Biomedical research has advanced medicine but also contributed to widening racial and ethnic health inequities. Despite a growing acknowledgment of the need to incorporate anti-racist objectives into research, there remains a need for practical guidance for recognizing and addressing the influence of ingrained practices perpetuating racial harms, particularly for general internists. Through a review of the literature, and informed by the Research Lifecycle Framework, this position statement from the Society of General Internal Medicine presents a conceptual framework suggesting multi-level systemic changes and strategies for researchers to incorporate an anti-racist perspective throughout the research lifecycle. It begins with a clear assertion that race and ethnicity are socio-political constructs that have important consequences on health and health disparities through various forms of racism. Recommendations include leveraging a comprehensive approach to integrate anti-racist principles and acknowledging that racism, not race, drives health inequities. Individual researchers must acknowledge systemic racism's impact on health, engage in self-education to mitigate biases, hire diverse teams, and include historically excluded communities in research. Institutions must provide clear guidelines on the use of race and ethnicity in research, reject stigmatizing language, and invest in systemic commitments to diversity, equity, and anti-racism. National organizations must call for race-conscious research standards and training, and create measures to ensure accountability, establishing standards for race-conscious research for research funding. This position statement emphasizes our collective responsibility to combat systemic racism in research, and urges a transformative shift toward anti-racist practices throughout the research cycle.
BACKGROUND: Although internal medicine (IM) physicians accept public advocacy as a professional responsibility, there is little evidence that IM training programs teach advocacy skills. The prevalence and characteristics of public advocacy curricula in US IM residency programs are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence and characteristics of curricula in US IM residencies addressing public advocacy for communities and populations; to describe barriers to the provision of such curricula. DESIGN: Nationally representative, web-based, cross-sectional survey of IM residency program directors with membership in an academic professional association. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 276 IM residency program directors (61%) responded between August and December 2022. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of US IM residency programs that teach advocacy curricula; characteristics of advocacy curricula; perceptions of barriers to teaching advocacy. KEY RESULTS: More than half of respondents reported that their programs offer no advocacy curricula (148/276, 53.6%). Ninety-five programs (95/276, 34.4%) reported required advocacy curricula; 33 programs (33/276, 12%) provided curricula as elective only. The content, structure, and teaching methods of advocacy curricula in IM programs were heterogeneous; experiential learning in required curricula was low (23/95, 24.2%) compared to that in elective curricula (51/65, 78.5%). The most highly reported barriers to implementing or improving upon advocacy curricula (multiple responses allowed) were lack of faculty expertise in advocacy (200/276, 72%), inadequate faculty time (190/276, 69%), and limited curricular flexibility (148/276, 54%). CONCLUSION: Over half of US IM residency programs offer no formal training in public advocacy skills and many reported lack of faculty expertise in public advocacy as a barrier. These findings suggest many IM residents are not taught how to advocate for communities and populations. Further, less than one-quarter of required curricula in public advocacy involves experiential learning.
We are beginning to accept and address the role that medicine as an institution played in legitimizing scientific racism and creating structural barriers to health equity. There is a call for greater emphasis in medical education on explaining our role in perpetuating health inequities and educating learners on how bias and racism lead to poor health outcomes for historically marginalized communities. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI; also referred to as EDI) and antiracism are key parts of patient care and medical education as they empower health professionals to be advocates for their patients, leading to better health care outcomes and more culturally and socially humble health care professionals. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education has set forth standards to include structural competency and other equity principles in the medical curriculum, but medical schools are still struggling with how to specifically do so. Here, we highlight a stepwise approach to systematically developing and implementing medical educational curriculum content with a DEI and antiracism lens. This article serves as a blueprint to prepare institution leadership, medical faculty, staff, and learners in how to effectively begin or scale up their current DEI and antiracism curricular efforts.
