Diversity in Medicine

Just over one-third of children in the United States get less sleep than recommended, with higher rates occurring among several racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among children aged 4 months to 17 years, 34.9% got less than the recommended amount of sleep for their age and just 33.9% had a regular bedtime, Anne G. Wheaton, PhD, and Angelika H. Claussen, PhD, said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Unlike previous reports, this analysis showed that adolescents were less likely than infants to have short sleep duration, 31.2% vs. 40.3%. These latest data are based on the 2016-2018 editions of the National Survey of Children’s Health, and the “difference might be explained by NSCH’s reliance on parent report rather than self-report with Youth Risk Behavior Surveys,” they suggested.

Black children had the highest prevalence of any group included in the study, as parents reported that 50.8% of all ages were not getting the recommended amount of sleep, compared with 39.1% among Hispanics, 34.6% for other races, and 28.8% for Whites. The figure for Black infants was 64.2%, almost double the prevalence for White infants (32.9%), said Dr. Wheaton and Dr. Claussen of the CDC.

Short sleep duration also was more common in children from lower-income families and among those with less educated parents. Geography had an effect as well, with prevalence “highest in the Southeast, similar to geographic variation in adequate sleep observed for adults,” they noted.

Previous research has shown that “sleep disparity was associated with various social determinants of health (e.g., poverty, food insecurity, and perceived racism), which can increase chronic and acute stress and result in environmental and psychological factors that negatively affect sleep duration and can compound long-term health risks,” the investigators wrote.

Short sleep duration by age group was defined as less the following amounts: Twelve hours for infants (4-11 months), 11 hours for children aged 1-2 years, 10 hours for children aged 3-5 years, 9 hours for children aged 6-12, and 8 hours for adolescents (13-17 years), they explained. Responses for the survey’s sleep-duration question totaled 99,842 for the 3 years included.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Just over one-third of children in the United States get less sleep than recommended, with higher rates occurring among several racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among children aged 4 months to 17 years, 34.9% got less than the recommended amount of sleep for their age and just 33.9% had a regular bedtime, Anne G. Wheaton, PhD, and Angelika H. Claussen, PhD, said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Unlike previous reports, this analysis showed that adolescents were less likely than infants to have short sleep duration, 31.2% vs. 40.3%. These latest data are based on the 2016-2018 editions of the National Survey of Children’s Health, and the “difference might be explained by NSCH’s reliance on parent report rather than self-report with Youth Risk Behavior Surveys,” they suggested.

Black children had the highest prevalence of any group included in the study, as parents reported that 50.8% of all ages were not getting the recommended amount of sleep, compared with 39.1% among Hispanics, 34.6% for other races, and 28.8% for Whites. The figure for Black infants was 64.2%, almost double the prevalence for White infants (32.9%), said Dr. Wheaton and Dr. Claussen of the CDC.

Short sleep duration also was more common in children from lower-income families and among those with less educated parents. Geography had an effect as well, with prevalence “highest in the Southeast, similar to geographic variation in adequate sleep observed for adults,” they noted.

Previous research has shown that “sleep disparity was associated with various social determinants of health (e.g., poverty, food insecurity, and perceived racism), which can increase chronic and acute stress and result in environmental and psychological factors that negatively affect sleep duration and can compound long-term health risks,” the investigators wrote.

Short sleep duration by age group was defined as less the following amounts: Twelve hours for infants (4-11 months), 11 hours for children aged 1-2 years, 10 hours for children aged 3-5 years, 9 hours for children aged 6-12, and 8 hours for adolescents (13-17 years), they explained. Responses for the survey’s sleep-duration question totaled 99,842 for the 3 years included.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Just over one-third of children in the United States get less sleep than recommended, with higher rates occurring among several racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among children aged 4 months to 17 years, 34.9% got less than the recommended amount of sleep for their age and just 33.9% had a regular bedtime, Anne G. Wheaton, PhD, and Angelika H. Claussen, PhD, said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Unlike previous reports, this analysis showed that adolescents were less likely than infants to have short sleep duration, 31.2% vs. 40.3%. These latest data are based on the 2016-2018 editions of the National Survey of Children’s Health, and the “difference might be explained by NSCH’s reliance on parent report rather than self-report with Youth Risk Behavior Surveys,” they suggested.

Black children had the highest prevalence of any group included in the study, as parents reported that 50.8% of all ages were not getting the recommended amount of sleep, compared with 39.1% among Hispanics, 34.6% for other races, and 28.8% for Whites. The figure for Black infants was 64.2%, almost double the prevalence for White infants (32.9%), said Dr. Wheaton and Dr. Claussen of the CDC.

Short sleep duration also was more common in children from lower-income families and among those with less educated parents. Geography had an effect as well, with prevalence “highest in the Southeast, similar to geographic variation in adequate sleep observed for adults,” they noted.

Previous research has shown that “sleep disparity was associated with various social determinants of health (e.g., poverty, food insecurity, and perceived racism), which can increase chronic and acute stress and result in environmental and psychological factors that negatively affect sleep duration and can compound long-term health risks,” the investigators wrote.

Short sleep duration by age group was defined as less the following amounts: Twelve hours for infants (4-11 months), 11 hours for children aged 1-2 years, 10 hours for children aged 3-5 years, 9 hours for children aged 6-12, and 8 hours for adolescents (13-17 years), they explained. Responses for the survey’s sleep-duration question totaled 99,842 for the 3 years included.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Study Overview

Objective. To examine differences in care, specifically hospitalization towards the end of life, among nursing home residents with dementia who were Black compared with those who were White.

Design. Population based cohort study in the US. The study included all decedents with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementia (ADRD) who resided in a nursing home from 2014 to 2017. Decedents from nursing homes were identified by death within 1 day of an identified nursing home stay or within 8 days of a hospital transfer from nursing home. Data were obtained from Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) which contains clinical data from all Medicaid or Medicare certified nursing homes, and from the Medicare Beneficiary Summary File (MBSF) and Medicare Provider and Analysis and Review (MedPAR) which contains hospitalization events for all Medicare Beneficiaries. These files were linked to identify nursing home residents with ADRD who were hospitalized at the end of life. ADRD diagnosis was identified from the chronic condition list from the MBSF and from MDS diagnosis list.

Setting and participants. The study included 665 033 residents from 14 595 nursing homes who died during the study period. Resident race was categorized as White or Black based on the MBSF. Severe cognitive impairment was identified using the MDS that categorized residents as severe or not using the Brief Interview for Mental Status and the Cognitive Performance Scale. The mean (SD) age of the study population was 86.7 (9.2) years for White residents and 82.6 (11.1) years for Black residents. Of the participants, 68.8% and 61.2% were female for Black and White residents, respectively. Approximately 23.4% of White and 32.5% of Black residents had severe cognitive impairment. For nursing home characteristics, 71.5% of the 14 595 nursing homes represented were for profit; average bedside was 109.5 (57.0) and occupancy rate was on average 81.2% (14.3%).

Main outcome measures. The study outcome measure was any hospitalization within 30 days prior to death. The outcome was selected as an indicator of quality of care because as older adults living with ADRD experience progressive worsening of cognitive symptoms, at the end of life when dementia is severe, advance care planning and communication with health care proxies and surrogates often result in coordinated care that avoids acute hospitalizations, which are often burdensome to both patient and family and may yield poorer quality of life.

Main results. The study found that approximately 29.5% of White decedents and 40.7% of Black decedents were hospitalized towards the end of life. Nursing homes with a higher proportion of Black residents were more likely to have residents hospitalized towards the end of life with 35% of residents hospitalized in the highest quartile (27% Black) compared with 17% hospitalized for nursing homes in the lowest quartile (0% Black).After adjusting for covariates, Black residents were 7.9% more likely to be hospitalized in the last 30 days of life compared with White residents. Blacks with severe cognitive impairment has elevated risk of hospitalization by 4.9% when compared with White residents. After accounting for nursing home facility–level characteristics, nursing homes with a low proportion of Black residents had a 5.2% higher risk of hospitalizations compared with nursing homes with no Black residents, and nursing homes with a higher percentage of Black residents had a 13.3% higher risk of hospitalization compared with nursing homes with no Black residents.

Conclusion. Race is associated with care disparities in older nursing home residents with dementia. This study suggests that hospitalization towards the end of life as a quality of care marker differs across nursing homes, and nursing homes with a higher proportion of Black residents were more likely to be hospitalized. This suggests that these nursing homes may have fewer resources and delivered poorer quality of care, and that disparities in health systems or institutions contribute to differences in quality of care for this vulnerable group.

Commentary

Disparities of health status, health care, and affordability across race and ethnicity have persisted throughout the past 20 years.¹ There is further evidence to support systemic differences that can contribute to differences in health outcomes.² Although changes in health care policy such as the Affordable Care Act have expanded health care coverage, and instituted changes that aims to improve health care quality and reduce disparities, it is clear that factors contributing to disparities in care are structural and perhaps systemic. The latest evidence comes in this study that examines racial disparities in health care quality in one of the most vulnerable populations—older adults with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. The finding that Black nursing home residents, when compared with White residents, often has higher risk of hospitalization at the end of life, even among those with severe dementia where better coordinated care, clear goals of care and perhaps instituting palliative care would result in lower rate of hospitalization. The disparities were observed across nursing homes as well, where nursing homes with higher proportion of Black residents appear to have lower quality of care.

These findings are consistent with prior work that has examined differences in Black and White population on uptake of palliative care, discussion, and the documentation of advance care planning.³ Factors that may contribute to these differences include mistrust of the health care system among minorities, and not being connected to adequate health care resources. Family members and surrogate health care decision makers may consider receiving more aggressive care as advocating for better health care for their family members.⁴ These differences may contribute to the differences in hospitalization rates among residents within the same nursing home; however, the differences between nursing homes even after accounting for individual differences may indicate more widespread systemic differences that is associated with race. Policy changes that will address these differences are needed to level these differences so that quality care can be delivered regardless of race.⁵ For this vulnerable population with a terminal illness, approaches to enhance uptake of palliative approaches and care delivery for dementia patients at terminal stage are needed and understanding and targeting factors that contribute to low uptake of these approaches will enhance end of life care. Understanding the differences in resources and systems of care in nursing homes and perhaps how palliative care is integrated in these settings will be important to address care disparities that occurs across nursing homes.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Clinicians who take care of this population of older adults with advanced dementia should be aware of the potential for racial disparities that may lead to differences in the quality of care. The underlying reasons for these differences could be targeted so that older adults in all racial groups may have equal access to quality care including palliative approaches that avoid aggressive care for terminal illnesses across settings that may yield better care and quality of life. Policy makers and health systems leaders need to consider the current realities with racial disparities that policies need to address these differences so that they may not continue to persist in our systems of care.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To examine differences in care, specifically hospitalization towards the end of life, among nursing home residents with dementia who were Black compared with those who were White.

Design. Population based cohort study in the US. The study included all decedents with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementia (ADRD) who resided in a nursing home from 2014 to 2017. Decedents from nursing homes were identified by death within 1 day of an identified nursing home stay or within 8 days of a hospital transfer from nursing home. Data were obtained from Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) which contains clinical data from all Medicaid or Medicare certified nursing homes, and from the Medicare Beneficiary Summary File (MBSF) and Medicare Provider and Analysis and Review (MedPAR) which contains hospitalization events for all Medicare Beneficiaries. These files were linked to identify nursing home residents with ADRD who were hospitalized at the end of life. ADRD diagnosis was identified from the chronic condition list from the MBSF and from MDS diagnosis list.

Setting and participants. The study included 665 033 residents from 14 595 nursing homes who died during the study period. Resident race was categorized as White or Black based on the MBSF. Severe cognitive impairment was identified using the MDS that categorized residents as severe or not using the Brief Interview for Mental Status and the Cognitive Performance Scale. The mean (SD) age of the study population was 86.7 (9.2) years for White residents and 82.6 (11.1) years for Black residents. Of the participants, 68.8% and 61.2% were female for Black and White residents, respectively. Approximately 23.4% of White and 32.5% of Black residents had severe cognitive impairment. For nursing home characteristics, 71.5% of the 14 595 nursing homes represented were for profit; average bedside was 109.5 (57.0) and occupancy rate was on average 81.2% (14.3%).

Main outcome measures. The study outcome measure was any hospitalization within 30 days prior to death. The outcome was selected as an indicator of quality of care because as older adults living with ADRD experience progressive worsening of cognitive symptoms, at the end of life when dementia is severe, advance care planning and communication with health care proxies and surrogates often result in coordinated care that avoids acute hospitalizations, which are often burdensome to both patient and family and may yield poorer quality of life.

Main results. The study found that approximately 29.5% of White decedents and 40.7% of Black decedents were hospitalized towards the end of life. Nursing homes with a higher proportion of Black residents were more likely to have residents hospitalized towards the end of life with 35% of residents hospitalized in the highest quartile (27% Black) compared with 17% hospitalized for nursing homes in the lowest quartile (0% Black).After adjusting for covariates, Black residents were 7.9% more likely to be hospitalized in the last 30 days of life compared with White residents. Blacks with severe cognitive impairment has elevated risk of hospitalization by 4.9% when compared with White residents. After accounting for nursing home facility–level characteristics, nursing homes with a low proportion of Black residents had a 5.2% higher risk of hospitalizations compared with nursing homes with no Black residents, and nursing homes with a higher percentage of Black residents had a 13.3% higher risk of hospitalization compared with nursing homes with no Black residents.

Conclusion. Race is associated with care disparities in older nursing home residents with dementia. This study suggests that hospitalization towards the end of life as a quality of care marker differs across nursing homes, and nursing homes with a higher proportion of Black residents were more likely to be hospitalized. This suggests that these nursing homes may have fewer resources and delivered poorer quality of care, and that disparities in health systems or institutions contribute to differences in quality of care for this vulnerable group.

Commentary

Disparities of health status, health care, and affordability across race and ethnicity have persisted throughout the past 20 years.¹ There is further evidence to support systemic differences that can contribute to differences in health outcomes.² Although changes in health care policy such as the Affordable Care Act have expanded health care coverage, and instituted changes that aims to improve health care quality and reduce disparities, it is clear that factors contributing to disparities in care are structural and perhaps systemic. The latest evidence comes in this study that examines racial disparities in health care quality in one of the most vulnerable populations—older adults with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. The finding that Black nursing home residents, when compared with White residents, often has higher risk of hospitalization at the end of life, even among those with severe dementia where better coordinated care, clear goals of care and perhaps instituting palliative care would result in lower rate of hospitalization. The disparities were observed across nursing homes as well, where nursing homes with higher proportion of Black residents appear to have lower quality of care.

These findings are consistent with prior work that has examined differences in Black and White population on uptake of palliative care, discussion, and the documentation of advance care planning.³ Factors that may contribute to these differences include mistrust of the health care system among minorities, and not being connected to adequate health care resources. Family members and surrogate health care decision makers may consider receiving more aggressive care as advocating for better health care for their family members.⁴ These differences may contribute to the differences in hospitalization rates among residents within the same nursing home; however, the differences between nursing homes even after accounting for individual differences may indicate more widespread systemic differences that is associated with race. Policy changes that will address these differences are needed to level these differences so that quality care can be delivered regardless of race.⁵ For this vulnerable population with a terminal illness, approaches to enhance uptake of palliative approaches and care delivery for dementia patients at terminal stage are needed and understanding and targeting factors that contribute to low uptake of these approaches will enhance end of life care. Understanding the differences in resources and systems of care in nursing homes and perhaps how palliative care is integrated in these settings will be important to address care disparities that occurs across nursing homes.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Clinicians who take care of this population of older adults with advanced dementia should be aware of the potential for racial disparities that may lead to differences in the quality of care. The underlying reasons for these differences could be targeted so that older adults in all racial groups may have equal access to quality care including palliative approaches that avoid aggressive care for terminal illnesses across settings that may yield better care and quality of life. Policy makers and health systems leaders need to consider the current realities with racial disparities that policies need to address these differences so that they may not continue to persist in our systems of care.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To examine differences in care, specifically hospitalization towards the end of life, among nursing home residents with dementia who were Black compared with those who were White.

