Gender Disparity in Full Professor Rank Among Academic Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: The gender gap in promotion in academic medicine is well established. However, few studies have reported gender differences in promotion adjusted for scholarly production and national or international reputation, namely, career duration, publications, grant funding, and leadership positions. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the differences between men and women in achieving benchmarks for promotion and analyze where such differences lie geographically and within specialties. METHOD: A systematic search of Academic Search Premier, Business Source Complete, Cochrane Library, ERIC, GenderWatch, Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to August 17, 2022. All studies that reported the number of male and female full professors on medical school faculty were included. The primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for promotion to full professor for women compared with men. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The unadjusted OR for promotion to full professor for women was 0.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.41). Sixteen studies reported an AOR. The pooled AOR of promotion for women to full professor was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46-0.77). The AOR for promotion to full professor was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.88) in surgery and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57-1.11) in internal medicine. Statistical heterogeneity was high ( Q = 66.6, I2 = 79.4%, P < .001). On meta-regression, 77% of the heterogeneity was from studies outside the United States, where more disparity was reported (AOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22-0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Most studies continued to find decreased promotion of women. Gender disparity was particularly notable in surgery and in studies from outside the United States. The results suggest that differences in promotion were due to differences in productivity and leadership and to gender bias.

Prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors in hospitalised adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic error is commonly defined as a missed, delayed or wrong diagnosis and has been described as among the most important patient safety hazards. Diagnostic errors also account for the largest category of medical malpractice high severity claims and total payouts. Despite a large literature on the incidence of inpatient adverse events, no systematic review has attempted to estimate the prevalence and nature of harmful diagnostic errors in hospitalised patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane library from database inception through 9 July 2019. We included all studies of hospitalised adult patients that used physician review of case series of admissions and reported the frequency of diagnostic adverse events. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Harmful diagnostic error rates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies including 80 026 patients and 760 harmful diagnostic errors from consecutive or randomly selected cohorts were pooled. The pooled rate was 0.7% (95% CI 0.5% to 1.1%). Of the 136 diagnostic errors that were described in detail, a wide range of diseases were missed, the most common being malignancy (n=15, 11%) and pulmonary embolism (n=13, 9.6%). In the USA, these estimates correspond to approximately 249 900 harmful diagnostic errors yearly. CONCLUSION: Based on physician review, at least 0.7% of adult admissions involve a harmful diagnostic error. A wide range of diseases are missed, including many common diseases. Fourteen diagnoses account for more than half of all diagnostic errors. The finding that a wide range of common diagnoses are missed implies that efforts to improve diagnosis must target the basic processes of diagnosis, including both cognitive and system-related factors. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018115186.

Stethoscope hygiene: Using cultures and real-time feedback with bioluminescence-based adenosine triphosphate technology to change behavior.

BACKGROUND: Stethoscope hygiene is rarely done despite guideline recommendations. We wanted to determine whether demonstrating what is growing on the stethoscopes of providers via culture or bioluminescence technology alters perceptions and improves compliance. METHODS: Providers were given the opportunity to (1) culture their stethoscopes before and after disinfection with alcohol pads, alcohol-based hand rub, or hydrogen peroxide disinfectant wipes and (2) swab stethoscopes for bioluminescence-based adenosine triphosphate testing before and after disinfection. Outcomes were observed for hand and stethoscope hygiene rates and before and after intervention survey responses. The bacteria that were isolated, colony-forming units (CFU), and bioluminescence scores were tracked. RESULTS: A total of 1,245 observed hand hygiene opportunities showed that compliance improved from 72.5%-82.3% (P < .001). In addition, 590 observed patient-provider encounters revealed no significant change in stethoscope hygiene rates of 10% initially and 5% afterward (P = .08), although self-reported rates trended from 56%- 67% postintervention (P = .06). Perceptions regarding stethoscope hygiene importance improved (8.5/10 to 9.3/10; P = .04). Disinfection with alcohol pads, alcohol-based hand rub, and hydrogen peroxide disinfectant wipes were equivalent in CFU reduction (P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: Showing providers what is growing on their stethoscopes via cultures and bioluminescence technology before and after disinfection improved "buy in" regarding stethoscope hygiene importance. Both methods were rated as having an equal impact, however, objective observations failed to show improvement.

Native Joint Septic Arthritis: Comparison of Outcomes with Medical and Surgical Management.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differences in the outcomes of native joint septic arthritis (SA) in adults, based on medical versus surgical management. METHODS: A 10-year retrospective single-center study was conducted of patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015 with a diagnosis of SA to compare outcomes based on the management approach taken: medical (bedside closed-needle joint aspiration) versus surgical (arthrotomy/arthroscopy). Evaluated outcomes included joint recovery, time to recovery, length of stay, disposition to home versus rehabilitation unit, recurrence of SA in the same joint, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 118 confirmed cases of SA, 48 were in prosthetic joints and 70 were in native joints, and 61 met our inclusion criteria. Forty-one (67%) patients received surgery, and 20 (33%) received closed-needle aspiration. There was no statistically significant difference in long-term outcomes between the two groups at 12 months. Patients managed medically were more likely to experience full recovery at 3 months and were less likely to need short-term rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Medical management with closed-needle aspiration may be an adequate approach to the treatment of native joint infections.

Auricular Acupuncture and Skin-Cancer Detection: An Opportunity.

Background: Auricular acupuncture is effective for many patients with pain. Many skin malignancies and precancerous lesions are found on the head and neck. Practitioners of acupuncture are in a unique situation to detect cutaneous malignancy at an early state. Case: An 83-year-old man referred for Battlefield Acupuncture was found to have a scalp lesion suspicious for malignancy as well as several precancerous lesions. Results: Referral to a dermatologist led to excision of a basal-cell cancer and treatment of actinic keratoses. Conclusions: Practitioners of auricular acupuncture should be familiar with common skin cancers and precancerous lesions; these practitioners are in a unique situation to detect these common skin lesions.