TimesUpPRS: A Social Media Movement for Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Plastic Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Minority representation and promotion in medicine is lacking. Social media can facilitate change by raising awareness of biases, empowering others, and cultivating connections. The TimesUpPRS Instagram account was created in March 2020 to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in plastic surgery by celebrating surgeons of diverse identities and emphasizing the need to create safe, fair, and equitable workplaces. We aim to characterize its content, audience demographics, engagement, and impact. METHODS: All TimesUpPRS posts published until March 2022 were reviewed for content analysis. Audience demographics were assessed through Instagram Insights. Engagement was assessed through likes, comments, and posts tagging @TimesUpPRS. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five posts have been published, with 45.9% original content. These posts discuss representation or treatment of women (39.7%), Black (24.2%), Asian and Pacific Islander (14.4%), LGBTQ+ (12.7%), LatinX (6.5%), people of color overall (4.8%), first generation-low income (1.7%), and Native American (1.1%) individuals. 45.1% aimed to raise social awareness, 19.4% spotlighted plastic surgery figures, 16.3% highlighted research, and 5.6% advertised opportunities for community involvement. The mean (SE) number of hashtags utilized was 10.9 (0.6), with #ilooklikeasurgeon used most. There were 2052 followers, but 10,025 accounts reached. Of reached accounts, 66.8% were women, 71.8% were from the U.S., and 55% were aged 25 to 34. The mean (SE) number of likes and comments per post was 62.2 (3.4) and 2.6 (0.2). 85.0% of comments were supportive. Three hundred sixty-six posts tagged @TimesUpPRS. TimesUpPRS has also garnered industry and private sponsorship, inspired DEI programming, and collaborated with multiple other organizations. CONCLUSIONS: In 2 years, TimesUpPRS has generated 350+ posts and reached 10,000+ accounts. Content highlighted figures of diverse identities and cultivated high, positive engagement. Now with 20 content creators, TimesUpPRS will continue increasing content, expanding its audience, and fostering impactful discussion that helps shift the existing culture to one of inclusivity and equity.

The Medical Student Race to Research: Who Presents More at National Plastic Surgery Conferences?

BACKGROUND: presentations increase research output and facilitate networking for medical students applying to plastic surgery. We aim to determine predictors of increased medical student presentation at national plastic surgery conferences, identifying disparities in access to research opportunities. METHODS: Abstracts presented at the 2 most recent meetings of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Association of Plastic Surgeons, and Plastic Surgery Research Council were extracted from online archives. Presenters without MDs or other professional credentials were classified as medical students. Presenter gender, medical school ranking, plastic surgery division/department, National Institutes of Health funding, number of total and first-author publications, H-index, and research fellowship completion status were recorded. Students with 3 or more (>75th percentile) presentations were compared with those with less by χ2 tests. Univariate and multivariable regressions identified factors associated with 3 or more presentations. RESULTS: Of 1576 abstracts, 549 (34.8%) were presented by 314 students. The gender distribution was 46.5% male and 53.5% female. Most were from the Northeast (36.9%), 35% came from top 20 medical schools, and 85% attended schools with home plastic surgery programs. While 61.8% presented once, 14.6% presented 3 or more times. Those who previously presented, completed research fellowships or had more publications or higher H-indices were likely to present more ( P ≤ 0.007). On multivariable-adjusted analysis, completing research fellowships (odds ratio [OR], 2.34-2.52; P = 0.028-0.045), affiliation with institutions having higher National Institutes of Health funding (OR, 3.47-3.73; P = 0.004-0.006), or having more total number of publications (OR, 3.81; P = 0.018) or first-author publications (OR, 3.84; P = 0.008) was associated with 3 or more presentations. Presenter gender, geographic region, medical school ranking, home program status, and H-indices were not significant predictors on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: There are several potential inequities in access to research opportunities for medical students, disadvantaging those with less well-funded plastic surgery programs and existing research experience. Improving the equitability of these opportunities is crucial for limiting bias in trainee recruitment and diversifying representation in the field.