Education, Medical , Health Equity , Humans , Diversity, Equity, Inclusion , Curriculum , Faculty, Medical
Medical interpretation is an underutilized resource, despite its legal mandate and proven efficacy in improving health outcomes for populations with low English proficiency. This disconnect can often be attributed to the costs and wait-times associated with traditional means of interpretation, making the service inaccessible and burdensome. Technology has improved access to translation through phone and video interpretation; with the acceleration of artificial intelligence (AI) large language models, we have an opportunity to further improve interpreter access through real-time, automated translation. The impetus to utilize this burgeoning tool for improved health equity must be combined with a critical view of the safety, privacy, and clinical decision-making risks involved. Physicians must be active participants and collaborators in both the mobilization of AI tools to improve clinical care and the development of regulations to mitigate harm.
Artificial Intelligence , Health Equity , Humans , Allied Health Personnel , Clinical Decision-Making , Language
Introduction: There were more than 100,000 fatal drug overdoses in the U.S. in 2021 alone. In recent years, there has been a shift in opioid mortality from predominantly White rural communities to Black urban communities. This study aimed to identify the Virginia communities disproportionately affected by the overdose crisis and to better understand the systemic factors contributing to disparities in opioid mortality. Methods: Using the state all-payer claims database, state mortality records, and census data, we created a multivariate model to examine the community-level factors contributing to racial disparities in opioid mortality. We used generalized linear mixed models to examine the associations between socioecologic factors and fatal opioid overdoses, opioid use disorder diagnoses, opioid-related emergency department visits, and mental health diagnoses. Results: Between 2015 and 2020, racial disparities in mortality widened. In 2020, Black males were 1.5 times more likely to die of an opioid overdose than White males (47.3 vs 31.6 per 100,000; p<0.001). The rate of mental health disorders strongly correlated with mortality (ß=0.53, p<0.001). Black individuals are not more likely to be diagnosed with opioid use disorder (ß=0.01, p=0.002) or with mental health disorders (ß= -0.12, p<0.001), despite higher fatal opioid overdoses. Conclusions: There are widening racial disparities in opioid mortality. Untreated mental health disorders are a major risk factor for opioid mortality. Findings show pathways to address inequities, including early linkage to care for mental health and opioid use disorders. This analysis shows the use of comprehensive socioecologic data to identify the precursors to fatal overdoses, which could allow earlier intervention and reallocation of resources in high-risk communities.
Letters of recommendation play a significant role in higher education and career progression, particularly for women and underrepresented groups in medicine and science. Already, there is evidence to suggest that written letters of recommendation contain language that expresses implicit biases, or unconscious biases, and that these biases occur for all recommenders regardless of the recommender's sex. Given that all individuals have implicit biases that may influence language use, there may be opportunities to apply contemporary technologies, such as large language models or other forms of generative artificial intelligence (AI), to augment and potentially reduce implicit biases in the written language of letters of recommendation. In this editorial, we provide a brief overview of existing literature on the manifestations of implicit bias in letters of recommendation, with a focus on academia and medical education. We then highlight potential opportunities and drawbacks of applying this emerging technology in augmenting the focused, professional task of writing letters of recommendation. We also offer best practices for integrating their use into the routine writing of letters of recommendation and conclude with our outlook for the future of generative AI applications in supporting this task.
Mentorship has been proven to be a valuable vehicle to fight the disparity of diverse representation in medicine. Given the numerous findings that a more diverse medical profession leads to better patient outcomes, we believe fostering mentorship of URiM medical students is in the best interest for patients and the field of medicine. In our manuscript, we illustrated tenets of mentorship that result in effective mentoring of URiM students by any physician regardless of race, ethnicity, or background. This piece reflects upon our personal experiences with structured mentorship programs, results of similar programs at other universities, and ties in a broader conversation of the value of institutional support of mentorship programs. Given the urgency to increase diversity and, ultimately, belonging in not only medical education but also our physician workforce, this piece is highly relevant. This piece is intended to inspire and increase more opportunities for more incoming URiM students to be mentored at the start of their medical journey.
