Impact of holistic review on diversity of interviewed and matriculating residents in graduate medical education: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Diversity in the physician workforce improves patient-centred outcomes. Patients are more likely to trust in and comply with care when seeing gender/racially concordant providers. A current emphasis on standardised metrics in academic achievement often serves as a barrier to the recruitment and retention of gender and racial minorities in medicine. Holistic review of residency applicants has been supported as a means of encouraging diversification but is not yet standardised. The current body of evidence examining the effects of holistic review on the recruitment of racial and gender minorities in surgical residencies is small. We therefore propose a systematic review to summarise the state of holistic review in graduate medical education in the USA and its impact on diversification. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our systematic review protocol has been designed with plans to report our review findings in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. PubMed and Embase will be searched with the assistance of a health sciences librarian with expertise in systematic review. We will include studies of graduate medical education programmes that describe the implementation of holistic review, outline the components of their holistic review process and compare proportions of under-represented minorities (URM) and women interviewed and matriculating before and after holistic review implementation. We will first report a summary of the findings regarding the operationalisation of holistic review as described by studies included. We will then pool the percentages of URM and women for interviewee and matriculant populations from each study and report the collective odds ratios of each for holistic review compared with traditional review as our primary outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is a protocol for systematic review, and therefore does not involve any human subjects. Findings will be published in the form of a manuscript submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023401389.

Colorectal Cancer Safety Net: Is It Catching Patients Appropriately?

BACKGROUND: Disparities in access to colorectal cancer care are multifactorial and are affected by socioeconomic elements. Uninsured and Medicaid patients present with advanced stage disease and have worse outcomes compared with similar privately insured patients. Safety net hospitals are a major care provider to this vulnerable population. Few studies have evaluated outcomes for safety net hospitals compared with private institutions in colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare demographics, screening rates, presentation stage, and survival rates between a safety net hospital and a tertiary care center. DESIGN: Comparative review of patients at 2 institutions in the same metropolitan area were conducted. SETTINGS: The study included colorectal cancer care delivered either at 1 safety net hospital or 1 private tertiary care center in the same city from 2010 to 2016. PATIENTS: A total of 350 patients with colorectal cancer from each hospital were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall survival across hospital systems was measured. RESULTS: The safety net hospital had significantly more uninsured and Medicaid patients (46% vs 13%; p < 0.001) and a significantly lower median household income than the tertiary care center ($39,299 vs $49,741; p < 0.0001). At initial presentation, a similar percentage of patients at each hospital presented with stage IV disease (26% vs 20%; p = 0.06). For those undergoing resection, final pathologic stage distribution was similar across groups (p = 0.10). After a comparable median follow-up period (26.6 mo for safety net hospital vs 29.2 mo for tertiary care center), log-rank test for overall survival favored the safety net hospital (p = 0.05); disease-free survival was similar between hospitals (p = 0.40). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective review, reporting from medical charts. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the value of safety net hospitals for providing quality colorectal cancer care, with survival and recurrence outcomes equivalent or improved compared with a local tertiary care center. Because safety net hospitals can provide equivalent outcomes despite socioeconomic inequalities and financial constraints, emphasis should be focused on ensuring that adequate funding for these institutions continues. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A454.