Design. Population based cohort study in the US. The study included all decedents with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementia (ADRD) who resided in a nursing home from 2014 to 2017. Decedents from nursing homes were identified by death within 1 day of an identified nursing home stay or within 8 days of a hospital transfer from nursing home. Data were obtained from Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) which contains clinical data from all Medicaid or Medicare certified nursing homes, and from the Medicare Beneficiary Summary File (MBSF) and Medicare Provider and Analysis and Review (MedPAR) which contains hospitalization events for all Medicare Beneficiaries. These files were linked to identify nursing home residents with ADRD who were hospitalized at the end of life. ADRD diagnosis was identified from the chronic condition list from the MBSF and from MDS diagnosis list.

Setting and participants. The study included 665 033 residents from 14 595 nursing homes who died during the study period. Resident race was categorized as White or Black based on the MBSF. Severe cognitive impairment was identified using the MDS that categorized residents as severe or not using the Brief Interview for Mental Status and the Cognitive Performance Scale. The mean (SD) age of the study population was 86.7 (9.2) years for White residents and 82.6 (11.1) years for Black residents. Of the participants, 68.8% and 61.2% were female for Black and White residents, respectively. Approximately 23.4% of White and 32.5% of Black residents had severe cognitive impairment. For nursing home characteristics, 71.5% of the 14 595 nursing homes represented were for profit; average bedside was 109.5 (57.0) and occupancy rate was on average 81.2% (14.3%).

Main outcome measures. The study outcome measure was any hospitalization within 30 days prior to death. The outcome was selected as an indicator of quality of care because as older adults living with ADRD experience progressive worsening of cognitive symptoms, at the end of life when dementia is severe, advance care planning and communication with health care proxies and surrogates often result in coordinated care that avoids acute hospitalizations, which are often burdensome to both patient and family and may yield poorer quality of life.

Main results. The study found that approximately 29.5% of White decedents and 40.7% of Black decedents were hospitalized towards the end of life. Nursing homes with a higher proportion of Black residents were more likely to have residents hospitalized towards the end of life with 35% of residents hospitalized in the highest quartile (27% Black) compared with 17% hospitalized for nursing homes in the lowest quartile (0% Black).After adjusting for covariates, Black residents were 7.9% more likely to be hospitalized in the last 30 days of life compared with White residents. Blacks with severe cognitive impairment has elevated risk of hospitalization by 4.9% when compared with White residents. After accounting for nursing home facility–level characteristics, nursing homes with a low proportion of Black residents had a 5.2% higher risk of hospitalizations compared with nursing homes with no Black residents, and nursing homes with a higher percentage of Black residents had a 13.3% higher risk of hospitalization compared with nursing homes with no Black residents.

Conclusion. Race is associated with care disparities in older nursing home residents with dementia. This study suggests that hospitalization towards the end of life as a quality of care marker differs across nursing homes, and nursing homes with a higher proportion of Black residents were more likely to be hospitalized. This suggests that these nursing homes may have fewer resources and delivered poorer quality of care, and that disparities in health systems or institutions contribute to differences in quality of care for this vulnerable group.

Commentary

Disparities of health status, health care, and affordability across race and ethnicity have persisted throughout the past 20 years.¹ There is further evidence to support systemic differences that can contribute to differences in health outcomes.² Although changes in health care policy such as the Affordable Care Act have expanded health care coverage, and instituted changes that aims to improve health care quality and reduce disparities, it is clear that factors contributing to disparities in care are structural and perhaps systemic. The latest evidence comes in this study that examines racial disparities in health care quality in one of the most vulnerable populations—older adults with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. The finding that Black nursing home residents, when compared with White residents, often has higher risk of hospitalization at the end of life, even among those with severe dementia where better coordinated care, clear goals of care and perhaps instituting palliative care would result in lower rate of hospitalization. The disparities were observed across nursing homes as well, where nursing homes with higher proportion of Black residents appear to have lower quality of care.

These findings are consistent with prior work that has examined differences in Black and White population on uptake of palliative care, discussion, and the documentation of advance care planning.³ Factors that may contribute to these differences include mistrust of the health care system among minorities, and not being connected to adequate health care resources. Family members and surrogate health care decision makers may consider receiving more aggressive care as advocating for better health care for their family members.⁴ These differences may contribute to the differences in hospitalization rates among residents within the same nursing home; however, the differences between nursing homes even after accounting for individual differences may indicate more widespread systemic differences that is associated with race. Policy changes that will address these differences are needed to level these differences so that quality care can be delivered regardless of race.⁵ For this vulnerable population with a terminal illness, approaches to enhance uptake of palliative approaches and care delivery for dementia patients at terminal stage are needed and understanding and targeting factors that contribute to low uptake of these approaches will enhance end of life care. Understanding the differences in resources and systems of care in nursing homes and perhaps how palliative care is integrated in these settings will be important to address care disparities that occurs across nursing homes.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Clinicians who take care of this population of older adults with advanced dementia should be aware of the potential for racial disparities that may lead to differences in the quality of care. The underlying reasons for these differences could be targeted so that older adults in all racial groups may have equal access to quality care including palliative approaches that avoid aggressive care for terminal illnesses across settings that may yield better care and quality of life. Policy makers and health systems leaders need to consider the current realities with racial disparities that policies need to address these differences so that they may not continue to persist in our systems of care.

Financial disclosures: None.

THE COMPARISON

A A 27-year-old Hispanic woman with comedonal and inflammatory acne. Erythema is prominent around the inflammatory lesions. Note the pustule on the cheek surrounded by pink color.

B A teenaged Black boy with acne papules and pustules on the face. There are comedones, hyperpigmented macules, and pustules on the cheek.

C A teenaged Black girl with pomade acne. The patient used various hair care products, which obstructed the pilosebaceous units on the forehead.

Epidemiology

Acne is a leading dermatologic condition in individuals with skin of color in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• erythematous or hyperpigmented papules or comedones
• hyperpigmented macules and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH)
• increased risk for keloidal scars.²

Worth noting

• Patients with darker skin tones may be more concerned with the dark marks (also referred to as scars or manchas in Spanish) than the acne itself. This PIH may be viewed by patients as the major problem.
• Acne medications such as azelaic acid and some retinoids (when applied appropriately) can treat both acne and PIH.³
• Irritation from topical acne medications, including retinoid dermatitis, may lead to more PIH. Using noncomedogenic moisturizers and applying medication appropriately (ie, a pea-sized amount of topical retinoid per application) may help limit irritation.^4,5
• One type of acne seen more commonly, although not exclusively, in Black patients is pomade acne, which principally appears on the forehead and is associated with use of hair care and styling products (FIGURE C).

Health disparity highlight

Disparities in access to health care exist for those with dermatologic concerns. According to one study, African American (28.5%) and Hispanic patients (23.9%) were less likely to be seen by a dermatologist solely for the diagnosis of a dermatologic condition compared to Asian and Pacific Islander patients (36.7%) or White patients (43.2%).¹ Noting that isotretinoin is the most potent systemic therapy for severe cystic acne vulgaris, Bell et al⁶ reported that Black patients had lower odds of receiving isotretinoin compared to White patients. Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving a topical retinoid, tretinoin, than non-Hispanic patients.⁶

THE COMPARISON

A A 27-year-old Hispanic woman with comedonal and inflammatory acne. Erythema is prominent around the inflammatory lesions. Note the pustule on the cheek surrounded by pink color.

B A teenaged Black boy with acne papules and pustules on the face. There are comedones, hyperpigmented macules, and pustules on the cheek.

C A teenaged Black girl with pomade acne. The patient used various hair care products, which obstructed the pilosebaceous units on the forehead.

Epidemiology

Acne is a leading dermatologic condition in individuals with skin of color in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• erythematous or hyperpigmented papules or comedones
• hyperpigmented macules and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH)
• increased risk for keloidal scars.²

Worth noting

• Patients with darker skin tones may be more concerned with the dark marks (also referred to as scars or manchas in Spanish) than the acne itself. This PIH may be viewed by patients as the major problem.
• Acne medications such as azelaic acid and some retinoids (when applied appropriately) can treat both acne and PIH.³
• Irritation from topical acne medications, including retinoid dermatitis, may lead to more PIH. Using noncomedogenic moisturizers and applying medication appropriately (ie, a pea-sized amount of topical retinoid per application) may help limit irritation.^4,5
• One type of acne seen more commonly, although not exclusively, in Black patients is pomade acne, which principally appears on the forehead and is associated with use of hair care and styling products (FIGURE C).

Health disparity highlight

Disparities in access to health care exist for those with dermatologic concerns. According to one study, African American (28.5%) and Hispanic patients (23.9%) were less likely to be seen by a dermatologist solely for the diagnosis of a dermatologic condition compared to Asian and Pacific Islander patients (36.7%) or White patients (43.2%).¹ Noting that isotretinoin is the most potent systemic therapy for severe cystic acne vulgaris, Bell et al⁶ reported that Black patients had lower odds of receiving isotretinoin compared to White patients. Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving a topical retinoid, tretinoin, than non-Hispanic patients.⁶

THE COMPARISON

A A 27-year-old Hispanic woman with comedonal and inflammatory acne. Erythema is prominent around the inflammatory lesions. Note the pustule on the cheek surrounded by pink color.

B A teenaged Black boy with acne papules and pustules on the face. There are comedones, hyperpigmented macules, and pustules on the cheek.

C A teenaged Black girl with pomade acne. The patient used various hair care products, which obstructed the pilosebaceous units on the forehead.

Epidemiology

Acne is a leading dermatologic condition in individuals with skin of color in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• erythematous or hyperpigmented papules or comedones
• hyperpigmented macules and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH)
• increased risk for keloidal scars.²

Worth noting

• Patients with darker skin tones may be more concerned with the dark marks (also referred to as scars or manchas in Spanish) than the acne itself. This PIH may be viewed by patients as the major problem.
• Acne medications such as azelaic acid and some retinoids (when applied appropriately) can treat both acne and PIH.³
• Irritation from topical acne medications, including retinoid dermatitis, may lead to more PIH. Using noncomedogenic moisturizers and applying medication appropriately (ie, a pea-sized amount of topical retinoid per application) may help limit irritation.^4,5
• One type of acne seen more commonly, although not exclusively, in Black patients is pomade acne, which principally appears on the forehead and is associated with use of hair care and styling products (FIGURE C).

Health disparity highlight

Disparities in access to health care exist for those with dermatologic concerns. According to one study, African American (28.5%) and Hispanic patients (23.9%) were less likely to be seen by a dermatologist solely for the diagnosis of a dermatologic condition compared to Asian and Pacific Islander patients (36.7%) or White patients (43.2%).¹ Noting that isotretinoin is the most potent systemic therapy for severe cystic acne vulgaris, Bell et al⁶ reported that Black patients had lower odds of receiving isotretinoin compared to White patients. Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving a topical retinoid, tretinoin, than non-Hispanic patients.⁶

The pandemic was more disruptive to the home life of female primary care doctors who had children than that of those who did not have children, suggests a new survey’s results.

The survey, conducted by the Robert Graham Center and the American Board of Family Medicine from May to June 2020, examined the professional and personal experiences of being a mother and a primary care physician during the pandemic.

“The pandemic was hard for everyone, but for women who had children in the home, and it didn’t really matter what age, it seemed like the emotional impact was much harder,” study author Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, said in an interview.

The results of the survey of 89 female physicians who worked in the primary care specialty were published in the Journal of Mother Studies.

Dr. Jabbapour and her colleagues found that 67% of female physicians with children said the pandemic had a great “impact” on their home life compared with 25% of those without children. Furthermore, 41% of physician moms said COVID-19 greatly affected their work life, as opposed to 17% of their counterparts without children.

“Women are going into medicine at much higher rates. In primary care, it’s becoming close to the majority,” said Dr. Jabbarpour, a family physician and medical director of the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies. “That has important workforce implications. If we’re not supporting our female physicians and they are greater than 50% of the physician workforce and they’re burning out, who’s going to have a doctor anymore?”
 

Child care challenges

Researchers found that the emotional toll female physicians experienced early on in the pandemic was indicative of the challenges they were facing. Some of those challenges included managing anxiety, increased stress from both work and home, and social isolation from friends and family.

Another challenge physician mothers had to deal with was fulfilling child care and homeschooling needs, as many women didn’t know what to do with their children and didn’t have external support from their employers.

Child care options vanished for many people during the pandemic, Emily Kaye, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“I think it was incredibly challenging for everyone and uniquely challenging for women who were young mothers, specifically with respect to child care” said Dr. Kaye, assistant professor in the department of oncology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. “Many women were expected to just continue plugging on in the absence of any reasonable or safe form of child care.”

Some of the changes physician-mothers said they were required to make at home or in their personal lives included physical changes related to their family safety, such as decontaminating themselves in their garages before heading home after a shift. Some also reported that they had to find new ways to maintain emotional and mental health because of social isolation from family and friends.

The survey results, which were taken early on in the pandemic, highlight the need for health policies that support physician mothers and families, as women shoulder the burden of parenting and domestic responsibilities in heterosexual relationships, the researchers said.

“I’m hoping that people pay attention and start to implement more family friendly policies within their workplaces,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “But during a pandemic, it was essential for [female health care workers] to go in, and they had nowhere to put their kids. [Therefore], the choice became leaving young children alone at home, putting them into daycare facilities that did remain open without knowing if they were [safe], or quitting their jobs. None of those choices are good.”
 

Community support as a potential solution

Dr. Kaye said she believes that there should be a “long overdue investment” in community support, affordable and accessible child care, flexible spending, paid family leave, and other forms of caregiving support.

“In order to keep women physicians in the workforce, we need to have a significant increase in investment in the social safety net in this country,” Dr. Kaye said.

Researchers said more studies should evaluate the role the COVID-19 pandemic had on the primary care workforce in the U.S., “with a specific emphasis on how the pandemic impacted mothers, and should more intentionally consider the further intersections of race and ethnicity in the experiences of physician-mothers.”

“I think people are burning out and then there’s all this anti-science, anti-health sentiment out there, which makes it harder,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “If we did repeat this study now, I think things would be even more dire in the voices of the women that we heard.”

Dr. Jabbarpour and Dr. Kaye reported no disclosures.

The pandemic was more disruptive to the home life of female primary care doctors who had children than that of those who did not have children, suggests a new survey’s results.

The survey, conducted by the Robert Graham Center and the American Board of Family Medicine from May to June 2020, examined the professional and personal experiences of being a mother and a primary care physician during the pandemic.

“The pandemic was hard for everyone, but for women who had children in the home, and it didn’t really matter what age, it seemed like the emotional impact was much harder,” study author Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, said in an interview.

The results of the survey of 89 female physicians who worked in the primary care specialty were published in the Journal of Mother Studies.

Dr. Jabbapour and her colleagues found that 67% of female physicians with children said the pandemic had a great “impact” on their home life compared with 25% of those without children. Furthermore, 41% of physician moms said COVID-19 greatly affected their work life, as opposed to 17% of their counterparts without children.