Mentoring , Students, Medical , Humans , Mentors/education , Universities , Ethnicity
Purpose: Medicine has yet to increase the representation of historically excluded persons in medicine to reflect the general population. The lack of support and guidance in the medical training of these individuals is a significant contributor to this disparity. The Engage, Mentor, Prepare, Advocate for, Cultivate, and Teach (EMPACT) Mentoring program was created to address this problem by providing support for learners who are historically underrepresented in medicine (URiM) as they progress through medical school. Methods: The EMPACT Pilot Program was formed and conducted during the 2019-2020 academic year. A total of 19 EMPACT mentorship groups were created, each consisting of two mentors and four medical student mentees. Additionally, four professional development workshops were held along with a final Wrap-up and Awards event. Pre and post pilot program surveys along with surveys after each workshop and focus groups were conducted with a random selection of program participants. Results: When compared to data from before and after the implementation of the EMPACT program, there were statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in EMPACT mentees reporting they agree or strongly agree they felt ready to handle their clinical rotations (28% to 65%), felt the need to have an advocate (85% to 47%), possessed insight on day-to-day activities of an attending (26% to 56%) and felt a sense of community (79% to 94%). Mentors revealed an increase in their awareness of the concepts of microaggressions and imposter phenomenon. Finally, both groups felt an increase in their support system and sense of community at the school of medicine. Conclusion: Despite COVID-19 limitations, the EMPACT program met its goals. We effectively supported URiM medical students through mentorship, networking, and community.
Telehealth services, specifically telemedicine audio-video and audio-only patient encounters, expanded dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic through temporary waivers and flexibilities tied to the public health emergency. Early studies demonstrate significant potential to advance the quintuple aim (patient experience, health outcomes, cost, clinician well-being, and equity). Supported well, telemedicine can particularly improve patient satisfaction, health outcomes, and equity. Implemented poorly, telemedicine can facilitate unsafe care, worsen disparities, and waste resources. Without further action from lawmakers and agencies, payment will end for many telemedicine services currently used by millions of Americans at the end of 2024. Policymakers, health systems, clinicians, and educators must decide how to support, implement, and sustain telemedicine, and long-term studies and clinical practice guidelines are emerging to provide direction. In this position statement, we use clinical vignettes to review relevant literature and highlight where key actions are needed. These include areas where telemedicine must be expanded (e.g., to support chronic disease management) and where guidelines are needed (e.g., to prevent inequitable offering of telemedicine services and prevent unsafe or low-value care). We provide policy, clinical practice, and education recommendations for telemedicine on behalf of the Society of General Internal Medicine. Policy recommendations include ending geographic and site restrictions, expanding the definition of telemedicine to include audio-only services, establishing appropriate telemedicine service codes, and expanding broadband access to all Americans. Clinical practice recommendations include ensuring appropriate telemedicine use (for limited acute care situations or in conjunction with in-person services to extend longitudinal care relationships), that the choice of modality be done through patient-clinician shared decision-making, and that health systems design telemedicine services through community partnerships to ensure equitable implementation. Education recommendations include developing telemedicine-specific educational strategies for trainees that align with accreditation body competencies and providing educators with protected time and faculty development resources.
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , Humans , United States , Pandemics , Internal Medicine , Policy
Introduction Case reports form the base layer of the evidence pyramid, describing new or emerging diseases, side effects to treatments, common presentations of rare diseases, or rare presentations of common diseases. An important scholarly pursuit, writing case reports can be hindered by lack of time, training, and mentorship. Here, we describe a workshop incorporating case writing skills with mentorship opportunities to engage faculty and learners. Methods We designed and implemented a virtual, synchronous workshop addressing knowledge and attitudes on case reports for trainees and academic faculty at distributed sites. Participants discussed the contributions of case reports to the medical literature, key features of successful cases, approaches to writing learning objectives, and how to develop interesting cases into dynamic case reports. Case reports were discussed as a way to mentor learners to disseminate interesting cases as a source of clinical experience and academic productivity. A retrospective pre-post survey was collected two months after the workshop to evaluate its utility. Results Fifteen out of 42 participants responded to the survey. As a result of the workshop, respondents noted improvement in confidence in identifying and writing case reports and identifying and working with mentors or mentees, regardless of level of training or specialty. At the follow-up, seven (47%) respondents had identified a case and 10 (67%) had identified a mentor/mentee to write a case report with. Discussion This workshop, successfully delivered virtually, demonstrates the utility of a brief educational intervention in improving participant confidence in identifying and writing case reports with mentorship.
