Relationship between individual and country-level socio-economic background, USMLE step scores, and demographics of international medical graduates and residency match results.

PURPOSE: Twenty five percent of practicing physicians in the US are International Medical Graduates (IMGs) - physicians who completed their medical school training outside of the United States and Canada. There are multiple studies demonstrating higher socio-economic background is associated with medical school matriculation in the US. However, despite a substantial prevalence of IMGs in the American healthcare system, studies of the association between demographics, socio-economic background, and securing a residency position in the match are lacking. METHODS: We created a survey with questions on residency match-related data and information on personal socio-economic background. An invitation to participate in the study was sent to all IMGs that applied to the included residency programs after the conclusion of the 2022 residency match. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare survey responses to the odds of securing a residency match. RESULTS: The total number of survey respondents was 744 (response rate 15.1%). We found that younger age, higher United States Medical License Examination (USMLE) scores, higher-income country of origin (including the United States), fewer match attempts, applying to fewer specialties, having parents with college degree or higher, and coming from higher-than-average or lower-than-average family income were independently associated with increased odds of matching. Gender, personal income, and visa status did not demonstrate significant associations with residency match. CONCLUSIONS: Residency match is a significant expense for IMGs, especially for those from lower-income countries. International applicants from higher socio-economic backgrounds might have advantages in securing medical residency positions in the United States when controlling for other variables.

Comparison of clinical note quality between an automated digital intake tool and the standard note in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Medical encounters require an efficient and focused history of present illness (HPI) to create differential diagnoses and guide diagnostic testing and treatment. Our aim was to compare the HPI of notes created by an automated digital intake tool versus standard medical notes created by clinicians. METHODS: Prospective trial in a quaternary academic Emergency Department (ED). Notes were compared using the 5-point Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) scale and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) level of complexity index. Reviewers were board certified emergency medicine physicians blinded to note origin. Reviewers received training and calibration prior to note assessments. A difference of 1 point was considered clinically significant. Analysis included McNemar's (binary), Wilcoxon-rank (Likert), and agreement with Cohen's Kappa. RESULTS: A total of 148 ED medical encounters were charted by both digital note and standard clinical note. The ability to capture patient information was assessed through comparison of note content across paired charts (digital-standard note on the same patient), as well as scores given by the reviewers. Reviewer agreement was kappa 0.56 (CI 0.49-0.64), indicating moderate level of agreement between reviewers scoring the same patient chart. Considering all 18 questions across PDQI-9 and CMS scales, the average agreement between standard clinical note and digital note was 54.3% (IQR 44.4-66.7%). There was a moderate level of agreement between content of standard and digital notes (kappa 0.54, 95%CI 0.49-0.60). The quality of the digital note was within the 1 point clinically significant difference for all of the attributes, except for conciseness. Digital notes had a higher frequency of CMS severity elements identified. CONCLUSION: Digitally generated clinical notes had moderate agreement compared to standard clinical notes and within the one point clinically significant difference except for the conciseness attribute. Digital notes more reliably documented billing components of severity. The use of automated notes should be further explored to evaluate its utility in facilitating documentation of patient encounters.

What is the effect of a decision aid in potentially vulnerable parents? Insights from the head CT choice randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses that use of the Head CT Choice decision aid would be similarly effective in all parent/patient dyads but parents with high (vs low) numeracy experience a greater increase in knowledge while those with low (vs high) health literacy experience a greater increase in trust. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial conducted at seven sites. One hundred seventy-two clinicians caring for 971 children at intermediate risk for clinically important traumatic brain injuries were randomized to shared decision making facilitated by the DA (n = 493) or to usual care (n = 478). We assessed for subgroup effects based on patient and parent characteristics, including socioeconomic status (health literacy, numeracy and income). We tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site. RESULTS: The decision aid did not increase knowledge more in parents with high numeracy (P for interaction [Pint ] = 0.14) or physician trust more in parents with low health literacy (Pint  = 0.34). The decision aid decreased decisional conflict more in non-white parents (decisional conflict scale, -8.14, 95% CI: -12.33 to -3.95; Pint  = 0.05) and increased physician trust more in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents (trust in physician scale, OR: 8.59, 95% CI: 2.35-14.83; Pint  = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Head CT Choice decision aid resulted in less decisional conflict in non-white parents and greater physician trust in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents. Decision aids may be particularly effective in potentially vulnerable parents.