“Women are going into medicine at much higher rates. In primary care, it’s becoming close to the majority,” said Dr. Jabbarpour, a family physician and medical director of the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies. “That has important workforce implications. If we’re not supporting our female physicians and they are greater than 50% of the physician workforce and they’re burning out, who’s going to have a doctor anymore?”
 

Child care challenges

Researchers found that the emotional toll female physicians experienced early on in the pandemic was indicative of the challenges they were facing. Some of those challenges included managing anxiety, increased stress from both work and home, and social isolation from friends and family.

Another challenge physician mothers had to deal with was fulfilling child care and homeschooling needs, as many women didn’t know what to do with their children and didn’t have external support from their employers.

Child care options vanished for many people during the pandemic, Emily Kaye, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“I think it was incredibly challenging for everyone and uniquely challenging for women who were young mothers, specifically with respect to child care” said Dr. Kaye, assistant professor in the department of oncology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. “Many women were expected to just continue plugging on in the absence of any reasonable or safe form of child care.”

Some of the changes physician-mothers said they were required to make at home or in their personal lives included physical changes related to their family safety, such as decontaminating themselves in their garages before heading home after a shift. Some also reported that they had to find new ways to maintain emotional and mental health because of social isolation from family and friends.

The survey results, which were taken early on in the pandemic, highlight the need for health policies that support physician mothers and families, as women shoulder the burden of parenting and domestic responsibilities in heterosexual relationships, the researchers said.

“I’m hoping that people pay attention and start to implement more family friendly policies within their workplaces,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “But during a pandemic, it was essential for [female health care workers] to go in, and they had nowhere to put their kids. [Therefore], the choice became leaving young children alone at home, putting them into daycare facilities that did remain open without knowing if they were [safe], or quitting their jobs. None of those choices are good.”
 

Community support as a potential solution

Dr. Kaye said she believes that there should be a “long overdue investment” in community support, affordable and accessible child care, flexible spending, paid family leave, and other forms of caregiving support.

“In order to keep women physicians in the workforce, we need to have a significant increase in investment in the social safety net in this country,” Dr. Kaye said.

Researchers said more studies should evaluate the role the COVID-19 pandemic had on the primary care workforce in the U.S., “with a specific emphasis on how the pandemic impacted mothers, and should more intentionally consider the further intersections of race and ethnicity in the experiences of physician-mothers.”

“I think people are burning out and then there’s all this anti-science, anti-health sentiment out there, which makes it harder,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “If we did repeat this study now, I think things would be even more dire in the voices of the women that we heard.”

Dr. Jabbarpour and Dr. Kaye reported no disclosures.

The pandemic was more disruptive to the home life of female primary care doctors who had children than that of those who did not have children, suggests a new survey’s results.

The survey, conducted by the Robert Graham Center and the American Board of Family Medicine from May to June 2020, examined the professional and personal experiences of being a mother and a primary care physician during the pandemic.

“The pandemic was hard for everyone, but for women who had children in the home, and it didn’t really matter what age, it seemed like the emotional impact was much harder,” study author Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, said in an interview.

The results of the survey of 89 female physicians who worked in the primary care specialty were published in the Journal of Mother Studies.

Dr. Jabbapour and her colleagues found that 67% of female physicians with children said the pandemic had a great “impact” on their home life compared with 25% of those without children. Furthermore, 41% of physician moms said COVID-19 greatly affected their work life, as opposed to 17% of their counterparts without children.

“Women are going into medicine at much higher rates. In primary care, it’s becoming close to the majority,” said Dr. Jabbarpour, a family physician and medical director of the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies. “That has important workforce implications. If we’re not supporting our female physicians and they are greater than 50% of the physician workforce and they’re burning out, who’s going to have a doctor anymore?”
 

Child care challenges

Researchers found that the emotional toll female physicians experienced early on in the pandemic was indicative of the challenges they were facing. Some of those challenges included managing anxiety, increased stress from both work and home, and social isolation from friends and family.

Another challenge physician mothers had to deal with was fulfilling child care and homeschooling needs, as many women didn’t know what to do with their children and didn’t have external support from their employers.

Child care options vanished for many people during the pandemic, Emily Kaye, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“I think it was incredibly challenging for everyone and uniquely challenging for women who were young mothers, specifically with respect to child care” said Dr. Kaye, assistant professor in the department of oncology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. “Many women were expected to just continue plugging on in the absence of any reasonable or safe form of child care.”

Some of the changes physician-mothers said they were required to make at home or in their personal lives included physical changes related to their family safety, such as decontaminating themselves in their garages before heading home after a shift. Some also reported that they had to find new ways to maintain emotional and mental health because of social isolation from family and friends.

The survey results, which were taken early on in the pandemic, highlight the need for health policies that support physician mothers and families, as women shoulder the burden of parenting and domestic responsibilities in heterosexual relationships, the researchers said.

“I’m hoping that people pay attention and start to implement more family friendly policies within their workplaces,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “But during a pandemic, it was essential for [female health care workers] to go in, and they had nowhere to put their kids. [Therefore], the choice became leaving young children alone at home, putting them into daycare facilities that did remain open without knowing if they were [safe], or quitting their jobs. None of those choices are good.”
 

Community support as a potential solution

Dr. Kaye said she believes that there should be a “long overdue investment” in community support, affordable and accessible child care, flexible spending, paid family leave, and other forms of caregiving support.

“In order to keep women physicians in the workforce, we need to have a significant increase in investment in the social safety net in this country,” Dr. Kaye said.

Researchers said more studies should evaluate the role the COVID-19 pandemic had on the primary care workforce in the U.S., “with a specific emphasis on how the pandemic impacted mothers, and should more intentionally consider the further intersections of race and ethnicity in the experiences of physician-mothers.”

“I think people are burning out and then there’s all this anti-science, anti-health sentiment out there, which makes it harder,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “If we did repeat this study now, I think things would be even more dire in the voices of the women that we heard.”

Dr. Jabbarpour and Dr. Kaye reported no disclosures.

The language of equality in America’s founding was never truly embraced, resulting in a painful legacy of slavery, racial injustice, and gender inequality inherited by all generations. However, for as long as America has fallen short of this unfulfilled promise, individuals have dedicated their lives to the tireless work of correcting injustice. Although the process has been painstakingly slow, our nation has incrementally inched toward the promised vision of equality, and these efforts continue today. With increased attention to social justice movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, our collective social consciousness may be finally waking up to the systemic injustices embedded into our fundamental institutions.

Medicine is not immune to these injustices. Persistent underrepresentation of women and minorities remains in medical school faculty and the broader physician workforce, and the same inequities exist in hospital medicine.^1-6 The report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) on diversity in medicine highlights the impact widespread implicit and explicit bias has on creating exclusionary environments, exemplified by research demonstrating lower promotion rates in non-White faculty.^7-8 The report calls us, as physicians, to a broader mission: “Focusing solely on increasing compositional diversity along the academic continuum is insufficient. To effectively enact institutional change at academic medical centers ... leaders must focus their efforts on developing inclusive, equity-minded environments.”⁷

We have a clear moral imperative to correct these shortcomings for our profession and our patients. It is incumbent on our institutions and hospital medicine groups (HMGs) to embark on the necessary process of systemic institutional change to address inequality and justice within our field.

A road map for DEI and justice in hospital medicine

The policies and biases allowing these inequities to persist have existed for decades, and superficial efforts will not bring sufficient change. Our institutions require new building blocks from which the foundation of a wholly inclusive and equal system of practice can be constructed. Encouragingly, some institutions and HMGs have taken steps to modernize their practices. We offer examples and suggestions of concrete practices to begin this journey, organizing these efforts into three broad categories:

1. Recruitment and retention

2. Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

3. Community engagement and partnership.

Recruitment and retention

Improving equity and inclusion begins with recruitment. Search and hiring committees should be assembled intentionally, with gender balance, and ideally with diversity or equity experts invited to join. All members should receive unconscious bias training. For example, the University of Colorado utilizes a toolkit to ensure appropriate steps are followed in the recruitment process, including predetermined candidate selection criteria that are ranked in advance.

Job descriptions should be reviewed by a diversity expert, ensuring unbiased and ungendered language within written text. Advertisements should be wide-reaching, and the committee should consider asking applicants for a diversity statement. Interviews should include a variety of interviewers and interview types (e.g., 1:1, group, etc.). Letters of recommendation deserve special scrutiny; letters for women and minorities may be at risk of being shorter and less record focused, and may be subject to less professional respect, such as use of first names over honorifics or titles.

Once candidates are hired, institutions and HMGs should prioritize developing strategies to improve retention of a diverse workforce. This includes special attention to workplace culture, and thoughtfully striving for cultural intelligence within the group. Some examples may include developing affinity groups, such as underrepresented in medicine (UIM), women in medicine (WIM), or LGBTQ+ groups. Affinity groups provide a safe space for members and allies to support and uplift each other. Institutional and HMG leaders must educate themselves and their members on the importance of language (see table), and the more insidious forms of bias and discrimination that adversely affect workplace culture. Microinsults and microinvalidations, for example, can hurt and result in failure to recruit or turnover.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

Women and minorities are known to be over-mentored and under-sponsored. Sponsorship is defined by Ayyala et al. as “active support by someone appropriately placed in the organization who has significant influence on decision making processes or structures and who is advocating for the career advancement of an individual and recommends them for leadership roles, awards, or high-profile speaking opportunities.”⁹ While the goal of mentorship is professional development, sponsorship emphasizes professional advancement. Deliberate steps to both mentor and then sponsor diverse hospitalists and future hospitalists (including trainees) are important to ensure equity.

More inclusive HMGs can be bolstered by prioritizing peer education on the professional imperative that we have a diverse workforce and equitable, just workplaces. Academic institutions may use existing structures such as grand rounds to provide education on these crucial topics, and all HMGs can host journal clubs and professional development sessions on leadership competencies that foster inclusion and equity. Sessions coordinated by women and minorities are also a form of justice, by helping overcome barriers to career advancement. Diverse faculty presenting in educational venues will result in content that is relevant to more audience members and will exemplify that leaders and experts are of all races, ethnicities, genders, ages, and abilities.

Groups should prioritize mentoring trainees and early-career hospitalists on scholarly projects that examine equity in opportunities of care, which signals that this science is valued as much as basic research. When used to demonstrate areas needing improvement, these projects can drive meaningful change. Even projects as straightforward as studying diversity in conference presenters, disparities in adherence to guidelines, or QI projects on how race is portrayed in the medical record can be powerful tools in advancing equity.

A key part of mentoring is training hospitalists and future hospitalists in how to be an upstander, as in how to intervene when a peer or patient is affected by bias, harassment, or discrimination. Receiving such training can prepare hospitalists for these nearly inevitable experiences and receiving training during usual work hours communicates that this is a valuable and necessary professional competency.
 

Community engagement and partnership

Institutions and HMGs should deliberately work to promote community engagement and partnership within their groups. Beyond promoting health equity, community engagement also fosters inclusivity by allowing community members to share their ideas and give recommendations to the institutions that serve them.

There is a growing body of literature that demonstrates how disadvantages by individual and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES) contribute to disparities in specific disease conditions.^10-11 Strategies to narrow the gap in SES disadvantages may help reduce race-related health disparities. Institutions that engage the community and develop programs to promote health equity can do so through bidirectional exchange of knowledge and mutual benefit.

An institution-specific example is Medicine for the Greater Good at Johns Hopkins. The founders of this program wrote, “health is not synonymous with medicine. To truly care for our patients and their communities, health care professionals must understand how to deliver equitable health care that meets the needs of the diverse populations we care for. The mission of Medicine for the Greater Good is to promote health and wellness beyond the confines of the hospital through an interactive and engaging partnership with the community ...” Community engagement also provides an opportunity for growing the cultural intelligence of institutions and HMGs.
 

Tools for advancing comprehensive change – Repurposing PDSA cycles

Whether institutions and HMGs are at the beginning of their journey or further along in the work of reducing disparities, having a systematic approach for implementing and refining policies and procedures can cultivate more inclusive and equitable environments. Thankfully, hospitalists are already equipped with the fundamental tools needed to advance change across their institutions – QI processes in the form of Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles.

They allow a continuous cycle of successful incremental change based on direct evidence and experience. Any efforts to deconstruct systematic bias within our organizations must also be a continual process. Our female colleagues and colleagues of color need our institutions to engage unceasingly to bring about the equality they deserve. To that end, PDSA cycles are an apt tool to utilize in this work as they can naturally function in a never-ending process of improvement.

With PDSA as a model, we envision a cycle with steps that are intentionally purposed to fit the needs of equitable institutional change: Target-Engage-Assess-Modify. As highlighted (see graphic), these modifications ensure that stakeholders (i.e., those that unequal practices and policies affect the most) are engaged early and remain involved throughout the cycle.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Dr. Delapenha and Dr. Kisuule are based in the department of internal medicine, division of hospital medicine, at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Martin is based in the department of medicine, section of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago. Dr. Barrett is a hospitalist in the department of internal medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

References

1. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019: Figure 19. Percentage of physicians by sex, 2018. AAMC website.

2. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 16. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by sex and race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

3. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 15. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

4. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 6. Percentage of acceptees to U.S. medical schools by race/ethnicity (alone), academic year 2018-2019. AAMC website.

5. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019 Figure 18. Percentage of all active physicians by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

6. Herzke C et al. Gender issues in academic hospital medicine: A national survey of hospitalist leaders. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(6):1641-6.

7. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Fostering diversity and inclusion. AAMC website.

8. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Executive summary. AAMC website.

9. Ayyala MS et al. Mentorship is not enough: Exploring sponsorship and its role in career advancement in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2019;94(1):94-100.

10. Ejike OC et al. Contribution of individual and neighborhood factors to racial disparities in respiratory outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Apr 15;203(8):987-97.

11. Galiatsatos P et al. The effect of community socioeconomic status on sepsis-attributable mortality. J Crit Care. 2018 Aug;46:129-33.

The language of equality in America’s founding was never truly embraced, resulting in a painful legacy of slavery, racial injustice, and gender inequality inherited by all generations. However, for as long as America has fallen short of this unfulfilled promise, individuals have dedicated their lives to the tireless work of correcting injustice. Although the process has been painstakingly slow, our nation has incrementally inched toward the promised vision of equality, and these efforts continue today. With increased attention to social justice movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, our collective social consciousness may be finally waking up to the systemic injustices embedded into our fundamental institutions.

Medicine is not immune to these injustices. Persistent underrepresentation of women and minorities remains in medical school faculty and the broader physician workforce, and the same inequities exist in hospital medicine.^1-6 The report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) on diversity in medicine highlights the impact widespread implicit and explicit bias has on creating exclusionary environments, exemplified by research demonstrating lower promotion rates in non-White faculty.^7-8 The report calls us, as physicians, to a broader mission: “Focusing solely on increasing compositional diversity along the academic continuum is insufficient. To effectively enact institutional change at academic medical centers ... leaders must focus their efforts on developing inclusive, equity-minded environments.”⁷

We have a clear moral imperative to correct these shortcomings for our profession and our patients. It is incumbent on our institutions and hospital medicine groups (HMGs) to embark on the necessary process of systemic institutional change to address inequality and justice within our field.