BACKGROUND: Inadequate support for underrepresented-in-medicine physicians, lack of physician knowledge about structural drivers of health, and biased patient care and research widen US health disparities. Despite stating the importance of health equity and diversity, national physician education organizations have not yet prioritized these goals. AIM: To develop a comprehensive set of Health Justice Standards within our residency program to address structural drivers of inequity. SETTING: The J. Willis Hurst Internal Medicine Residency Program of Emory University is an academic internal medicine residency program located in Atlanta, Georgia. PARTICIPANTS: This initiative was led by the resident-founded Churchwell Diversity and Inclusion Collective, modified by Emory IM leadership, and presented to Emory IM residents. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: We used an iterative process to develop and implement these Standards and shared our progress with our coresidents to evaluate impact. PROGRAM EVALUATION: In the year since their development, we have made demonstrable progress in each domain. Presentation of our work significantly correlated with increased resident interest in advocacy (p<0.001). DISCUSSION: A visionary, actionable health justice framework can be used to generate changes in residency programs' policies and should be developed on a national level.
Internship and Residency , Medicine , Humans , Education, Medical, Graduate , Georgia , Leadership
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a worsening mental health crisis, while also dramatically reducing access to in-person primary care services. Primary care, an essential provider of mental health services, rapidly adopted telemedicine to address behavioral health needs. Here we examine the provision of mental health services by primary care during the pandemic, including the essential use of telemedicine. METHODS: Data were collected via a series of national, cross-sectional surveys of primary care clinicians in November 2020 by the Larry A. Green Center. The survey was distributed through a network of partner organizations and subscribers. Descriptive and chi squared analysis were utilized. RESULTS: Among 1,472 respondents, 88% reported increased mental health needs and 37% reported higher rates of substance use among patients. Most (65%) clinicians became more involved in providing mental health support, and 64% reported using telemedicine to provide behavioral health services. Phone-based care was more common for care delivery among patients who were uninsured (60% vs 42%, P < .01), Medicare beneficiaries (45% vs 36%, P < .05), non-English speaking (67% vs 40%, P < .001), and racial and ethnic minorities (58% vs 34%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care is a leading provider of mental health services and has played a critical role during the pandemic. Primary care clinicians have strong relationships with their patients as well as outreach within communities that may otherwise struggle to access mental health services. The use of telemedicine in primary care, and specifically phone-based services, has been an essential tool to providing equitable access to mental health services.
COVID-19 , Mental Health Services , Telemedicine , Aged , Humans , United States/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Medicare , Primary Health Care
COVID-19 readmissions are associated with increased patient mortality and healthcare system strain. This retrospective cohort study of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 positive adults (>18 years) hospitalized and readmitted within 30 days of discharge from index admission was performed at eight Atlanta hospitals from March to December 2020. The objective was to describe COVID-19 patient-level demographics and clinical characteristics, and community-level social determinants of health (SDoH) that contribute to 30-day readmissions. Demographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 treatment, and discharge disposition data were extracted from the index admission. ZIP codes were linked to a demographic/lifestyle database interpolating to community-level SDoH. Of 7155 patients with COVID-19, 463 (6.5%) had 30-day, unplanned, all-cause hospital readmissions. Statistically significant differences were not found in readmissions stratified by age, sex, race, or ethnicity. Patients with a high-risk Charlson Comorbidity Index had higher odds of readmission (OR 4.8 (95% CI: 2.1 to 11.0)). Remdesivir treatment and intensive care unit (ICU) care were associated with lower odds of readmission (OR 0.5 (95% CI: 0.4 to 0.8) and OR 0.5 (95% CI: 0.4 to 0.7), respectively). Patients residing in communities with larger average household size were less likely to be readmitted (OR 0.7 (95% CI: 0.5 to 0.9). In this cohort, patients who received remdesivir, were cared for in an ICU, and resided in ZIP codes with higher proportions of residents with increased social support had lower odds of readmission. These patient-level factors and community-level SDoH may be used to identify patients with COVID-19 who are at increased risk of readmission.
