,476]), and faculty (75% [15,785 of 20,916]).
Orthopaedic applicant representation from UIM groups has increased over time and is similar to that of several surgical and medical specialties, suggesting relative success with efforts to recruit more students from UIM groups. However, the proportion of orthopaedic residents and UIM groups has not increased accordingly, and this is not because of a lack of applicants from UIM groups. In addition, UIM representation among orthopaedic faculty has not changed and may be partially explained by the lead time effect, but increased attrition among orthopaedic residents from UIM groups and racial bias likely also play a role. Further interventions and research into the potential difficulties faced by orthopaedic applicants, residents, and faculty from UIM groups are necessary to continue making progress.
A diverse physician workforce is better suited to address healthcare disparities and provide culturally competent patient care. Representation of orthopaedic applicants from UIM groups has improved over time, but further research and interventions are necessary to diversify orthopaedic surgery to ultimately provide better care for all orthopaedic patients.
Kalyanasundaram G
，Mener A
，DiCaprio MR
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