A road map for DEI and justice in hospital medicine

The policies and biases allowing these inequities to persist have existed for decades, and superficial efforts will not bring sufficient change. Our institutions require new building blocks from which the foundation of a wholly inclusive and equal system of practice can be constructed. Encouragingly, some institutions and HMGs have taken steps to modernize their practices. We offer examples and suggestions of concrete practices to begin this journey, organizing these efforts into three broad categories:

1. Recruitment and retention

2. Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

3. Community engagement and partnership.

Recruitment and retention

Improving equity and inclusion begins with recruitment. Search and hiring committees should be assembled intentionally, with gender balance, and ideally with diversity or equity experts invited to join. All members should receive unconscious bias training. For example, the University of Colorado utilizes a toolkit to ensure appropriate steps are followed in the recruitment process, including predetermined candidate selection criteria that are ranked in advance.

Job descriptions should be reviewed by a diversity expert, ensuring unbiased and ungendered language within written text. Advertisements should be wide-reaching, and the committee should consider asking applicants for a diversity statement. Interviews should include a variety of interviewers and interview types (e.g., 1:1, group, etc.). Letters of recommendation deserve special scrutiny; letters for women and minorities may be at risk of being shorter and less record focused, and may be subject to less professional respect, such as use of first names over honorifics or titles.

Once candidates are hired, institutions and HMGs should prioritize developing strategies to improve retention of a diverse workforce. This includes special attention to workplace culture, and thoughtfully striving for cultural intelligence within the group. Some examples may include developing affinity groups, such as underrepresented in medicine (UIM), women in medicine (WIM), or LGBTQ+ groups. Affinity groups provide a safe space for members and allies to support and uplift each other. Institutional and HMG leaders must educate themselves and their members on the importance of language (see table), and the more insidious forms of bias and discrimination that adversely affect workplace culture. Microinsults and microinvalidations, for example, can hurt and result in failure to recruit or turnover.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

Women and minorities are known to be over-mentored and under-sponsored. Sponsorship is defined by Ayyala et al. as “active support by someone appropriately placed in the organization who has significant influence on decision making processes or structures and who is advocating for the career advancement of an individual and recommends them for leadership roles, awards, or high-profile speaking opportunities.”⁹ While the goal of mentorship is professional development, sponsorship emphasizes professional advancement. Deliberate steps to both mentor and then sponsor diverse hospitalists and future hospitalists (including trainees) are important to ensure equity.

More inclusive HMGs can be bolstered by prioritizing peer education on the professional imperative that we have a diverse workforce and equitable, just workplaces. Academic institutions may use existing structures such as grand rounds to provide education on these crucial topics, and all HMGs can host journal clubs and professional development sessions on leadership competencies that foster inclusion and equity. Sessions coordinated by women and minorities are also a form of justice, by helping overcome barriers to career advancement. Diverse faculty presenting in educational venues will result in content that is relevant to more audience members and will exemplify that leaders and experts are of all races, ethnicities, genders, ages, and abilities.

Groups should prioritize mentoring trainees and early-career hospitalists on scholarly projects that examine equity in opportunities of care, which signals that this science is valued as much as basic research. When used to demonstrate areas needing improvement, these projects can drive meaningful change. Even projects as straightforward as studying diversity in conference presenters, disparities in adherence to guidelines, or QI projects on how race is portrayed in the medical record can be powerful tools in advancing equity.

A key part of mentoring is training hospitalists and future hospitalists in how to be an upstander, as in how to intervene when a peer or patient is affected by bias, harassment, or discrimination. Receiving such training can prepare hospitalists for these nearly inevitable experiences and receiving training during usual work hours communicates that this is a valuable and necessary professional competency.
 

Community engagement and partnership

Institutions and HMGs should deliberately work to promote community engagement and partnership within their groups. Beyond promoting health equity, community engagement also fosters inclusivity by allowing community members to share their ideas and give recommendations to the institutions that serve them.

There is a growing body of literature that demonstrates how disadvantages by individual and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES) contribute to disparities in specific disease conditions.^10-11 Strategies to narrow the gap in SES disadvantages may help reduce race-related health disparities. Institutions that engage the community and develop programs to promote health equity can do so through bidirectional exchange of knowledge and mutual benefit.

An institution-specific example is Medicine for the Greater Good at Johns Hopkins. The founders of this program wrote, “health is not synonymous with medicine. To truly care for our patients and their communities, health care professionals must understand how to deliver equitable health care that meets the needs of the diverse populations we care for. The mission of Medicine for the Greater Good is to promote health and wellness beyond the confines of the hospital through an interactive and engaging partnership with the community ...” Community engagement also provides an opportunity for growing the cultural intelligence of institutions and HMGs.
 

Tools for advancing comprehensive change – Repurposing PDSA cycles

Whether institutions and HMGs are at the beginning of their journey or further along in the work of reducing disparities, having a systematic approach for implementing and refining policies and procedures can cultivate more inclusive and equitable environments. Thankfully, hospitalists are already equipped with the fundamental tools needed to advance change across their institutions – QI processes in the form of Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles.

They allow a continuous cycle of successful incremental change based on direct evidence and experience. Any efforts to deconstruct systematic bias within our organizations must also be a continual process. Our female colleagues and colleagues of color need our institutions to engage unceasingly to bring about the equality they deserve. To that end, PDSA cycles are an apt tool to utilize in this work as they can naturally function in a never-ending process of improvement.

With PDSA as a model, we envision a cycle with steps that are intentionally purposed to fit the needs of equitable institutional change: Target-Engage-Assess-Modify. As highlighted (see graphic), these modifications ensure that stakeholders (i.e., those that unequal practices and policies affect the most) are engaged early and remain involved throughout the cycle.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Dr. Delapenha and Dr. Kisuule are based in the department of internal medicine, division of hospital medicine, at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Martin is based in the department of medicine, section of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago. Dr. Barrett is a hospitalist in the department of internal medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

References

1. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019: Figure 19. Percentage of physicians by sex, 2018. AAMC website.

2. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 16. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by sex and race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

3. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 15. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

4. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 6. Percentage of acceptees to U.S. medical schools by race/ethnicity (alone), academic year 2018-2019. AAMC website.

5. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019 Figure 18. Percentage of all active physicians by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

6. Herzke C et al. Gender issues in academic hospital medicine: A national survey of hospitalist leaders. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(6):1641-6.

7. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Fostering diversity and inclusion. AAMC website.

8. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Executive summary. AAMC website.

9. Ayyala MS et al. Mentorship is not enough: Exploring sponsorship and its role in career advancement in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2019;94(1):94-100.

10. Ejike OC et al. Contribution of individual and neighborhood factors to racial disparities in respiratory outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Apr 15;203(8):987-97.

11. Galiatsatos P et al. The effect of community socioeconomic status on sepsis-attributable mortality. J Crit Care. 2018 Aug;46:129-33.

The language of equality in America’s founding was never truly embraced, resulting in a painful legacy of slavery, racial injustice, and gender inequality inherited by all generations. However, for as long as America has fallen short of this unfulfilled promise, individuals have dedicated their lives to the tireless work of correcting injustice. Although the process has been painstakingly slow, our nation has incrementally inched toward the promised vision of equality, and these efforts continue today. With increased attention to social justice movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, our collective social consciousness may be finally waking up to the systemic injustices embedded into our fundamental institutions.

Medicine is not immune to these injustices. Persistent underrepresentation of women and minorities remains in medical school faculty and the broader physician workforce, and the same inequities exist in hospital medicine.^1-6 The report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) on diversity in medicine highlights the impact widespread implicit and explicit bias has on creating exclusionary environments, exemplified by research demonstrating lower promotion rates in non-White faculty.^7-8 The report calls us, as physicians, to a broader mission: “Focusing solely on increasing compositional diversity along the academic continuum is insufficient. To effectively enact institutional change at academic medical centers ... leaders must focus their efforts on developing inclusive, equity-minded environments.”⁷

We have a clear moral imperative to correct these shortcomings for our profession and our patients. It is incumbent on our institutions and hospital medicine groups (HMGs) to embark on the necessary process of systemic institutional change to address inequality and justice within our field.

A road map for DEI and justice in hospital medicine

The policies and biases allowing these inequities to persist have existed for decades, and superficial efforts will not bring sufficient change. Our institutions require new building blocks from which the foundation of a wholly inclusive and equal system of practice can be constructed. Encouragingly, some institutions and HMGs have taken steps to modernize their practices. We offer examples and suggestions of concrete practices to begin this journey, organizing these efforts into three broad categories:

1. Recruitment and retention

2. Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

3. Community engagement and partnership.

Recruitment and retention

Improving equity and inclusion begins with recruitment. Search and hiring committees should be assembled intentionally, with gender balance, and ideally with diversity or equity experts invited to join. All members should receive unconscious bias training. For example, the University of Colorado utilizes a toolkit to ensure appropriate steps are followed in the recruitment process, including predetermined candidate selection criteria that are ranked in advance.

Job descriptions should be reviewed by a diversity expert, ensuring unbiased and ungendered language within written text. Advertisements should be wide-reaching, and the committee should consider asking applicants for a diversity statement. Interviews should include a variety of interviewers and interview types (e.g., 1:1, group, etc.). Letters of recommendation deserve special scrutiny; letters for women and minorities may be at risk of being shorter and less record focused, and may be subject to less professional respect, such as use of first names over honorifics or titles.

Once candidates are hired, institutions and HMGs should prioritize developing strategies to improve retention of a diverse workforce. This includes special attention to workplace culture, and thoughtfully striving for cultural intelligence within the group. Some examples may include developing affinity groups, such as underrepresented in medicine (UIM), women in medicine (WIM), or LGBTQ+ groups. Affinity groups provide a safe space for members and allies to support and uplift each other. Institutional and HMG leaders must educate themselves and their members on the importance of language (see table), and the more insidious forms of bias and discrimination that adversely affect workplace culture. Microinsults and microinvalidations, for example, can hurt and result in failure to recruit or turnover.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Scholarship, mentorship, and sponsorship

Women and minorities are known to be over-mentored and under-sponsored. Sponsorship is defined by Ayyala et al. as “active support by someone appropriately placed in the organization who has significant influence on decision making processes or structures and who is advocating for the career advancement of an individual and recommends them for leadership roles, awards, or high-profile speaking opportunities.”⁹ While the goal of mentorship is professional development, sponsorship emphasizes professional advancement. Deliberate steps to both mentor and then sponsor diverse hospitalists and future hospitalists (including trainees) are important to ensure equity.

More inclusive HMGs can be bolstered by prioritizing peer education on the professional imperative that we have a diverse workforce and equitable, just workplaces. Academic institutions may use existing structures such as grand rounds to provide education on these crucial topics, and all HMGs can host journal clubs and professional development sessions on leadership competencies that foster inclusion and equity. Sessions coordinated by women and minorities are also a form of justice, by helping overcome barriers to career advancement. Diverse faculty presenting in educational venues will result in content that is relevant to more audience members and will exemplify that leaders and experts are of all races, ethnicities, genders, ages, and abilities.

Groups should prioritize mentoring trainees and early-career hospitalists on scholarly projects that examine equity in opportunities of care, which signals that this science is valued as much as basic research. When used to demonstrate areas needing improvement, these projects can drive meaningful change. Even projects as straightforward as studying diversity in conference presenters, disparities in adherence to guidelines, or QI projects on how race is portrayed in the medical record can be powerful tools in advancing equity.

A key part of mentoring is training hospitalists and future hospitalists in how to be an upstander, as in how to intervene when a peer or patient is affected by bias, harassment, or discrimination. Receiving such training can prepare hospitalists for these nearly inevitable experiences and receiving training during usual work hours communicates that this is a valuable and necessary professional competency.
 

Community engagement and partnership

Institutions and HMGs should deliberately work to promote community engagement and partnership within their groups. Beyond promoting health equity, community engagement also fosters inclusivity by allowing community members to share their ideas and give recommendations to the institutions that serve them.

There is a growing body of literature that demonstrates how disadvantages by individual and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES) contribute to disparities in specific disease conditions.^10-11 Strategies to narrow the gap in SES disadvantages may help reduce race-related health disparities. Institutions that engage the community and develop programs to promote health equity can do so through bidirectional exchange of knowledge and mutual benefit.

An institution-specific example is Medicine for the Greater Good at Johns Hopkins. The founders of this program wrote, “health is not synonymous with medicine. To truly care for our patients and their communities, health care professionals must understand how to deliver equitable health care that meets the needs of the diverse populations we care for. The mission of Medicine for the Greater Good is to promote health and wellness beyond the confines of the hospital through an interactive and engaging partnership with the community ...” Community engagement also provides an opportunity for growing the cultural intelligence of institutions and HMGs.
 

Tools for advancing comprehensive change – Repurposing PDSA cycles

Whether institutions and HMGs are at the beginning of their journey or further along in the work of reducing disparities, having a systematic approach for implementing and refining policies and procedures can cultivate more inclusive and equitable environments. Thankfully, hospitalists are already equipped with the fundamental tools needed to advance change across their institutions – QI processes in the form of Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles.

They allow a continuous cycle of successful incremental change based on direct evidence and experience. Any efforts to deconstruct systematic bias within our organizations must also be a continual process. Our female colleagues and colleagues of color need our institutions to engage unceasingly to bring about the equality they deserve. To that end, PDSA cycles are an apt tool to utilize in this work as they can naturally function in a never-ending process of improvement.

With PDSA as a model, we envision a cycle with steps that are intentionally purposed to fit the needs of equitable institutional change: Target-Engage-Assess-Modify. As highlighted (see graphic), these modifications ensure that stakeholders (i.e., those that unequal practices and policies affect the most) are engaged early and remain involved throughout the cycle.

Dr. Delapenha, Dr. Kisuule, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Barrett

Dr. Delapenha and Dr. Kisuule are based in the department of internal medicine, division of hospital medicine, at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Martin is based in the department of medicine, section of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago. Dr. Barrett is a hospitalist in the department of internal medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

References

1. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019: Figure 19. Percentage of physicians by sex, 2018. AAMC website.

2. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 16. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by sex and race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

3. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 15. Percentage of full-time U.S. medical school faculty by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

4. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Figure 6. Percentage of acceptees to U.S. medical schools by race/ethnicity (alone), academic year 2018-2019. AAMC website.

5. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019 Figure 18. Percentage of all active physicians by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC website.

6. Herzke C et al. Gender issues in academic hospital medicine: A national survey of hospitalist leaders. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(6):1641-6.

7. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Fostering diversity and inclusion. AAMC website.

8. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. Executive summary. AAMC website.

9. Ayyala MS et al. Mentorship is not enough: Exploring sponsorship and its role in career advancement in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2019;94(1):94-100.

10. Ejike OC et al. Contribution of individual and neighborhood factors to racial disparities in respiratory outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Apr 15;203(8):987-97.

11. Galiatsatos P et al. The effect of community socioeconomic status on sepsis-attributable mortality. J Crit Care. 2018 Aug;46:129-33.

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.

THE COMPARISON

A A 27-year-old Hispanic woman with comedonal and inflammatory acne. Erythema is prominent around the inflammatory lesions. Note the pustule on the cheek surrounded by pink color.

B A teenaged Black boy with acne papules and pustules on the face. There are comedones, hyperpigmented macules, and pustules on the cheek.

C A teenaged Black girl with pomade acne. The patient used various hair care products, which obstructed the pilosebaceous units on the forehead.

