A 10-year analysis of the racial distribution of authors in plastic surgery research and the impact of minority mentorship.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the racial distribution in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) publication authorship and illustrates the impact underrepresented in medicine (URiM) mentorship has on increasing diverse trainee contributions to the PRS peer-reviewed literature. METHODS: Articles published in the seven highest-impact PRS peer-reviewed journals within the last 10 years (2012-2022) were reviewed and analyzed for first and senior authors' race and ethnicity, publication year, and citation count. RESULTS: A total of 23,549 publications were identified of which 8250 were from the US-based institutions. A random sampling of 778 publications (∼10 â€‹%) were scrutinized for first and senior author race and ethnicity. Across all journals, 64.5 â€‹% of senior authors were White, 29.9 â€‹% Asian, 4.6 â€‹% Hispanic, and 1.0 â€‹% Black. First authors were 59.5 â€‹% White, 32.8 â€‹% Asian, 5.2 â€‹% Hispanic, and 2.6 â€‹% Black (p=<0.0001). The presence of a URiM senior author increased the likelihood of a URiM first author 7-fold (p=<0.0001); 95 â€‹% CI [3.5-14.0]). There was no statistically significant difference in the total citation count relative to author race or ethnicity. The Aesthetic Surgery Journal had the greatest proportion of White senior authors (73.6 â€‹%), while Microsurgery had the highest percentage of URiM senior authors (8.7 â€‹%). CONCLUSIONS: URiM authorship of PRS publications is limited and mentorship is essential to improve underrepresented perspectives in the PRS peer-reviewed literature.

An Update on the Independent Plastic Surgery Match (2019-2022): Trends, Predictors, and Program Leaders' Perspectives.

Background: A previous study by the authors noted a decline in independent plastic surgery residency programs and rising applicant participation. This study provides updates on match trends and influential predictors, and gathers program leaders' views on the future of the independent track. Methods: Match data (2019-2022) were obtained from the San Francisco match after American Council of Educators in Plastic Surgery approval. Variables influencing match success were analyzed, and program leaders were surveyed about desirable applicant traits and program trajectories. Results: From 2019 to 2022, 243 of 428 applicants matched. Programs and positions declined by 10% and 9.5%, respectively. Applicants rose to 42.3%, but match rates fell from 82% to 56%. Osteopathic graduates doubled, whereas international graduates increased to 53.8%. Successful matches were associated with US allopathic medical school graduates, university-affiliated general surgery residencies, eight or more interviews, United States Medical Licensing Examination scores greater than 230, and high post graduate year (PGY)1-3 American Board of Surgery In-service Training Examination scores (PGY1-64.7%, PGY2-61.2%, PGY3-60.7%; P < 0.05). Of surveyed programs, 55.6% aimed to continue running the independent track in the next year. Conversely, 7.4% planned to discontinue in the next year, 22.2% within 2-5 years, 7.4% within the next decade, and 7.4% were unsure. Conclusions: Although support for the independent plastic surgery track remains, program participation diminishes as applicant interest increases, intensifying match challenges. Increasing number of interviews improves match potential. Program leaders display varied commitments, with looming plans for some programs to discontinue offering this track. Applicant evaluation pivots on strong recommendations, research, and test scores.

A Practical Guide to Implementing Holistic Review during Surgery Resident Selection.

Provider workforce diversity is a key component of improving healthcare quality and addressing healthcare disparities. Furthermore, the traditional approach of "score-centered" application metrics do not consistently correlate with meeting milestones in surgery, nor do they adequately predict a surgical resident's clinical strength and operative abilities. We present here an adaptable process by which surgical residency programs can identify their values and incorporate holistic review into their resident selection process to improve resident selection and physician workforce diversity.

Strength in Numbers: A SWOT Analysis of Plastic Surgery.

Background: Plastic surgeons comprise the minority of practicing surgeons, with an even smaller minority practicing in an academic setting. As the practice of medicine and the systems in which we operate continue to evolve, it is essential that plastic surgeons have a say in the changing landscape. This study conducted a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis of plastic surgery to identify unifying strengths and common threats. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons' Winter Meeting attendees on three separate occasions preceding the meeting. Respondents were asked to provide demographic information and to identify the top three strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT analysis) for the specialty. Subgroup analyses were performed based on demographic characteristics. Results: A total of 187 responses were received from meeting attendees, representing an 89.0% response rate. Most respondents were non-Hispanic (78.6%), White (66.8%), women (59.5%), and faculty/independent physicians (65.8%). The most identified strength in plastic surgery was our problem-solving abilities (62.0%). The most identified weakness was poor public perception of plastic surgery (54.0%). The most identified opportunity was demonstration of value to health systems (67.9%), and the most identified threat was scope of practice creep by other specialties (78.1%). The SWOT analysis identified lack of surgeon diversity as a key weakness, improvement of surgeon diversity as a key opportunity, and lack of diversity among plastic surgeons as a key threat to the specialty. Conclusion: Only through a diverse but united front can we effectively use our strengths to face our threats and employ opportunities to overcome our weaknesses.

Deconstructing the Excellent Plastic Surgeon: A Survey of Key Attributes.

Background: Most plastic surgeons practice in nonacademic settings, leaving a small subset of academic plastic surgeons with the responsibility of selecting the future generation of plastic surgeons without representation from a majority of our field. This raises questions as to whether the academic attributes valued during residency selection are valid predictive markers of who will become an excellent plastic surgeon. A survey was conducted of both academic and nonacademic plastic surgeons, as well as trainees, to determine what traits are considered most essential to being an excellent plastic surgeon. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed before the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons 10th Annual Winter Meeting. Demographics and information regarding the respondents' training and academic status were collected. Respondents were asked to select five traits that they considered most important to be an excellent plastic surgeon from a list of 20 preselected traits. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to perform subgroup analyses. Results: A total of 187 responses were received from meeting attendees, representing an 89.0% response rate. Overall, the five values endorsed as most important for a plastic surgeon were being technically sound (53%), collaborative (48%), ethical (44%), compassionate (37%), and emotionally intelligent (33%). However, the emphasis placed on these different attributes differed significantly amongst different demographic groups. Conclusion: It is important that we use methods such as holistic review when evaluating plastic surgery applicants to ensure our selection process is congruent with the traits we value.

A SWOT Analysis of Hot Topics in Plastic Surgery Resident Education: Consensus From the ACAPS 10th Annual Winter Meeting.

Background: With the aim of facilitating a critical self-reflection on how to align plastic surgery education with making excellent plastic surgeons, a rotating small-group session followed by live interactive audience polling was used to perform a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis at the 10th Annual American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons Winter Meeting. Methods: The final day of the conference included a 3-hour session of rotating small groups followed by live interactive audience polls discussing the following six relevant educational topics: the Plastic Surgery Common Application and resident selection, aesthetic surgery education, leadership development and business education, embedded fellowships and focused training, mentorship, and faculty retention. Results: A total of 60 individuals participated in the activity. A SWOT analysis was successfully performed for each educational topic, and a minimum of four opportunities were identified per topic to help guide future endeavors. Examples of opportunities include releasing recommendations for the implementation of holistic review; developing formal guidelines for aesthetic surgery education in residency via collaboration between ACAPS, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, and The Aesthetic Society; creating extended focused elective rotations; integrating business education into formal curricula for all training levels; enforcing transparency regarding position expectations and offerings including salary, call schedule, and current challenges; and more. Conclusion: The results of this study will help guide future initiatives by the ACAPS to improve resident education and academic retention.