Are Opioids Out? Assessing Prescription Patterns in Plastic Surgery Using Medicare Part D Beneficiary Data.

INTRODUCTION: Since 1999, nearly 841,000 individuals have died from overdoses, 29% involving prescription opioids. Use of opioids for postoperative pain lacks evidence-based guidelines, and despite studies showing the efficacy of nonopioid agents in reducing postoperative morbidity, opioids are still routinely prescribed. However, multiple states are adopting prescription drug monitoring programs and prescription drug laws. The authors sought to investigate recent opioid prescription patterns among plastic surgeons. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used "Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Part D Prescriber" provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from 2016 to 2018. Entries were filtered to include plastic surgeons. Demographic variables included surgeon sex, geographic region and state, board certification status, and length of experience. The surgeon's practice was designated as academic, private, or both. Outcomes included total opioid claims, opioid prescriber rate, and days per claim. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for statistical comparison (α = .05). RESULTS: From 2016 to 2018, plastic surgeons wrote 289,525 opioid prescriptions for 1,729,523 days (6.0 days per prescription), totaling $3,346,979.39. In 2018, 62.2% of plastic surgeons prescribed 0 to 10 opioids, 36.5% prescribed 11 to 50 opioids, and 1.3% prescribed more than 50. Furthermore, 99.5% of plastic surgeons prescribing opioids are practicing in metropolitan areas (rural-urban commuting area codes 1-3). Plastic surgeons who were male or were board certified had significantly lower opioid prescriber rates (P < 0.001). There were no significant variations in outcomes by length of surgeon experience. Geographic region was significantly associated with opioid prescription rates and days per claim, with Southern plastic surgeons having lower rates (P < 0.001) and those Northeastern ones prescribing shorter courses (P = 0.004). The number of opioid claims, days per claim, and opioid prescriber rates were all significantly lower in 2018 than in 2017 and 2016 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prescriptions written by plastic surgeons may have contributed to the opioid epidemic, but 2018 data suggest opioids are becoming less routine in postoperative pain control. Further studies are warranted to assess factors related to reduced and shorter opioid prescriptions by plastic surgeons in the South and Northeast, respectively. Such insight, if adopted into law and implemented into clinical practice, may help reduce the burden of the opioid epidemic.

How Comprehensive Are Aesthetic Surgery Fellowship Websites?

BACKGROUND: Fellowship programs heavily utilize websites in the recruitment of senior residents. Studies in subspecialty areas have demonstrated deficiencies in website content; however, no study has evaluated the websites of esthetic surgery fellowships. The recent establishment of the aesthetic fellowship match in 2018 highlights the need for accessible program information. OBJECTIVE: To assess the success in accessibility of educational and recruitment content of aesthetic surgery fellowship websites for prospective applicants. METHODS: Websites of aesthetic surgery fellowships were eligible for study inclusion. Aesthetic fellowship websites (AFWs) were evaluated for content regarding fellow education and fellow recruitment. Website content was analyzed using Fisher exact test and analysis of variance. RESULTS: Twenty-eight programs were compiled from the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery website. Regarding fellowship education, 35.7% of AFWs described operative experience and research requirements, and 28.6% of AFWs included information on didactics, but less than 11% outlined rotation schedules, annual meetings, or academic conferences. None listed fellow evaluation criteria. Regarding recruitment information, 85.7% of AFWs had program descriptions, but less than 33% listed affiliated hospitals, faculty, or current fellows. Of the 67.9% of AFWs that listed eligibility criteria, none listed selection criteria. When programs were stratified by the type of aesthetic training offered, fellowships that offered whole-body aesthetic training had significantly more recruitment content (P = 0.0394) on their websites than those specializing in facial aesthetics only. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of information regarding recruitment and education on AFWs. Programs should strive to create a comprehensive website to better attract and assist residents applying for fellowship.