Epidemiology

Acne is a leading dermatologic condition in individuals with skin of color in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• erythematous or hyperpigmented papules or comedones
• hyperpigmented macules and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH)
• increased risk for keloidal scars.²

Worth noting

• Patients with darker skin tones may be more concerned with the dark marks (also referred to as scars or manchas in Spanish) than the acne itself. This PIH may be viewed by patients as the major problem.
• Acne medications such as azelaic acid and some retinoids (when applied appropriately) can treat both acne and PIH.³
• Irritation from topical acne medications, including retinoid dermatitis, may lead to more PIH. Using noncomedogenic moisturizers and applying medication appropriately (ie, a pea-sized amount of topical retinoid per application) may help limit irritation.^4,5
• One type of acne seen more commonly, although not exclusively, in Black patients is pomade acne, which principally appears on the forehead and is associated with use of hair care and styling products (Figure, C).

Health disparity highlight

Disparities in access to health care exist for those with dermatologic concerns. According to one study, African American (28.5%) and Hispanic patients (23.9%) were less likely to be seen by a dermatologist solely for the diagnosis of a dermatologic condition compared to Asian and Pacific Islander patients (36.7%) or White patients (43.2%).¹

Noting that isotretinoin is the most potent systemic therapy for severe cystic acne vulgaris, Bell et al⁶ reported that Black patients had lower odds of receiving isotretinoin compared to White patients. Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving a topical retinoid, tretinoin, than non-Hispanic patients.⁶ 

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.

THE COMPARISON

A A 27-year-old Hispanic woman with comedonal and inflammatory acne. Erythema is prominent around the inflammatory lesions. Note the pustule on the cheek surrounded by pink color.

B A teenaged Black boy with acne papules and pustules on the face. There are comedones, hyperpigmented macules, and pustules on the cheek.

C A teenaged Black girl with pomade acne. The patient used various hair care products, which obstructed the pilosebaceous units on the forehead.

Epidemiology

Acne is a leading dermatologic condition in individuals with skin of color in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• erythematous or hyperpigmented papules or comedones
• hyperpigmented macules and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH)
• increased risk for keloidal scars.²

Worth noting

• Patients with darker skin tones may be more concerned with the dark marks (also referred to as scars or manchas in Spanish) than the acne itself. This PIH may be viewed by patients as the major problem.
• Acne medications such as azelaic acid and some retinoids (when applied appropriately) can treat both acne and PIH.³
• Irritation from topical acne medications, including retinoid dermatitis, may lead to more PIH. Using noncomedogenic moisturizers and applying medication appropriately (ie, a pea-sized amount of topical retinoid per application) may help limit irritation.^4,5
• One type of acne seen more commonly, although not exclusively, in Black patients is pomade acne, which principally appears on the forehead and is associated with use of hair care and styling products (Figure, C).

Health disparity highlight

Disparities in access to health care exist for those with dermatologic concerns. According to one study, African American (28.5%) and Hispanic patients (23.9%) were less likely to be seen by a dermatologist solely for the diagnosis of a dermatologic condition compared to Asian and Pacific Islander patients (36.7%) or White patients (43.2%).¹

Noting that isotretinoin is the most potent systemic therapy for severe cystic acne vulgaris, Bell et al⁶ reported that Black patients had lower odds of receiving isotretinoin compared to White patients. Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving a topical retinoid, tretinoin, than non-Hispanic patients.⁶ 

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.

THE COMPARISON

A A 27-year-old Hispanic woman with comedonal and inflammatory acne. Erythema is prominent around the inflammatory lesions. Note the pustule on the cheek surrounded by pink color.

B A teenaged Black boy with acne papules and pustules on the face. There are comedones, hyperpigmented macules, and pustules on the cheek.

C A teenaged Black girl with pomade acne. The patient used various hair care products, which obstructed the pilosebaceous units on the forehead.

Epidemiology

Acne is a leading dermatologic condition in individuals with skin of color in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• erythematous or hyperpigmented papules or comedones
• hyperpigmented macules and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH)
• increased risk for keloidal scars.²

Worth noting

• Patients with darker skin tones may be more concerned with the dark marks (also referred to as scars or manchas in Spanish) than the acne itself. This PIH may be viewed by patients as the major problem.
• Acne medications such as azelaic acid and some retinoids (when applied appropriately) can treat both acne and PIH.³
• Irritation from topical acne medications, including retinoid dermatitis, may lead to more PIH. Using noncomedogenic moisturizers and applying medication appropriately (ie, a pea-sized amount of topical retinoid per application) may help limit irritation.^4,5
• One type of acne seen more commonly, although not exclusively, in Black patients is pomade acne, which principally appears on the forehead and is associated with use of hair care and styling products (Figure, C).

Health disparity highlight

Disparities in access to health care exist for those with dermatologic concerns. According to one study, African American (28.5%) and Hispanic patients (23.9%) were less likely to be seen by a dermatologist solely for the diagnosis of a dermatologic condition compared to Asian and Pacific Islander patients (36.7%) or White patients (43.2%).¹

Noting that isotretinoin is the most potent systemic therapy for severe cystic acne vulgaris, Bell et al⁶ reported that Black patients had lower odds of receiving isotretinoin compared to White patients. Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving a topical retinoid, tretinoin, than non-Hispanic patients.⁶ 

Addressing current standards of beauty at the Skin of Color Update 2021, dermatologists speaking about attitudes within four ethnic groups recounted a similar story: Eurocentric standards of beauty limited to light skin, straight hair, and White facial features have been replaced by far more inclusive tastes.

This change is relevant to dermatologists consulting with patients for cosmetic procedures. Four dermatologists who recounted the types of procedures their patients are requesting each reported that more patients are seeking cosmetic enhancements that accentuate rather than modify ethnic features.

Lips in Black, Asian, and Arab ethnic groups are just one example.

“Where several years ago, the conversation was really about lip reductions – how we can deemphasize the lip – I am now seeing lots of women of color coming in to ask about lip augmentation, looking to highlight their lips as a point of beauty,” reported Michelle Henry, MD, a dermatologist who practices in New York City.

She is not alone. Others participating on the same panel spoke of a growing interest among their patients to maintain or even emphasize the same ethnic features – including but not limited to lip shape and size that they were once anxious to modify.

In Asian patients, “the goal is not to Westernize,” agreed Annie Chiu, MD, a dermatologist who practices in North Redondo Beach, Calif. For lips, she spoke of the “50-50 ratio” of upper and lower lip symmetry that is consistent with a traditional Asian characteristic.

Like Dr. Henry, Dr. Chiu said that many requests for cosmetic work now involve accentuating Asian features, such as the oval shape of the face, rather than steps to modify this shape. This is a relatively recent change.

“I am finding that more of my patients want to improve the esthetic balance to optimize the appearance within their own ethnicity,” she said.

In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Hassan Galadari, MD, an American-trained physician who is assistant professor of dermatology at the UAE University in Dubai, recently conducted a poll of his patients. In order of importance, full lips came after wide eyes, a straight nose, and a sharp jaw line. Full cheeks and a round face completed a list that diverges from the California-blond prototype.

Although Angelina Jolie was selected over several Lebanese actresses as a first choice for an icon of beauty in this same poll, Dr. Galadari pointed out that this actress has many of the features, including wide eyes, a straight nose, and full lips, that are consistent with traditional features of Arab beauty.

Perceptions of beauty are not just changing within ethnic groups but reflected in mass culture. Dr. Henry pointed to a published comparison of the “World’s Most Beautiful” list from People magazine in 2017 relative to 1990. Of the 50 celebrities on the list in 1990, 88% were Fitzpatrick skin types I-III. Only 12% were types IV-VI, which increased to almost 30% of the 135 celebrities on the list in 2017 (P = .01). In 1990, just one celebrity (2%) was of mixed race, which increased to 10.4% in 2017.

Among Hispanic women, the changes in attitude are perhaps best captured among younger relative to older patients requesting cosmetic work, according to Maritza I. Perez, MD, professor of dermatology, University of Connecticut, Farmington. She said that her younger patients are less likely to seek rhinoplasty and blepharoplasty relative to her older patients, a reflection perhaps of comfort with their natural looks.

However, “the celebration of Latinas as beautiful, seductive, and sexual is hardly new,” she said, indicating that younger Hispanic patients are probably not driven to modify their ethnic features because they are already widely admired. “Six of the 10 women crowned Miss Universe in the last decade were from Latin American countries,” she noted.

The general willingness of patients within ethnic groups and society as a whole to see ethnic features as admirable and attractive was generally regarded by all the panelists as a positive development.

Dr. Henry, who said she was “encouraged” by such trends as “the natural hair movement” and diminishing interest among her darker patients in lightening skin pigment, said, “I definitely see a change among my patients in regard to their goals.”

For clinicians offering consults to patients seeking cosmetic work, Dr. Henry recommended being aware and sensitive to this evolution in order to offer appropriate care.

Dr. Chiu, emphasizing the pride that many of her patients take in their Asian features, made the same recommendation. She credited globalization and social media for attitudes that have allowed an embrace of what are now far more inclusive standards of beauty.

Dr. Henry reports financial relationships with Allergan and Merz. Dr. Chiu has financial relationships with AbbVie, Cynosure, Merz, Revance, and Solta. Dr. Galadari reports financial relationships with nine pharmaceutical companies, including Allergan, Merz, Revance, and Fillmed Laboratories. Dr. Perez reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

Addressing current standards of beauty at the Skin of Color Update 2021, dermatologists speaking about attitudes within four ethnic groups recounted a similar story: Eurocentric standards of beauty limited to light skin, straight hair, and White facial features have been replaced by far more inclusive tastes.

This change is relevant to dermatologists consulting with patients for cosmetic procedures. Four dermatologists who recounted the types of procedures their patients are requesting each reported that more patients are seeking cosmetic enhancements that accentuate rather than modify ethnic features.

Lips in Black, Asian, and Arab ethnic groups are just one example.

“Where several years ago, the conversation was really about lip reductions – how we can deemphasize the lip – I am now seeing lots of women of color coming in to ask about lip augmentation, looking to highlight their lips as a point of beauty,” reported Michelle Henry, MD, a dermatologist who practices in New York City.

She is not alone. Others participating on the same panel spoke of a growing interest among their patients to maintain or even emphasize the same ethnic features – including but not limited to lip shape and size that they were once anxious to modify.

In Asian patients, “the goal is not to Westernize,” agreed Annie Chiu, MD, a dermatologist who practices in North Redondo Beach, Calif. For lips, she spoke of the “50-50 ratio” of upper and lower lip symmetry that is consistent with a traditional Asian characteristic.

Like Dr. Henry, Dr. Chiu said that many requests for cosmetic work now involve accentuating Asian features, such as the oval shape of the face, rather than steps to modify this shape. This is a relatively recent change.

“I am finding that more of my patients want to improve the esthetic balance to optimize the appearance within their own ethnicity,” she said.

In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Hassan Galadari, MD, an American-trained physician who is assistant professor of dermatology at the UAE University in Dubai, recently conducted a poll of his patients. In order of importance, full lips came after wide eyes, a straight nose, and a sharp jaw line. Full cheeks and a round face completed a list that diverges from the California-blond prototype.

Although Angelina Jolie was selected over several Lebanese actresses as a first choice for an icon of beauty in this same poll, Dr. Galadari pointed out that this actress has many of the features, including wide eyes, a straight nose, and full lips, that are consistent with traditional features of Arab beauty.

Perceptions of beauty are not just changing within ethnic groups but reflected in mass culture. Dr. Henry pointed to a published comparison of the “World’s Most Beautiful” list from People magazine in 2017 relative to 1990. Of the 50 celebrities on the list in 1990, 88% were Fitzpatrick skin types I-III. Only 12% were types IV-VI, which increased to almost 30% of the 135 celebrities on the list in 2017 (P = .01). In 1990, just one celebrity (2%) was of mixed race, which increased to 10.4% in 2017.

Among Hispanic women, the changes in attitude are perhaps best captured among younger relative to older patients requesting cosmetic work, according to Maritza I. Perez, MD, professor of dermatology, University of Connecticut, Farmington. She said that her younger patients are less likely to seek rhinoplasty and blepharoplasty relative to her older patients, a reflection perhaps of comfort with their natural looks.

However, “the celebration of Latinas as beautiful, seductive, and sexual is hardly new,” she said, indicating that younger Hispanic patients are probably not driven to modify their ethnic features because they are already widely admired. “Six of the 10 women crowned Miss Universe in the last decade were from Latin American countries,” she noted.

The general willingness of patients within ethnic groups and society as a whole to see ethnic features as admirable and attractive was generally regarded by all the panelists as a positive development.

Dr. Henry, who said she was “encouraged” by such trends as “the natural hair movement” and diminishing interest among her darker patients in lightening skin pigment, said, “I definitely see a change among my patients in regard to their goals.”

For clinicians offering consults to patients seeking cosmetic work, Dr. Henry recommended being aware and sensitive to this evolution in order to offer appropriate care.

Dr. Chiu, emphasizing the pride that many of her patients take in their Asian features, made the same recommendation. She credited globalization and social media for attitudes that have allowed an embrace of what are now far more inclusive standards of beauty.

Dr. Henry reports financial relationships with Allergan and Merz. Dr. Chiu has financial relationships with AbbVie, Cynosure, Merz, Revance, and Solta. Dr. Galadari reports financial relationships with nine pharmaceutical companies, including Allergan, Merz, Revance, and Fillmed Laboratories. Dr. Perez reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

Addressing current standards of beauty at the Skin of Color Update 2021, dermatologists speaking about attitudes within four ethnic groups recounted a similar story: Eurocentric standards of beauty limited to light skin, straight hair, and White facial features have been replaced by far more inclusive tastes.

This change is relevant to dermatologists consulting with patients for cosmetic procedures. Four dermatologists who recounted the types of procedures their patients are requesting each reported that more patients are seeking cosmetic enhancements that accentuate rather than modify ethnic features.

Lips in Black, Asian, and Arab ethnic groups are just one example.

“Where several years ago, the conversation was really about lip reductions – how we can deemphasize the lip – I am now seeing lots of women of color coming in to ask about lip augmentation, looking to highlight their lips as a point of beauty,” reported Michelle Henry, MD, a dermatologist who practices in New York City.

She is not alone. Others participating on the same panel spoke of a growing interest among their patients to maintain or even emphasize the same ethnic features – including but not limited to lip shape and size that they were once anxious to modify.

In Asian patients, “the goal is not to Westernize,” agreed Annie Chiu, MD, a dermatologist who practices in North Redondo Beach, Calif. For lips, she spoke of the “50-50 ratio” of upper and lower lip symmetry that is consistent with a traditional Asian characteristic.

Like Dr. Henry, Dr. Chiu said that many requests for cosmetic work now involve accentuating Asian features, such as the oval shape of the face, rather than steps to modify this shape. This is a relatively recent change.

“I am finding that more of my patients want to improve the esthetic balance to optimize the appearance within their own ethnicity,” she said.

In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Hassan Galadari, MD, an American-trained physician who is assistant professor of dermatology at the UAE University in Dubai, recently conducted a poll of his patients. In order of importance, full lips came after wide eyes, a straight nose, and a sharp jaw line. Full cheeks and a round face completed a list that diverges from the California-blond prototype.

Although Angelina Jolie was selected over several Lebanese actresses as a first choice for an icon of beauty in this same poll, Dr. Galadari pointed out that this actress has many of the features, including wide eyes, a straight nose, and full lips, that are consistent with traditional features of Arab beauty.

Perceptions of beauty are not just changing within ethnic groups but reflected in mass culture. Dr. Henry pointed to a published comparison of the “World’s Most Beautiful” list from People magazine in 2017 relative to 1990. Of the 50 celebrities on the list in 1990, 88% were Fitzpatrick skin types I-III. Only 12% were types IV-VI, which increased to almost 30% of the 135 celebrities on the list in 2017 (P = .01). In 1990, just one celebrity (2%) was of mixed race, which increased to 10.4% in 2017.

