US Medical School Admissions Leaders' Experiences With Barriers to and Advancements in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Importance: Despite decades-long calls for increasing racial and ethnic diversity, the medical profession continues to exclude members of Black or African American, Hispanic or Latinx, and Indigenous groups. Objective: To describe US medical school admissions leaders' experiences with barriers to and advances in diversity, equity, and inclusion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study involved key-informant interviews of 39 deans and directors of admission from 37 US allopathic medical schools across the range of student body racial and ethnic composition. Interviews were conducted in person and online from October 16, 2019, to March 27, 2020, and analyzed from October 2019 to March 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participant experiences with barriers to and advances in diversity, equity, and inclusion. Results: Among 39 participants from 37 medical schools, admissions experience ranged from 1 to 40 years. Overall, 56.4% of participants identified as women, 10.3% as Asian American, 25.6% as Black or African American, 5.1% as Hispanic or Latinx, and 61.5% as White (participants could report >1 race and/or ethnicity). Participants characterized diversity broadly, with limited attention to racial injustice. Barriers to advancing racial and ethnic diversity included lack of leadership commitment; pressure from faculty and administrators to overemphasize academic scores and school rankings; and political and social influences, such as donors and alumni. Accreditation requirements, holistic review initiatives, and local policy motivated reforms but may also have inadvertently lowered expectations and accountability. Strategies to overcome challenges included narrative change and revision of school leadership structure, admissions goals, practices, and committee membership. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, admissions leaders characterized the ways in which entrenched beliefs, practices, and power structures in medical schools may perpetuate institutional racism, with far-reaching implications for health equity. Participants offered insights on how to remove inequitable structures and implement process changes. Without such action, calls for racial justice will likely remain performative, and racism across health care institutions will continue.

The Not Underrepresented Minorities: Asian Americans, Diversity, and Admissions.

Several lawsuits have recently been filed against U.S. universities; the plaintiffs contend that considerations of race and ethnicity in admissions decisions discriminate against Asian Americans. In prior cases brought by non-Latino whites, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld these considerations, arguing that they are crucial to a compelling interest to increase diversity. The dissenting opinion, however, concerns the possibility that such policies disadvantage Asian Americans, who are considered overrepresented in higher education. Here, the authors explain how a decision favoring the plaintiffs would affect U.S. medical schools. First, eliminating race and ethnicity in holistic review would undermine efforts to diversify the physician workforce. Second, the restrictions on considering race/ethnicity in admissions decisions would not remedy potential discrimination against Asian Americans that arise from implicit biases. Third, such restrictions would exacerbate the difficulty of addressing the diversity of experiences within Asian American subgroups, including recognizing those who are underrepresented in medicine. The authors propose that medical schools engage Asian Americans in diversity and inclusion efforts and recommend the following strategies: incorporate health equity into the institutional mission and admissions policies, disaggregate data to identify underrepresented Asian subgroups, include Asian Americans in diversity committees and support faculty who make diversity work part of their academic portfolio, and enhance the Asian American faculty pipeline through support and mentorship of students. Asian Americans will soon comprise one-fifth of the U.S. physician workforce and should be welcomed as part of the solution to advancing diversity and inclusion in medicine, not cast as the problem.

Accuracy of computed tomography in nodal staging of colon cancer patients.

AIM: To predict node-positive disease in colon cancer using computed tomography (CT). METHODS: American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I-III colon cancer patients who underwent curavtive-intent colectomy between 2007-2010 were identified at a single comprehensive cancer center. All patients had preoperative CT scans with original radiology reports from referring institutions. CT images underwent blinded secondary review by a surgeon and a dedicated abdominal radiologist at our institution to identify pericolonic lymph nodes (LNs). Comparison of outside CT reports to our independent imaging review was performed in order to highlight differences in detection in actual clinical practice. CT reviews were compared with final pathology. Results of the outside radiologist review, secondary radiologist review, and surgeon review were compared with the final pathologic exam to determine sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, false positive and negative rates, and accuracy of each review. Exclusion criteria included evidence of metastatic disease on CT, rectal or appendiceal involvement, or absence of accompanying imaging from referring institutions. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2010, 64 stageI-III colon cancer patients met the eligibility criteria of our study. The mean age of the cohort was 68 years, and 26 (41%) patients were male and 38 (59%) patients were female. On final pathology, 26 of 64 (40.6%) patients had node-positive (LN+) disease and 38 of 64 (59.4%) patients had node-negative (LN-) disease. Outside radiologic review demonstrated sensitivity of 54% (14 of 26 patients) and specificity of 66% (25 of 38 patients) in predicting LN+ disease, whereas secondary radiologist review demonstrated 88% (23 of 26) sensitivity and 58% (22 of 38) specificity. On surgeon review, sensitivity was 69% (18 of 26) with 66% specificity (25 of 38). Secondary radiology review demonstrated the highest accuracy (70%) and the lowest false negative rate (12%), compared to the surgeon review at 67% accuracy and 31% false negative rate and the outside radiology review at 61% accuracy and 46% false negative rate. CONCLUSION: CT LN staging of colon cancer has moderate accuracy, with administration of NCT based on CT potentially resulting in overtreatment. Active search for LN+ may improve sensitivity at the cost of specificity.