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Patient Readmission , Adult , Hospitals , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Social Determinants of Health
The Affordable Care Act (2010) and Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (2015) ushered in a new era of Medicare value-based payment programs. Five major mandatory pay-for-performance programs have been implemented since 2012 with increasing positive and negative payment adjustments over time. A growing body of evidence indicates that these programs are inequitable and financially penalize safety-net systems and systems that care for a higher proportion of racial and ethnic minority patients. Payments from penalized systems are often redistributed to those with higher performance scores, which are predominantly better-financed, large, urban systems that serve less vulnerable patient populations - a "Reverse Robin Hood" effect. This inequity may be diminished by adjusting for social risk factors in payment policy. In this position statement, we review the literature evaluating equity across Medicare value-based payment programs, major policy reports evaluating the use of social risk data, and provide recommendations on behalf of the Society of General Internal Medicine regarding how to address social risk and unmet health-related social needs in these programs. Immediate recommendations include implementing peer grouping (stratification of healthcare systems by proportion of dual eligible Medicare/Medicaid patients served, and evaluation of performance and subsequent payment adjustments within strata) until optimal methods for accounting for social risk are defined. Short-term recommendations include using census-based, area-level indices to account for neighborhood-level social risk, and developing standardized approaches to collecting individual socioeconomic data in a robust but sensitive way. Long-term recommendations include implementing a research agenda to evaluate best practices for accounting for social risk, developing validated health equity specific measures of care, and creating policies to better integrate healthcare and social services.
Medicare , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Aged , Ethnicity , Humans , Internal Medicine , Minority Groups , Reimbursement, Incentive , United States
INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 disrupted access to critical healthcare and resources for many, especially affecting patients at safety-net hospitals who rely on regular care for multiple complex conditions. Students realized they could support patients from the sidelines by helping navigate abrupt healthcare changes and proactively addressing needs at home. AIM: To comprehensively identify and meet the clinical and social needs of Atlanta, Georgia's patients at highest risk, left without their usual access to healthcare, through proactive telephonic outreach. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Medical and Physician's Assistant students from Emory and Morehouse Schools of Medicine partnered with Grady Health System, Atlanta's safety-net hospital. Artificial intelligence prioritized over 15,000 patients by risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: In this novel program, students performed telephonic outreach to thousands of patients at highest risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19. Students used a custom REDCap form that served as both a call script and data collection tool. It provided step-by-step guidance to (1) screen for COVID-19 and educate on prevention; (2) help patients navigate health system changes to fill gaps in care; and (3) identify and address social needs. Based on patients' responses, the form prompted tailored reminders for next steps and connections to medical and social resources. PROGRAM EVALUATION: In the program's first 16 months, students made 7,988 calls, of which 3,354 were answered. Over half (53%) of patients had at least one need requiring action: 48% health and 16% social. DISCUSSION: This proactive, novel initiative identified substantial clinical and social need among patients at highest risk for poor outcomes and filled a pressing health system gap exacerbated by COVID-19. Simultaneously, interprofessional students gained applied exposure to health systems sciences. This program can serve as a model for rapid, cost-effective, high-yield outreach to promote patient health at home both during and beyond the pandemic.
COVID-19 , Artificial Intelligence , COVID-19/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Students