Among Hispanic women, the changes in attitude are perhaps best captured among younger relative to older patients requesting cosmetic work, according to Maritza I. Perez, MD, professor of dermatology, University of Connecticut, Farmington. She said that her younger patients are less likely to seek rhinoplasty and blepharoplasty relative to her older patients, a reflection perhaps of comfort with their natural looks.

However, “the celebration of Latinas as beautiful, seductive, and sexual is hardly new,” she said, indicating that younger Hispanic patients are probably not driven to modify their ethnic features because they are already widely admired. “Six of the 10 women crowned Miss Universe in the last decade were from Latin American countries,” she noted.

The general willingness of patients within ethnic groups and society as a whole to see ethnic features as admirable and attractive was generally regarded by all the panelists as a positive development.

Dr. Henry, who said she was “encouraged” by such trends as “the natural hair movement” and diminishing interest among her darker patients in lightening skin pigment, said, “I definitely see a change among my patients in regard to their goals.”

For clinicians offering consults to patients seeking cosmetic work, Dr. Henry recommended being aware and sensitive to this evolution in order to offer appropriate care.

Dr. Chiu, emphasizing the pride that many of her patients take in their Asian features, made the same recommendation. She credited globalization and social media for attitudes that have allowed an embrace of what are now far more inclusive standards of beauty.

Dr. Henry reports financial relationships with Allergan and Merz. Dr. Chiu has financial relationships with AbbVie, Cynosure, Merz, Revance, and Solta. Dr. Galadari reports financial relationships with nine pharmaceutical companies, including Allergan, Merz, Revance, and Fillmed Laboratories. Dr. Perez reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

Mistreatment in the workplace is common among residents in emergency medicine (EM), according to the results of a new study published online Aug. 19 in JAMA Network Open.

xavierarnau/Getty Images

The survey of more than 6,000 residents found that almost 1 in 2 respondents had been exposed to some form of workplace mistreatment in the previous year, including gender and racial discrimination, physical abuse, or sexual harassment.

“The last study on mistreatment in EM residency training in the United States occurred more than 25 years ago,” said Michelle D. Lall, MD, associate professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta. “These findings provide a current look. Mistreatment occurs frequently in EM residency training nationally, and it occurs more frequently in women, racial/ethnic minorities, and those who identify as LGBTQ+,” Dr. Lall added. “Additionally, we found an association between experiencing mistreatment at least a few times per month and having suicidal thoughts.”
 

Negative sequelae from workplace mistreatment

Dr. Lall explained that workplace mistreatment and institutional responses to such behaviors have been linked to hostile work environments for physicians. In previous research, workplace mistreatment has been found to negatively affect individuals’ sense of self, a phenomenon that not only hindered professional productivity but also increased a variety of other negative factors, such as stress, job dissatisfaction, negative workplace behaviors, and turnover. Perhaps not surprisingly, workplace discrimination has also been shown to have negative effects on physical and mental health.

Despite such findings, little is known about the current state of workplace mistreatment among EM residents. This led the investigators to examine the prevalence, types, and sources of such perceived treatment during their training. In addition, the researchers assessed the association between mistreatment and suicidal ideation. Insights into these problems, they say, may spur leaders in the field to develop and implement strategies to help new physicians maintain their well-being throughout their careers.

“A 2019 study by Yue-Yung Hu and associates looked at discrimination, abuse, harassment, and burnout in surgical residents, and they found that mistreatment occurs frequently among general surgery residents, especially women,” Dr. Lall said. “Our study group felt it was important to look at the rates of mistreatment among EM residents nationally in order to obtain baseline data and to use this data to identify and promote educational interventions to reduce workplace mistreatment.”
 

Emergency residents surveyed

To achieve these ends, Dr. Lall and colleagues sent a survey to all individuals enrolled in EM residencies accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education who had participated in the 2020 American Board of Emergency Medicine in-training examination. The 35-item multiple-choice survey asked residents to self-report the frequency, sources, and types of mistreatment they had experienced during their training. Suicidal thoughts were assessed by asking residents whether they had considered taking their own life.

Respondents categorized the frequency of mistreatment as never having occurred, having occurred a few times a year, a few times a month, a few times a week, or every day. The investigators created a composite indicator for the study’s primary comparisons that represented the maximum reported frequency of any single exposure. Responses were categorized according to the frequency of mistreatment exposure as either no exposure, exposures a few times per year, or exposures a few times or more per month (including a few times per week or every day).
 

Almost half report mistreatment

The survey was sent to 8,162 eligible residents in EM. Of those, 6,503 (79.7%) completed the entire survey. Respondents were primarily male (62.1%) and non-Hispanic White (64.0%); 2,620 residents (34.1%) were from other racial/ethnic groups. Of the respondents, 483 residents (6.6%) identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other (LGBTQ+); 5,951 residents (77.5%) were married or in a relationship.

It was found that 3,463 (45.1%) of participants reported having been exposed to some sort of workplace mistreatment during the most recent academic year. A common source of mistreatment was patients and/or their families. These caused a total of 1,234 events.

Gender discrimination was reported by 2,104 residents (29.5%), 1,635 of whom were women. The most common source of such discrimination was patients or patients’ family members (1,027 women; 184 men). Other sources included nurses or staff (331 women; 59 men).

Racial discrimination was common. It was reported by 1,284 residents; 907 residents were from racial/ethnic groups other than White. Among non-White racial/ethnic groups, 248 residents reported being exposed to racial discrimination at least a few times per month. The most common source of racial discrimination was patients or their family members.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity was reported by 220 residents. Once again, the majority of LGBTQ+ residents indicated that patients or their families were the primary source. More than 1,000 residents (n = 1047) reported sexual harassment; among these residents, 721 were women. Patients and/or patients’ family members were the most common source of such discrimination, followed by nurses and staff.

A total of 2,069 residents reported verbal or emotional abuse, including 806 women and 1,212 men. Patients/patients’ family members were the most common source, followed by attending physicians. Physical abuse was reported by 331 respondents. Physical abuse was primarily attributed to patients/patients’ families.

Suicidal thoughts were reported by 178 residents; the prevalence was comparable with respect to gender (2.4% men; 2.4% women) and race/ethnicity (2.4% non-Hispanic White; 2.7% other racial/ethnic groups). Adjusted models revealed that the prevalence for suicidal thoughts was greater among residents who identified as LGBTQ+ (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 99% confidence interval, 1.04-3.99). An association was found between suicidal thoughts and having experienced mistreatment at least a few times each month (OR, 5.83; 99% CI, 3.70-9.20).
 

Identifying sources key to stemming mistreatment

These findings, the researchers say, demonstrate the alarming frequency with which workplace mistreatment occurs for EM residents. The survey also found that such mistreatment was more common among residents from racial/ethnic minority populations, women, and residents who identify as LGBTQ+. Perhaps most disturbingly, the occurrence of workplace mistreatment was found to be associated with suicidal thoughts.

The researchers say that although it is likely that residents in many medical specialties experience similar mistreatment to some degree, such treatment should never be considered acceptable. Indeed, Dr. Lall said that identifying sources of mistreatment may help both institutions and individuals determine interventions necessary for improving the well-being of EM residents.

“The first step is recognizing, based on our data, that mistreatment is experienced frequently in EM training in the United States,” she said. “Future qualitative studies of residents and program leaders may help identify which systems, programs, or cultural factors were associated with lower rates of mistreatment in some institutions and higher rates in others.

“Identifying these factors and developing and promoting best practices to minimize workplace mistreatment during residency may help optimize the professional career experience and improve the personal and professional well-being of physicians throughout their lives,” Dr. Lall added.

Commenting on the findings for this article, Karl Y. Bilimoria, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that these surveys clearly lay out actionable opportunities to improve trainee mistreatment. “Given that much of the mistreatment of EM residents comes from patients and families, the solutions must be appropriately tailored to address those sources,” Dr. Bilimoria noted.

“Programs need to actively work even more to protect their trainees and faculty from this mistreatment, as it has severe effects and often leads to, or worsens, burnout,” he added.

Funding for statistical analysis was provided by the American Board of Emergency Medicine. Dr. Lall and Dr. Bilimoria reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mistreatment in the workplace is common among residents in emergency medicine (EM), according to the results of a new study published online Aug. 19 in JAMA Network Open.

xavierarnau/Getty Images

The survey of more than 6,000 residents found that almost 1 in 2 respondents had been exposed to some form of workplace mistreatment in the previous year, including gender and racial discrimination, physical abuse, or sexual harassment.

“The last study on mistreatment in EM residency training in the United States occurred more than 25 years ago,” said Michelle D. Lall, MD, associate professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta. “These findings provide a current look. Mistreatment occurs frequently in EM residency training nationally, and it occurs more frequently in women, racial/ethnic minorities, and those who identify as LGBTQ+,” Dr. Lall added. “Additionally, we found an association between experiencing mistreatment at least a few times per month and having suicidal thoughts.”
 

Negative sequelae from workplace mistreatment

Dr. Lall explained that workplace mistreatment and institutional responses to such behaviors have been linked to hostile work environments for physicians. In previous research, workplace mistreatment has been found to negatively affect individuals’ sense of self, a phenomenon that not only hindered professional productivity but also increased a variety of other negative factors, such as stress, job dissatisfaction, negative workplace behaviors, and turnover. Perhaps not surprisingly, workplace discrimination has also been shown to have negative effects on physical and mental health.

Despite such findings, little is known about the current state of workplace mistreatment among EM residents. This led the investigators to examine the prevalence, types, and sources of such perceived treatment during their training. In addition, the researchers assessed the association between mistreatment and suicidal ideation. Insights into these problems, they say, may spur leaders in the field to develop and implement strategies to help new physicians maintain their well-being throughout their careers.

“A 2019 study by Yue-Yung Hu and associates looked at discrimination, abuse, harassment, and burnout in surgical residents, and they found that mistreatment occurs frequently among general surgery residents, especially women,” Dr. Lall said. “Our study group felt it was important to look at the rates of mistreatment among EM residents nationally in order to obtain baseline data and to use this data to identify and promote educational interventions to reduce workplace mistreatment.”
 

Emergency residents surveyed

To achieve these ends, Dr. Lall and colleagues sent a survey to all individuals enrolled in EM residencies accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education who had participated in the 2020 American Board of Emergency Medicine in-training examination. The 35-item multiple-choice survey asked residents to self-report the frequency, sources, and types of mistreatment they had experienced during their training. Suicidal thoughts were assessed by asking residents whether they had considered taking their own life.

Respondents categorized the frequency of mistreatment as never having occurred, having occurred a few times a year, a few times a month, a few times a week, or every day. The investigators created a composite indicator for the study’s primary comparisons that represented the maximum reported frequency of any single exposure. Responses were categorized according to the frequency of mistreatment exposure as either no exposure, exposures a few times per year, or exposures a few times or more per month (including a few times per week or every day).
 

Almost half report mistreatment

The survey was sent to 8,162 eligible residents in EM. Of those, 6,503 (79.7%) completed the entire survey. Respondents were primarily male (62.1%) and non-Hispanic White (64.0%); 2,620 residents (34.1%) were from other racial/ethnic groups. Of the respondents, 483 residents (6.6%) identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other (LGBTQ+); 5,951 residents (77.5%) were married or in a relationship.

It was found that 3,463 (45.1%) of participants reported having been exposed to some sort of workplace mistreatment during the most recent academic year. A common source of mistreatment was patients and/or their families. These caused a total of 1,234 events.

Gender discrimination was reported by 2,104 residents (29.5%), 1,635 of whom were women. The most common source of such discrimination was patients or patients’ family members (1,027 women; 184 men). Other sources included nurses or staff (331 women; 59 men).

Racial discrimination was common. It was reported by 1,284 residents; 907 residents were from racial/ethnic groups other than White. Among non-White racial/ethnic groups, 248 residents reported being exposed to racial discrimination at least a few times per month. The most common source of racial discrimination was patients or their family members.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity was reported by 220 residents. Once again, the majority of LGBTQ+ residents indicated that patients or their families were the primary source. More than 1,000 residents (n = 1047) reported sexual harassment; among these residents, 721 were women. Patients and/or patients’ family members were the most common source of such discrimination, followed by nurses and staff.

A total of 2,069 residents reported verbal or emotional abuse, including 806 women and 1,212 men. Patients/patients’ family members were the most common source, followed by attending physicians. Physical abuse was reported by 331 respondents. Physical abuse was primarily attributed to patients/patients’ families.

Suicidal thoughts were reported by 178 residents; the prevalence was comparable with respect to gender (2.4% men; 2.4% women) and race/ethnicity (2.4% non-Hispanic White; 2.7% other racial/ethnic groups). Adjusted models revealed that the prevalence for suicidal thoughts was greater among residents who identified as LGBTQ+ (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 99% confidence interval, 1.04-3.99). An association was found between suicidal thoughts and having experienced mistreatment at least a few times each month (OR, 5.83; 99% CI, 3.70-9.20).
 

Identifying sources key to stemming mistreatment

These findings, the researchers say, demonstrate the alarming frequency with which workplace mistreatment occurs for EM residents. The survey also found that such mistreatment was more common among residents from racial/ethnic minority populations, women, and residents who identify as LGBTQ+. Perhaps most disturbingly, the occurrence of workplace mistreatment was found to be associated with suicidal thoughts.

The researchers say that although it is likely that residents in many medical specialties experience similar mistreatment to some degree, such treatment should never be considered acceptable. Indeed, Dr. Lall said that identifying sources of mistreatment may help both institutions and individuals determine interventions necessary for improving the well-being of EM residents.

“The first step is recognizing, based on our data, that mistreatment is experienced frequently in EM training in the United States,” she said. “Future qualitative studies of residents and program leaders may help identify which systems, programs, or cultural factors were associated with lower rates of mistreatment in some institutions and higher rates in others.

“Identifying these factors and developing and promoting best practices to minimize workplace mistreatment during residency may help optimize the professional career experience and improve the personal and professional well-being of physicians throughout their lives,” Dr. Lall added.

Commenting on the findings for this article, Karl Y. Bilimoria, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that these surveys clearly lay out actionable opportunities to improve trainee mistreatment. “Given that much of the mistreatment of EM residents comes from patients and families, the solutions must be appropriately tailored to address those sources,” Dr. Bilimoria noted.

“Programs need to actively work even more to protect their trainees and faculty from this mistreatment, as it has severe effects and often leads to, or worsens, burnout,” he added.

Funding for statistical analysis was provided by the American Board of Emergency Medicine. Dr. Lall and Dr. Bilimoria reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mistreatment in the workplace is common among residents in emergency medicine (EM), according to the results of a new study published online Aug. 19 in JAMA Network Open.

xavierarnau/Getty Images

The survey of more than 6,000 residents found that almost 1 in 2 respondents had been exposed to some form of workplace mistreatment in the previous year, including gender and racial discrimination, physical abuse, or sexual harassment.

“The last study on mistreatment in EM residency training in the United States occurred more than 25 years ago,” said Michelle D. Lall, MD, associate professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta. “These findings provide a current look. Mistreatment occurs frequently in EM residency training nationally, and it occurs more frequently in women, racial/ethnic minorities, and those who identify as LGBTQ+,” Dr. Lall added. “Additionally, we found an association between experiencing mistreatment at least a few times per month and having suicidal thoughts.”
 

