Background Best practices to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the biomedical workforce remain poorly understood. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education launched the Barbara Ross-Lee, DO, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion award for sponsoring institutions to celebrate efforts to improve DEI in graduate medical education (GME). Objective To identify themes in practices used by award applicants to improve DEI efforts at their institutions, using a qualitative design. Methods This qualitative study employed an exploratory, inductive approach and constant comparative method to analyze award applications from 2 submission cycles (2020, 2021). Data analysis involved the use of a preliminary codebook of 29 program applications used in a previous study, which was modified and expanded, to perform a subsequent analysis of 12 sponsoring institution applications. Seven adjudication sessions were conducted to ensure coding consistency and resolve disagreements, resulting in the identification of final themes. Results Institutions approaches to advancing DEI resulted from work within 5 themes and 10 subthemes. The themes encompassed organizational commitment (policies that reflect DEI mission), data infrastructure (tracking recruitment, retention, and inclusion efforts), community connection (service-learning opportunities), diverse team engagement (coproduction with residents), and systematic strategies for DEI support throughout the educational continuum. Consistent across themes was the importance of collaboration, avoiding silos, and the need for a comprehensive longitudinal approach to DEI to achieve a diverse GME workforce. Conclusions This qualitative study identified 5 themes that can inform and guide sponsoring institutions in promoting DEI.

Background

Physician behaviors are important to high-value care, and the learning environment medical students encounter on clinical clerkships may imprint their developing practice patterns.

Objectives

To explore potential imprinting on clinical rotations by (a) describing high- and low-value behaviors among medical students and (b) examining relationships with regional healthcare intensity (HCI).

Design

Multisite cross-sectional survey PARTICIPANTS: Third- and fourth-year students at nine US medical schools MAIN MEASURES: Survey items measured high-value (n = 10) and low-value (n = 9) student behaviors. Regional HCI was measured using Dartmouth Atlas End-of-Life Chronic Illness Care data (ratio of physician visits per decedent compared with the US average, hospital care intensity index, ratio of medical specialty to primary care physician visits per decedent). Associations between regional HCI and student behaviors were examined using unadjusted and adjusted (controlling for age, sex, and year in school) logistic regression analyses, using median item ratings to summarize reported engagement in high- and low-value behaviors.

Key results

Of 2623 students invited, 1304 (50%) responded. Many reported trying to determine healthcare costs (1085/1234, 88%), but only 45% (571/1257) reported including cost details in case presentations. Students acknowledged suggesting tests solely to anticipate what their supervisor would want (1143/1220, 94%), show off their ability to generate a broad differential diagnosis (1072/1218, 88%), satisfy curiosity (958/1217, 79%), protect the team from liability (938/1215, 77%), and build clinical experience (533/1217, 44%). Students in higher intensity regions reported significantly more low-value behaviors: each one-unit increase in the ratio of physician visits per decedent increased the odds of reporting low-value behaviors by 20% (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.04-1.38; P = 0.01).

Conclusions

Third- and fourth-year medical students report engaging in both high- and low-value behaviors, which are related to regional HCI. This underscores the importance of the clinical learning environment and suggests imprinting is already underway during medical school.

Background

The success of initiatives intended to increase the value of health care depends, in part, on the degree to which cost-conscious care is endorsed by current and future physicians. This study aimed to first analyze attitudes of U.S. physicians by age and then compare the attitudes of physicians and medical students.

Methods

A paper survey was mailed in mid-2012 to 3897 practicing physicians randomly selected from the American Medical Association Masterfile. An electronic survey was sent in early 2015 to all 5,992 students at 10 U.S. medical schools. Survey items measured attitudes toward cost-conscious care and perceived responsibility for reducing healthcare costs. Physician responses were first compared across age groups (30-40 years, 41-50 years, 51-60 years, and > 60 years) and then compared to student responses using Chi square tests and logistic regression analyses (controlling for sex).

Results

A total of 2,556 physicians (65%) and 3395 students (57%) responded. Physician attitudes generally did not differ by age, but differed significantly from those of students. Specifically, students were more likely than physicians to agree that cost to society should be important in treatment decisions (p < 0.001) and that physicians should sometimes deny beneficial but costly services (p < 0.001). Students were less likely to agree that it is unfair to ask physicians to be cost-conscious while prioritizing patient welfare (p < 0.001). Compared to physicians, students assigned more responsibility for reducing healthcare costs to hospitals and health systems (p < 0.001) and less responsibility to lawyers (p < 0.001) and patients (p < 0.001). Nearly all significant differences persisted after controlling for sex and when only the youngest physicians were compared to students.

Conclusions

Physician attitudes toward cost-conscious care are similar across age groups. However, physician attitudes differ significantly from medical students, even among the youngest physicians most proximate to students in age. Medical student responses suggest they are more accepting of cost-conscious care than physicians and attribute more responsibility for reducing costs to organizations and systems rather than individuals. This may be due to the combined effects of generational differences, new medical school curricula, students' relative inexperience providing cost-conscious care within complex healthcare systems, and the rapidly evolving U.S. healthcare system.