Medical students' perception of their 'distance travelled' in medical school applications.

INTRODUCTION: Within medical school's holistic review of applicants includes a review of their distance travelled to get to this point in their education. The AAMC defines distance travelled (DT) as, 'any obstacles or hardships you've overcome to get to this point in your education or any life challenges you've faced and conquered'. What medical students consider as their distance travelled has not been explored. The authors sought to identify the factors medical students perceive are important for medical school admissions to consider when assessing someone's 'distance travelled' by asking current medical students to share their DT experiences along with the barriers and facilitators they encountered on their medical school journey. METHODS: The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with US medical students through purposeful sampling methods. The social-ecological model framework was used to develop questions to elicit participants' experiences that contributed to their distance travelled. Interviews were conducted in 2021 and ranged from 60-75 minutes. Transcribed interviews were qualitatively analysed using interpretive description. RESULTS: A total of 31 medical students from seven medical schools were included in the study. Overall, participants defined distance travelled as an applicant's hardships (e.g. being the primary caregiver for a family member) and privileges (e.g. having physician parents) they experienced. Three major themes were identified: (1) individual-level characteristics and factors, (2) interpersonal relationships and (3) aspects of the participants' community and society. DISCUSSION: Our findings show that medical school applicants considered DT to be a valuable component of a holistic medical school admission process. Participants' experiences of DT were varied and complex. Our research suggests that admissions teams for medical schools should incorporate more comprehensive recruitment practices and inclusive methodological frameworks to accurately capture the diversity of identities and experiences of medical school applicants and to consider the factors that shape their journey to medical schools.

Application of Component Separation and Short-Term Outcomes in Ventral Hernia Repairs.

INTRODUCTION: Component separation (CS) techniques have evolved in recent years. How surgeons apply the various CS techniques, anterior component separation (aCS) versus posterior component separation (pCS), by patient and hernia-specific factors remain unknown in the general population. Improving the quality of ventral hernia repair (VHR) on a large scale requires an understanding of current practice variations and how these variations ultimately affect patient care. In this study, we examine the application of CS techniques and the associated short-term outcomes while taking into consideration patient and hernia-specific factors. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a clinically rich statewide hernia registry, the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative Hernia Registry, of persons older than 18 y who underwent VHR between January 2020 and July 2021. The exposure of interest was the use of CS. Our primary outcome was a composite end point of 30-d adverse events including any complication, emergency department visit, readmission, and reoperation. Our secondary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI). Multivariable logistic regression examined the association of CS use, 30-d adverse events, and SSI with patient-, hernia-, and operative-specific variables. We performed a sensitivity analysis evaluating for differences in application and outcomes of the posterior and aCS techniques. RESULTS: A total of 1319 patients underwent VHR, with a median age (interquartile range) of 55 y (22), 641 (49%) female patients, and a median body mass index of 32 (9) kg/m2. CS was used in 138 (11%) patients, of which 101 (73%) were pCS and 37 (27%) were aCS. Compared to patients without CS, patients undergoing a CS had larger median hernia widths (2.5 cm (range 0.01-23 cm) versus 8 cm (1-30 cm), P < 0.001). Of the CS cases, 49 (36%) performed in hernias less than 6 cm in size. Following multivariate regression, factors independently associated with the use of a CS were diabetes (odds ratio [OR]: 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-3.36), previous hernia repair (OR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.20-2.96), hernia width (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.22-1.34), and an open approach (OR: 3.83, 95% CI: 2.24-6.53). Compared to patients not having a CS, use of a CS was associated with increased odds of 30-d adverse events (OR: 1.88 95% CI: 1.13-3.12) but was not associated with SSI (OR: 1.95, 95% CI: 0.74-4.63). Regression analysis demonstrated no differences in 30-d adverse events or SSI between the pCS and aCS techniques. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first population-level report of patients undergoing VHR with concurrent posterior or aCS. These data suggest wide variation in the application of CS in VHR and raises a concern for potential overutilization in smaller hernias. Continued analysis of CS application and the associated outcomes, specifically recurrence, is necessary and underway.