Negative sequelae from workplace mistreatment

Dr. Lall explained that workplace mistreatment and institutional responses to such behaviors have been linked to hostile work environments for physicians. In previous research, workplace mistreatment has been found to negatively affect individuals’ sense of self, a phenomenon that not only hindered professional productivity but also increased a variety of other negative factors, such as stress, job dissatisfaction, negative workplace behaviors, and turnover. Perhaps not surprisingly, workplace discrimination has also been shown to have negative effects on physical and mental health.

Despite such findings, little is known about the current state of workplace mistreatment among EM residents. This led the investigators to examine the prevalence, types, and sources of such perceived treatment during their training. In addition, the researchers assessed the association between mistreatment and suicidal ideation. Insights into these problems, they say, may spur leaders in the field to develop and implement strategies to help new physicians maintain their well-being throughout their careers.

“A 2019 study by Yue-Yung Hu and associates looked at discrimination, abuse, harassment, and burnout in surgical residents, and they found that mistreatment occurs frequently among general surgery residents, especially women,” Dr. Lall said. “Our study group felt it was important to look at the rates of mistreatment among EM residents nationally in order to obtain baseline data and to use this data to identify and promote educational interventions to reduce workplace mistreatment.”
 

Emergency residents surveyed

To achieve these ends, Dr. Lall and colleagues sent a survey to all individuals enrolled in EM residencies accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education who had participated in the 2020 American Board of Emergency Medicine in-training examination. The 35-item multiple-choice survey asked residents to self-report the frequency, sources, and types of mistreatment they had experienced during their training. Suicidal thoughts were assessed by asking residents whether they had considered taking their own life.

Respondents categorized the frequency of mistreatment as never having occurred, having occurred a few times a year, a few times a month, a few times a week, or every day. The investigators created a composite indicator for the study’s primary comparisons that represented the maximum reported frequency of any single exposure. Responses were categorized according to the frequency of mistreatment exposure as either no exposure, exposures a few times per year, or exposures a few times or more per month (including a few times per week or every day).
 

Almost half report mistreatment

The survey was sent to 8,162 eligible residents in EM. Of those, 6,503 (79.7%) completed the entire survey. Respondents were primarily male (62.1%) and non-Hispanic White (64.0%); 2,620 residents (34.1%) were from other racial/ethnic groups. Of the respondents, 483 residents (6.6%) identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other (LGBTQ+); 5,951 residents (77.5%) were married or in a relationship.

It was found that 3,463 (45.1%) of participants reported having been exposed to some sort of workplace mistreatment during the most recent academic year. A common source of mistreatment was patients and/or their families. These caused a total of 1,234 events.

Gender discrimination was reported by 2,104 residents (29.5%), 1,635 of whom were women. The most common source of such discrimination was patients or patients’ family members (1,027 women; 184 men). Other sources included nurses or staff (331 women; 59 men).

Racial discrimination was common. It was reported by 1,284 residents; 907 residents were from racial/ethnic groups other than White. Among non-White racial/ethnic groups, 248 residents reported being exposed to racial discrimination at least a few times per month. The most common source of racial discrimination was patients or their family members.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity was reported by 220 residents. Once again, the majority of LGBTQ+ residents indicated that patients or their families were the primary source. More than 1,000 residents (n = 1047) reported sexual harassment; among these residents, 721 were women. Patients and/or patients’ family members were the most common source of such discrimination, followed by nurses and staff.

A total of 2,069 residents reported verbal or emotional abuse, including 806 women and 1,212 men. Patients/patients’ family members were the most common source, followed by attending physicians. Physical abuse was reported by 331 respondents. Physical abuse was primarily attributed to patients/patients’ families.

Suicidal thoughts were reported by 178 residents; the prevalence was comparable with respect to gender (2.4% men; 2.4% women) and race/ethnicity (2.4% non-Hispanic White; 2.7% other racial/ethnic groups). Adjusted models revealed that the prevalence for suicidal thoughts was greater among residents who identified as LGBTQ+ (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 99% confidence interval, 1.04-3.99). An association was found between suicidal thoughts and having experienced mistreatment at least a few times each month (OR, 5.83; 99% CI, 3.70-9.20).
 

Identifying sources key to stemming mistreatment

These findings, the researchers say, demonstrate the alarming frequency with which workplace mistreatment occurs for EM residents. The survey also found that such mistreatment was more common among residents from racial/ethnic minority populations, women, and residents who identify as LGBTQ+. Perhaps most disturbingly, the occurrence of workplace mistreatment was found to be associated with suicidal thoughts.

The researchers say that although it is likely that residents in many medical specialties experience similar mistreatment to some degree, such treatment should never be considered acceptable. Indeed, Dr. Lall said that identifying sources of mistreatment may help both institutions and individuals determine interventions necessary for improving the well-being of EM residents.

“The first step is recognizing, based on our data, that mistreatment is experienced frequently in EM training in the United States,” she said. “Future qualitative studies of residents and program leaders may help identify which systems, programs, or cultural factors were associated with lower rates of mistreatment in some institutions and higher rates in others.

“Identifying these factors and developing and promoting best practices to minimize workplace mistreatment during residency may help optimize the professional career experience and improve the personal and professional well-being of physicians throughout their lives,” Dr. Lall added.

Commenting on the findings for this article, Karl Y. Bilimoria, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that these surveys clearly lay out actionable opportunities to improve trainee mistreatment. “Given that much of the mistreatment of EM residents comes from patients and families, the solutions must be appropriately tailored to address those sources,” Dr. Bilimoria noted.

“Programs need to actively work even more to protect their trainees and faculty from this mistreatment, as it has severe effects and often leads to, or worsens, burnout,” he added.

Funding for statistical analysis was provided by the American Board of Emergency Medicine. Dr. Lall and Dr. Bilimoria reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHM 2021 session

Accelerating Patient Care and Healthcare Workforce Diversity and Inclusion

Presenter

Julie Silver, MD

Session summary

Gender inequity in medicine has been well documented and further highlighted by the tremendous impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in medicine. While more women than men are entering medical schools across the U.S., women still struggle to reach the highest levels of academic rank, achieve leadership positions of power and influence, receive fair equitable pay, attain leadership roles in national societies, and receive funding from national agencies. They also continue to face discrimination and implicit and explicit biases. Women of color or from other minority backgrounds face even greater barriers and biases. Despite being a specialty in which women represent almost 70% of the workforce, pediatrics is not immune to these disparities.

In her PHM21 plenary on Aug. 3, 2021, Dr. Julie Silver, a national expert in gender equity disparities, detailed the landscape for women in medicine and proposed some solutions to accelerate systemic change for gender equity. In order to understand and mitigate gender inequity, Dr. Silver encouraged the PHM community to identify influential “gatekeepers” of promotion, advancement, and salary compensation. In academic medicine medical schools, funding agencies, professional societies, and journals are the gatekeepers to advancement and compensation for women. Women are traditionally underrepresented as members and influential leaders of these gatekeeping organizations and in their recognition structures, therefore their advancement, compensation, and wellbeing are hindered.

Key takeaways

• Critical mass theory will not help alleviate gender inequity in medicine, as women make up a critical mass in pediatrics and are still experiencing stark inequities. Critical actor leaders are needed to highlight disparities and drive change even once a critical mass is reached.
• Our current diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts are ineffective and are creating an “illusion of fairness that causes majority group members to become less sensitive to recognizing discrimination against minorities.” Many of the activities that are considered citizenship, including committees focused on DEI efforts, should be counted as scholarship, and appropriately compensated to ensure promotion of our women and minority colleagues.
• Male allies are critical to documenting, disseminating, and addressing gender inequality. Without the support of men in the field, we will see little progress.
• While there are numerous advocacy angles we can take when advocating for gender equity, the most effective will be the financial angle. Gender pay gaps at the start of a career can lead to roughly 2 million dollars of salary loss for a woman over the course of her career. In order to alleviate those salary pay gaps our institutions must not expect women to negotiate for fair pay, make salary benchmarks transparent, continue to monitor and conduct research on compensation disparities, and attempt to alleviate the weight of educational debt.
• COVID-19 is causing immense stress on women in medicine, and the impact could be disastrous. We must recognize and reward the “4th shift” women are working for COVID-19–related activities at home and at work, and put measures in place to #GiveHerAReasonToStay in health care.
• Men and other women leaders have a responsibility to sponsor the many and well-qualified women in medicine for awards, committees, and speaking engagements. These opportunities are key markers of success in academic medicine and are critical to advancement and salary compensation.

Dr. Casillas is the internal medicine-pediatric chief resident for the University of Cincinnati/Cincinnati Children’s Internal Medicine-Pediatric program. His career goal is to serve as a hospitalist for children and adults, and he is interested in health equity and Latinx health. Dr. O’Toole is a pediatric and adult hospitalist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati Medical Center, and a professor of pediatrics and internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. She serves as program director of Cincinnati’s Combined Internal Medicine and Pediatrics Residency Program.

PHM 2021 session

Accelerating Patient Care and Healthcare Workforce Diversity and Inclusion

Presenter

Julie Silver, MD

Session summary

Gender inequity in medicine has been well documented and further highlighted by the tremendous impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in medicine. While more women than men are entering medical schools across the U.S., women still struggle to reach the highest levels of academic rank, achieve leadership positions of power and influence, receive fair equitable pay, attain leadership roles in national societies, and receive funding from national agencies. They also continue to face discrimination and implicit and explicit biases. Women of color or from other minority backgrounds face even greater barriers and biases. Despite being a specialty in which women represent almost 70% of the workforce, pediatrics is not immune to these disparities.

In her PHM21 plenary on Aug. 3, 2021, Dr. Julie Silver, a national expert in gender equity disparities, detailed the landscape for women in medicine and proposed some solutions to accelerate systemic change for gender equity. In order to understand and mitigate gender inequity, Dr. Silver encouraged the PHM community to identify influential “gatekeepers” of promotion, advancement, and salary compensation. In academic medicine medical schools, funding agencies, professional societies, and journals are the gatekeepers to advancement and compensation for women. Women are traditionally underrepresented as members and influential leaders of these gatekeeping organizations and in their recognition structures, therefore their advancement, compensation, and wellbeing are hindered.

Key takeaways

• Critical mass theory will not help alleviate gender inequity in medicine, as women make up a critical mass in pediatrics and are still experiencing stark inequities. Critical actor leaders are needed to highlight disparities and drive change even once a critical mass is reached.
• Our current diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts are ineffective and are creating an “illusion of fairness that causes majority group members to become less sensitive to recognizing discrimination against minorities.” Many of the activities that are considered citizenship, including committees focused on DEI efforts, should be counted as scholarship, and appropriately compensated to ensure promotion of our women and minority colleagues.
• Male allies are critical to documenting, disseminating, and addressing gender inequality. Without the support of men in the field, we will see little progress.
• While there are numerous advocacy angles we can take when advocating for gender equity, the most effective will be the financial angle. Gender pay gaps at the start of a career can lead to roughly 2 million dollars of salary loss for a woman over the course of her career. In order to alleviate those salary pay gaps our institutions must not expect women to negotiate for fair pay, make salary benchmarks transparent, continue to monitor and conduct research on compensation disparities, and attempt to alleviate the weight of educational debt.
• COVID-19 is causing immense stress on women in medicine, and the impact could be disastrous. We must recognize and reward the “4th shift” women are working for COVID-19–related activities at home and at work, and put measures in place to #GiveHerAReasonToStay in health care.
• Men and other women leaders have a responsibility to sponsor the many and well-qualified women in medicine for awards, committees, and speaking engagements. These opportunities are key markers of success in academic medicine and are critical to advancement and salary compensation.

Dr. Casillas is the internal medicine-pediatric chief resident for the University of Cincinnati/Cincinnati Children’s Internal Medicine-Pediatric program. His career goal is to serve as a hospitalist for children and adults, and he is interested in health equity and Latinx health. Dr. O’Toole is a pediatric and adult hospitalist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati Medical Center, and a professor of pediatrics and internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. She serves as program director of Cincinnati’s Combined Internal Medicine and Pediatrics Residency Program.

PHM 2021 session

Accelerating Patient Care and Healthcare Workforce Diversity and Inclusion

Presenter

Julie Silver, MD

Session summary

Gender inequity in medicine has been well documented and further highlighted by the tremendous impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in medicine. While more women than men are entering medical schools across the U.S., women still struggle to reach the highest levels of academic rank, achieve leadership positions of power and influence, receive fair equitable pay, attain leadership roles in national societies, and receive funding from national agencies. They also continue to face discrimination and implicit and explicit biases. Women of color or from other minority backgrounds face even greater barriers and biases. Despite being a specialty in which women represent almost 70% of the workforce, pediatrics is not immune to these disparities.

In her PHM21 plenary on Aug. 3, 2021, Dr. Julie Silver, a national expert in gender equity disparities, detailed the landscape for women in medicine and proposed some solutions to accelerate systemic change for gender equity. In order to understand and mitigate gender inequity, Dr. Silver encouraged the PHM community to identify influential “gatekeepers” of promotion, advancement, and salary compensation. In academic medicine medical schools, funding agencies, professional societies, and journals are the gatekeepers to advancement and compensation for women. Women are traditionally underrepresented as members and influential leaders of these gatekeeping organizations and in their recognition structures, therefore their advancement, compensation, and wellbeing are hindered.

Key takeaways

• Critical mass theory will not help alleviate gender inequity in medicine, as women make up a critical mass in pediatrics and are still experiencing stark inequities. Critical actor leaders are needed to highlight disparities and drive change even once a critical mass is reached.
• Our current diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts are ineffective and are creating an “illusion of fairness that causes majority group members to become less sensitive to recognizing discrimination against minorities.” Many of the activities that are considered citizenship, including committees focused on DEI efforts, should be counted as scholarship, and appropriately compensated to ensure promotion of our women and minority colleagues.
• Male allies are critical to documenting, disseminating, and addressing gender inequality. Without the support of men in the field, we will see little progress.
• While there are numerous advocacy angles we can take when advocating for gender equity, the most effective will be the financial angle. Gender pay gaps at the start of a career can lead to roughly 2 million dollars of salary loss for a woman over the course of her career. In order to alleviate those salary pay gaps our institutions must not expect women to negotiate for fair pay, make salary benchmarks transparent, continue to monitor and conduct research on compensation disparities, and attempt to alleviate the weight of educational debt.
• COVID-19 is causing immense stress on women in medicine, and the impact could be disastrous. We must recognize and reward the “4th shift” women are working for COVID-19–related activities at home and at work, and put measures in place to #GiveHerAReasonToStay in health care.
• Men and other women leaders have a responsibility to sponsor the many and well-qualified women in medicine for awards, committees, and speaking engagements. These opportunities are key markers of success in academic medicine and are critical to advancement and salary compensation.

Dr. Casillas is the internal medicine-pediatric chief resident for the University of Cincinnati/Cincinnati Children’s Internal Medicine-Pediatric program. His career goal is to serve as a hospitalist for children and adults, and he is interested in health equity and Latinx health. Dr. O’Toole is a pediatric and adult hospitalist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati Medical Center, and a professor of pediatrics and internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. She serves as program director of Cincinnati’s Combined Internal Medicine and Pediatrics Residency Program.

Women cardiologists receive dramatically smaller payments from the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) than their male counterparts, new research suggests.

An analysis of 2016 claims data revealed male cardiologists received on average 45% more reimbursement than women in the inpatient setting, with the median payment 39% higher ($62,897 vs. $45,288).

