Diversity of Dermatology Trainees, 2014-2018

Background: Although the U.S. population is becoming increasingly diverse, gender and racial diversity in medicine is lacking. Improving the diversity of the physician workforce can have an important impact on improving health care access and outcomes for underserved patients. Objective: The objective of this study is to examine trends in sex, racial, and ethnic diversity of trainees in the field of dermatology. Methods: Graduate medical education supplements published annually in the Journal of the American Medical Association were used to obtain demographic data of dermatology trainees from 2014-2018. Research: Over the past five years, women have made up the majority of trainees in dermatology. The representation of female residents has remained relatively stable from 2014-2018, with most current data indicating women comprise 60.78% of dermatology residents. When examining resident physicians in all specialty programs, women comprise 45.56% of trainees. Although women have consistently made up the majority of dermatology trainees from 2014-2018, they remain relatively underrepresented in dermatopathology, micrographic surgery, and dermatologic oncology. Over the past 5 years, women have made up 52.80% of trainees in dermatopathology fellowships. Similarly, women have comprised 47.78% of trainees in micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology. Conclusions: Dermatology is one of few medical specialties in which women comprise the majority of trainees and a significant portion of the active workforce. Further efforts and initiatives to improve diversity in dermatology residency and fellowship programs may be necessary, especially at the medical student level.https://jdc.jefferson.edu/sexandgenderhealth/1018/thumbnail.jp

ICAR: endoscopic skull‐base surgery

n/

AAO-HNSF CORE Grant Acquisition Is Associated with Greater Scholarly Impact

Objective To determine whether receiving funding from the American Academy of OtolaryngologyHead and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts (CORE) grant program is associated with career choice (in terms of practice setting) and scholarly impact. Study Design and Setting Examination of bibliometrics among academic otolaryngologists, including CORE grants funding history. Methods An Internet search was conducted to determine the current practice setting and, for academic otolaryngologists, academic rank of individuals receiving CORE grants since 1985. The Scopus database was used to determine scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index, and publication experience (in years) of these practitioners along with a control cohort of nonfunded academic otolaryngologists. Results Of 432 unique individuals receiving CORE grant funding since 1985, 44.4% are currently academicians. This cohort had a higher h-index (mean, 11.9; median, 10; interquartile range [IQR], 6-18) than their non-CORE grant-funded academic peers (mean, 9.2; median, 7; IQR, 3-13; P = .002) and colleagues who are not currently in academic practice (mean, 4.4; median, 3; IQR, 0-6; P \u3c .001). CORE grant-funded academic otolaryngologists had a statistically higher scholarly impact on controlling for academic rank and among practitioners with greater than 10 years of publication experience. No statistical differences in academic promotion patterns were noted between those with and those without a CORE grant funding history. Conclusions Procurement of an AAO-HNSF CORE grant is associated with greater scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index. This relationship persists among practitioners with more than 10 years of publication experience, as well as upon comparison of CORE grant-funded and non-CORE grant-funded otolaryngologists at all academic ranks. Practitioners awarded these grants may be more likely to go into and remain in academic practice

Expert witness testimony guidelines: identifying areas for improvement

Expert witnesses play an invaluable, if controversial, role by deciphering medical events for juries in cases of alleged negligence. We review expert witness guidelines among major surgical societies and identify gaps within these standards, as our hope is that this spurs discussion addressing areas for improvement. Of 8 surgical societies with accessible guidelines, none included specific compensation guidelines or limits, detailed reporting mechanisms regarding unethical behavior by legal professionals, or addressed the appropriateness of testifying frequently and exclusively for one side. Several processes possibly deterring grossly inaccurate testimony have been adopted by other surgical societies and should potentially be addressed by the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. These include offering an expert witness testimony certification path, strengthening the formalized grievance process, and encouraging members to sign an affirmation statement