How to Create a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Curriculum: More Than Checking a Box.

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.

Characterizing trauma encounters among patients with language other than English preference at a level 1 trauma center's emergency department.

Objectives: Injury-related visits constitute a sizeable portion of emergency department (ED) visits in the United States. Individuals with language other than English (LOE) preference face barriers to healthcare and visits for traumatic injury may be the first point of contact with the healthcare system. Yet, the prevalence of traumatic injuries in this population is relatively unknown. Our objective was to characterize the prevalence and purpose of trauma encounters, and healthcare utilization, among a LOE cohort. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of LOE patients who presented for a trauma encounter at a level 1 trauma and emergency care center between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021. LOE participants were identified by utilization of video-based language interpretive services. Variables evaluated included injury patterns and primary and subspeciality healthcare utilization. Quantitative analysis of categorical and continuous variables was performed. Results: A total of 429 patients were included. Most patients presented for one trauma encounter and the majority spoke Spanish. The most common causes of injury were motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) (28.5%, n = 129), ground-level falls (15.9%, n = 72), and falls from heights (14.2%, n = 64). Occupational injuries made up 27.2% of trauma encounters (n = 123) and only 12.6% (n = 54) of patients had a primary care visit. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the need for increased research and attention to all causes of injury, especially MVCs and occupational injuries, among those with LOE preference. Results reaffirm an underutilization of healthcare among this population and the opportunity for trauma encounters as points of access to care.

Making an Impact with E.M.P.A.C.T. Engage, Mentor Prepare, Advocate, Cultivate, and Teach: An Innovative Pilot Mentoring Program Evaluation for Students Underrepresented in Medicine.

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.