In the outpatient setting, men received on average 62% more annual CMS payments, with the median payment 75% higher ($91,053 vs. $51,975; P < .001 for both).

The difference remained significant after the exclusion of the top and bottom 2.5% of earning physicians and cardiology subspecialties, like electrophysiology and interventional cardiology, with high procedural volumes and greater gender imbalances.

“This is one study among others which demonstrates a wage gap between men and women in medicine in cardiology,” lead author Inbar Raber, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. “I hope by increasing awareness [and] understanding of possible etiologies, it will enable some sustainable solutions, and those include access to additional support staff and equitable models surrounding parental leave and childcare support.”

The study, published online September 8 in JAMA Cardiology, comes on the heels of a recent cross-sectional analysis that put cardiology at the bottom of 13 internal medicine subspecialties with just 21% female faculty representation and one of only three specialties in which women’s median salaries did not reach 90% of men’s.

The new findings build on a 2017 report that showed Medicare payments to women physicians in 2013 were 55% of those to male physicians across all specialties.  

“It can be disheartening, especially as an early career woman cardiologist, seeing these differences, but I think the responsibility on all of us is to take these observations and really try to understand more deeply why they exist,” Nosheen Reza, MD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthor of the cross-sectional analysis, told this news organization.

Several factors could be contributing to the disparity, but “it’s not gender discrimination from Medicare,” Dr. Raber said. “The gap in reimbursement is really driven by the types and the volume of charges submitted.”

Indeed, a direct comparison of the three most common inpatient and outpatient billing codes showed no difference in payments between the sexes.

Men, however, submitted 24% more median inpatient charges to CMS than women (1,190 vs. 959), and 94% more outpatient charges (1,685 vs. 870).

Men also submitted slightly more unique billing codes (median inpatient, 10 vs. 9; median outpatient, 11 vs. 8).

Notably, women made up just 13% of the 17,524 cardiologists who received CMS payments in the inpatient setting in 2016 and 13% of the 16,929 cardiologists who did so in the outpatient setting.

Louisiana had the dubious distinction of having the largest gender gap in mean CMS payments, with male cardiologists earning $145,323 (235%) more than women, whereas women cardiologists in Vermont out-earned men by $31,483 (38%).

Overall, male cardiologists had more years in practice than women cardiologists and cared for slightly older Medicare beneficiaries.

Differences in CMS payments persisted, however, after adjustment for years since graduation, physician subspecialty, number of charges, number of unique billing codes, and patient complexity. The resulting β coefficient was -0.06, which translates into women receiving an average of 94% of the CMS payments received by men.

“The first takeaway, if you were really crass and focused on the bottom line, might be: ‘Hey, let me get a few more male cardiologists because they’re going to bring more into the organization.’ But we shouldn’t do that because, unless you link these data with quality outcomes, they’re an interesting observation and hypothesis-generating,” said Sharonne Hayes, MD, coauthor of the 2017 report and professor of cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., where she has served as director of diversity and inclusion for a decade.

She noted that there are multiple examples that the style of medicine women practice, on average, may be more effective, may be more outcomes based, and may save lives, as suggested by a recent analysis of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries.

“The gap was not much different, like within 1% or so, but when you take that over the literally millions of Medicare patients cared for each year by hospitalists, that’s a substantial number of people,” Dr. Hayes said. “So, I think we need to take a step back, and we have to include these observations on studies like this and better understand the compensation gaps.”

She pointed out that the present study lacks data on full-time-equivalent status but that female physicians are more likely to work part-time, thus reducing the volume of claims.

Women might also care for different patient populations. “I practice in a women’s heart clinic and take care of [spontaneous coronary artery dissection] SCAD patients where the average age of SCAD is 42. So, the vast majority of patients I see on a day-to-day basis aren’t going to be Medicare age,” observed Dr. Hayes.

The differences in charges might also reflect the increased obligations in nonreimbursed work that women can have, Dr. Raber said. These can be things like mentoring, teaching roles, and serving on committees, which is a hypothesis supported by a 2021 study that showed women physicians spend more time on these “citizenship tasks” than men.

Finally, there could be organizational barriers that affect women’s clinical volumes, including less access to support from health care personnel. Added support is especially important, though, amid a 100-year pandemic, the women agreed.

“Within the first year of the pandemic, we saw women leaving the workforce in droves across all sectors, including medicine, including academic medicine. And, as the pandemic goes on without any signs of abatement, those threats continue to exist and continue to be amplified,” Dr. Reza said.

The groundswell of support surrounding the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across the board has helped bring attention to the issue, she said. Some institutions, including the National Institutes of Health, are making efforts to extend relief to women with young families, caregivers, or those in academic medicine who, for example, need extensions on grants or bridge funding.

“There’s certainly a lot left to do, but I do think within the last year, there’s been an acceleration of literature that has come out, not only pointing out the disparities, but pointing out that perhaps women physicians do have better outcomes and are better liked by their patients and that losing women in the workforce would be a huge detriment to the field overall,” Dr. Reza said.

Dr. Raber, Dr. Reza, and Dr. Hayes reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor conflict of interest disclosures are listed in the paper.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women cardiologists receive dramatically smaller payments from the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) than their male counterparts, new research suggests.

An analysis of 2016 claims data revealed male cardiologists received on average 45% more reimbursement than women in the inpatient setting, with the median payment 39% higher ($62,897 vs. $45,288).

In the outpatient setting, men received on average 62% more annual CMS payments, with the median payment 75% higher ($91,053 vs. $51,975; P < .001 for both).

The difference remained significant after the exclusion of the top and bottom 2.5% of earning physicians and cardiology subspecialties, like electrophysiology and interventional cardiology, with high procedural volumes and greater gender imbalances.

“This is one study among others which demonstrates a wage gap between men and women in medicine in cardiology,” lead author Inbar Raber, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. “I hope by increasing awareness [and] understanding of possible etiologies, it will enable some sustainable solutions, and those include access to additional support staff and equitable models surrounding parental leave and childcare support.”

The study, published online September 8 in JAMA Cardiology, comes on the heels of a recent cross-sectional analysis that put cardiology at the bottom of 13 internal medicine subspecialties with just 21% female faculty representation and one of only three specialties in which women’s median salaries did not reach 90% of men’s.

The new findings build on a 2017 report that showed Medicare payments to women physicians in 2013 were 55% of those to male physicians across all specialties.  

“It can be disheartening, especially as an early career woman cardiologist, seeing these differences, but I think the responsibility on all of us is to take these observations and really try to understand more deeply why they exist,” Nosheen Reza, MD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthor of the cross-sectional analysis, told this news organization.

Several factors could be contributing to the disparity, but “it’s not gender discrimination from Medicare,” Dr. Raber said. “The gap in reimbursement is really driven by the types and the volume of charges submitted.”

Indeed, a direct comparison of the three most common inpatient and outpatient billing codes showed no difference in payments between the sexes.

Men, however, submitted 24% more median inpatient charges to CMS than women (1,190 vs. 959), and 94% more outpatient charges (1,685 vs. 870).

Men also submitted slightly more unique billing codes (median inpatient, 10 vs. 9; median outpatient, 11 vs. 8).

Notably, women made up just 13% of the 17,524 cardiologists who received CMS payments in the inpatient setting in 2016 and 13% of the 16,929 cardiologists who did so in the outpatient setting.

Louisiana had the dubious distinction of having the largest gender gap in mean CMS payments, with male cardiologists earning $145,323 (235%) more than women, whereas women cardiologists in Vermont out-earned men by $31,483 (38%).

Overall, male cardiologists had more years in practice than women cardiologists and cared for slightly older Medicare beneficiaries.

Differences in CMS payments persisted, however, after adjustment for years since graduation, physician subspecialty, number of charges, number of unique billing codes, and patient complexity. The resulting β coefficient was -0.06, which translates into women receiving an average of 94% of the CMS payments received by men.

“The first takeaway, if you were really crass and focused on the bottom line, might be: ‘Hey, let me get a few more male cardiologists because they’re going to bring more into the organization.’ But we shouldn’t do that because, unless you link these data with quality outcomes, they’re an interesting observation and hypothesis-generating,” said Sharonne Hayes, MD, coauthor of the 2017 report and professor of cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., where she has served as director of diversity and inclusion for a decade.

She noted that there are multiple examples that the style of medicine women practice, on average, may be more effective, may be more outcomes based, and may save lives, as suggested by a recent analysis of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries.

“The gap was not much different, like within 1% or so, but when you take that over the literally millions of Medicare patients cared for each year by hospitalists, that’s a substantial number of people,” Dr. Hayes said. “So, I think we need to take a step back, and we have to include these observations on studies like this and better understand the compensation gaps.”

She pointed out that the present study lacks data on full-time-equivalent status but that female physicians are more likely to work part-time, thus reducing the volume of claims.

Women might also care for different patient populations. “I practice in a women’s heart clinic and take care of [spontaneous coronary artery dissection] SCAD patients where the average age of SCAD is 42. So, the vast majority of patients I see on a day-to-day basis aren’t going to be Medicare age,” observed Dr. Hayes.

The differences in charges might also reflect the increased obligations in nonreimbursed work that women can have, Dr. Raber said. These can be things like mentoring, teaching roles, and serving on committees, which is a hypothesis supported by a 2021 study that showed women physicians spend more time on these “citizenship tasks” than men.

Finally, there could be organizational barriers that affect women’s clinical volumes, including less access to support from health care personnel. Added support is especially important, though, amid a 100-year pandemic, the women agreed.

“Within the first year of the pandemic, we saw women leaving the workforce in droves across all sectors, including medicine, including academic medicine. And, as the pandemic goes on without any signs of abatement, those threats continue to exist and continue to be amplified,” Dr. Reza said.

The groundswell of support surrounding the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across the board has helped bring attention to the issue, she said. Some institutions, including the National Institutes of Health, are making efforts to extend relief to women with young families, caregivers, or those in academic medicine who, for example, need extensions on grants or bridge funding.

“There’s certainly a lot left to do, but I do think within the last year, there’s been an acceleration of literature that has come out, not only pointing out the disparities, but pointing out that perhaps women physicians do have better outcomes and are better liked by their patients and that losing women in the workforce would be a huge detriment to the field overall,” Dr. Reza said.

Dr. Raber, Dr. Reza, and Dr. Hayes reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor conflict of interest disclosures are listed in the paper.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women cardiologists receive dramatically smaller payments from the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) than their male counterparts, new research suggests.

An analysis of 2016 claims data revealed male cardiologists received on average 45% more reimbursement than women in the inpatient setting, with the median payment 39% higher ($62,897 vs. $45,288).

In the outpatient setting, men received on average 62% more annual CMS payments, with the median payment 75% higher ($91,053 vs. $51,975; P < .001 for both).

The difference remained significant after the exclusion of the top and bottom 2.5% of earning physicians and cardiology subspecialties, like electrophysiology and interventional cardiology, with high procedural volumes and greater gender imbalances.

“This is one study among others which demonstrates a wage gap between men and women in medicine in cardiology,” lead author Inbar Raber, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. “I hope by increasing awareness [and] understanding of possible etiologies, it will enable some sustainable solutions, and those include access to additional support staff and equitable models surrounding parental leave and childcare support.”

The study, published online September 8 in JAMA Cardiology, comes on the heels of a recent cross-sectional analysis that put cardiology at the bottom of 13 internal medicine subspecialties with just 21% female faculty representation and one of only three specialties in which women’s median salaries did not reach 90% of men’s.

The new findings build on a 2017 report that showed Medicare payments to women physicians in 2013 were 55% of those to male physicians across all specialties.  

“It can be disheartening, especially as an early career woman cardiologist, seeing these differences, but I think the responsibility on all of us is to take these observations and really try to understand more deeply why they exist,” Nosheen Reza, MD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthor of the cross-sectional analysis, told this news organization.

Several factors could be contributing to the disparity, but “it’s not gender discrimination from Medicare,” Dr. Raber said. “The gap in reimbursement is really driven by the types and the volume of charges submitted.”

Indeed, a direct comparison of the three most common inpatient and outpatient billing codes showed no difference in payments between the sexes.

Men, however, submitted 24% more median inpatient charges to CMS than women (1,190 vs. 959), and 94% more outpatient charges (1,685 vs. 870).

Men also submitted slightly more unique billing codes (median inpatient, 10 vs. 9; median outpatient, 11 vs. 8).

Notably, women made up just 13% of the 17,524 cardiologists who received CMS payments in the inpatient setting in 2016 and 13% of the 16,929 cardiologists who did so in the outpatient setting.

Louisiana had the dubious distinction of having the largest gender gap in mean CMS payments, with male cardiologists earning $145,323 (235%) more than women, whereas women cardiologists in Vermont out-earned men by $31,483 (38%).

Overall, male cardiologists had more years in practice than women cardiologists and cared for slightly older Medicare beneficiaries.

Differences in CMS payments persisted, however, after adjustment for years since graduation, physician subspecialty, number of charges, number of unique billing codes, and patient complexity. The resulting β coefficient was -0.06, which translates into women receiving an average of 94% of the CMS payments received by men.

“The first takeaway, if you were really crass and focused on the bottom line, might be: ‘Hey, let me get a few more male cardiologists because they’re going to bring more into the organization.’ But we shouldn’t do that because, unless you link these data with quality outcomes, they’re an interesting observation and hypothesis-generating,” said Sharonne Hayes, MD, coauthor of the 2017 report and professor of cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., where she has served as director of diversity and inclusion for a decade.

She noted that there are multiple examples that the style of medicine women practice, on average, may be more effective, may be more outcomes based, and may save lives, as suggested by a recent analysis of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries.

“The gap was not much different, like within 1% or so, but when you take that over the literally millions of Medicare patients cared for each year by hospitalists, that’s a substantial number of people,” Dr. Hayes said. “So, I think we need to take a step back, and we have to include these observations on studies like this and better understand the compensation gaps.”

She pointed out that the present study lacks data on full-time-equivalent status but that female physicians are more likely to work part-time, thus reducing the volume of claims.

Women might also care for different patient populations. “I practice in a women’s heart clinic and take care of [spontaneous coronary artery dissection] SCAD patients where the average age of SCAD is 42. So, the vast majority of patients I see on a day-to-day basis aren’t going to be Medicare age,” observed Dr. Hayes.

The differences in charges might also reflect the increased obligations in nonreimbursed work that women can have, Dr. Raber said. These can be things like mentoring, teaching roles, and serving on committees, which is a hypothesis supported by a 2021 study that showed women physicians spend more time on these “citizenship tasks” than men.

Finally, there could be organizational barriers that affect women’s clinical volumes, including less access to support from health care personnel. Added support is especially important, though, amid a 100-year pandemic, the women agreed.

“Within the first year of the pandemic, we saw women leaving the workforce in droves across all sectors, including medicine, including academic medicine. And, as the pandemic goes on without any signs of abatement, those threats continue to exist and continue to be amplified,” Dr. Reza said.

The groundswell of support surrounding the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across the board has helped bring attention to the issue, she said. Some institutions, including the National Institutes of Health, are making efforts to extend relief to women with young families, caregivers, or those in academic medicine who, for example, need extensions on grants or bridge funding.

“There’s certainly a lot left to do, but I do think within the last year, there’s been an acceleration of literature that has come out, not only pointing out the disparities, but pointing out that perhaps women physicians do have better outcomes and are better liked by their patients and that losing women in the workforce would be a huge detriment to the field overall,” Dr. Reza said.

Dr. Raber, Dr. Reza, and Dr. Hayes reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor conflict of interest disclosures are listed in the paper.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.