PURPOSE: Medicine has yet to increase the representation of historically excluded persons in medicine to reflect the general population. The lack of support and guidance in the medical training of these individuals is a significant contributor to this disparity. The Engage, Mentor, Prepare, Advocate for, Cultivate, and Teach (EMPACT) Mentoring program was created to address this problem by providing support for learners who are historically underrepresented in medicine (URiM) as they progress through medical school. METHODS: The EMPACT Pilot Program was formed and conducted during the 2019-2020 academic year. A total of 19 EMPACT mentorship groups were created, each consisting of two mentors and four medical student mentees. Additionally, four professional development workshops were held along with a final Wrap-up and Awards event. Pre and post pilot program surveys along with surveys after each workshop and focus groups were conducted with a random selection of program participants. RESULTS: When compared to data from before and after the implementation of the EMPACT program, there were statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in EMPACT mentees reporting they agree or strongly agree they felt ready to handle their clinical rotations (28% to 65%), felt the need to have an advocate (85% to 47%), possessed insight on day-to-day activities of an attending (26% to 56%) and felt a sense of community (79% to 94%). Mentors revealed an increase in their awareness of the concepts of microaggressions and imposter phenomenon. Finally, both groups felt an increase in their support system and sense of community at the school of medicine. CONCLUSION: Despite COVID-19 limitations, the EMPACT program met its goals. We effectively supported URiM medical students through mentorship, networking, and community.

Telehealth services, specifically telemedicine audio-video and audio-only patient encounters, expanded dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic through temporary waivers and flexibilities tied to the public health emergency. Early studies demonstrate significant potential to advance the quintuple aim (patient experience, health outcomes, cost, clinician well-being, and equity). Supported well, telemedicine can particularly improve patient satisfaction, health outcomes, and equity. Implemented poorly, telemedicine can facilitate unsafe care, worsen disparities, and waste resources. Without further action from lawmakers and agencies, payment will end for many telemedicine services currently used by millions of Americans at the end of 2024. Policymakers, health systems, clinicians, and educators must decide how to support, implement, and sustain telemedicine, and long-term studies and clinical practice guidelines are emerging to provide direction. In this position statement, we use clinical vignettes to review relevant literature and highlight where key actions are needed. These include areas where telemedicine must be expanded (e.g., to support chronic disease management) and where guidelines are needed (e.g., to prevent inequitable offering of telemedicine services and prevent unsafe or low-value care). We provide policy, clinical practice, and education recommendations for telemedicine on behalf of the Society of General Internal Medicine. Policy recommendations include ending geographic and site restrictions, expanding the definition of telemedicine to include audio-only services, establishing appropriate telemedicine service codes, and expanding broadband access to all Americans. Clinical practice recommendations include ensuring appropriate telemedicine use (for limited acute care situations or in conjunction with in-person services to extend longitudinal care relationships), that the choice of modality be done through patient-clinician shared decision-making, and that health systems design telemedicine services through community partnerships to ensure equitable implementation. Education recommendations include developing telemedicine-specific educational strategies for trainees that align with accreditation body competencies and providing educators with protected time and faculty development resources.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted both the importance of primary care and the fragility of its current infrastructure in the United States (US). Within its first 2 months, stark reminders of racial injustice, unaddressed health disparities, and grossly inequitable access to healthcare further underscored the current lack and future importance of universal access to high-performing primary care. At the start of the pandemic, fewer than 1 in 5 Americans could identify a personal usual source of healthcare.1 In this time of uncertainty, many patients went without timely care due to a myriad of difficulties. Perhaps chief among these was the lack of an accessible, trusted personal clinician capable of and committed to delivering personalized advice and comprehensive care at a time of unprecedented medical and public health uncertainty. In response to this crisis, changes in actual and virtual visit accessibility to primary care were further complicated by the limited office hours or practice closures imposed by crises in provider organizational finances.

Introduction Case reports form the base layer of the evidence pyramid, describing new or emerging diseases, side effects to treatments, common presentations of rare diseases, or rare presentations of common diseases. An important scholarly pursuit, writing case reports can be hindered by lack of time, training, and mentorship. Here, we describe a workshop incorporating case writing skills with mentorship opportunities to engage faculty and learners. Methods We designed and implemented a virtual, synchronous workshop addressing knowledge and attitudes on case reports for trainees and academic faculty at distributed sites. Participants discussed the contributions of case reports to the medical literature, key features of successful cases, approaches to writing learning objectives, and how to develop interesting cases into dynamic case reports. Case reports were discussed as a way to mentor learners to disseminate interesting cases as a source of clinical experience and academic productivity. A retrospective pre-post survey was collected two months after the workshop to evaluate its utility. Results Fifteen out of 42 participants responded to the survey. As a result of the workshop, respondents noted improvement in confidence in identifying and writing case reports and identifying and working with mentors or mentees, regardless of level of training or specialty. At the follow-up, seven (47%) respondents had identified a case and 10 (67%) had identified a mentor/mentee to write a case report with. Discussion This workshop, successfully delivered virtually, demonstrates the utility of a brief educational intervention in improving participant confidence in identifying and writing case reports with mentorship.

Diffuse Idiopathic Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Cell Hyperplasia (DIPNECH) is a rare pulmonary disorder characterised by classic radiological findings and symptoms of obstructive lung disease. DIPNECH is considered a precursor to carcinoid tumours in the lungs. In this case, we describe a patient with years of unexplained dry cough presenting with 2 weeks of progressive nausea and vomiting, and found to have massive hepatomegaly on examination. By CT-PE, she was diagnosed with DIPNECH, and abdominal MRI revealed metastatic carcinoid tumours. Despite its non-specific presentation, DIPNECH has characteristic radiological findings of mosaic attenuation with numerous pulmonary nodules. DIPNECH requires early identification and close surveillance to prevent progression to carcinoid tumours. Thus, it is critical for frontline providers to consider this diagnosis as part of their differential when other common causes of obstructive lung disease have been ruled out.

Background: Inadequate support for underrepresented-in-medicine physicians, lack of physician knowledge about structural drivers of health, and biased patient care and research widen US health disparities. Despite stating the importance of health equity and diversity, national physician education organizations have not yet prioritized these goals. Aim: To develop a comprehensive set of Health Justice Standards within our residency program to address structural drivers of inequity. Setting: The J. Willis Hurst Internal Medicine Residency Program of Emory University is an academic internal medicine residency program located in Atlanta, Georgia. Participants: This initiative was led by the resident-founded Churchwell Diversity and Inclusion Collective, modified by Emory IM leadership, and presented to Emory IM residents. Program Description: We used an iterative process to develop and implement these Standards and shared our progress with our coresidents to evaluate impact. Program Evaluation: In the year since their development, we have made demonstrable progress in each domain. Presentation of our work significantly correlated with increased resident interest in advocacy (p<0.001). Discussion: A visionary, actionable health justice framework can be used to generate changes in residency programs’ policies and should be developed on a national level.

Letter to the Editor

Introduction: COVID-19 disrupted access to critical healthcare and resources for many, especially affecting patients at safety-net hospitals who rely on regular care for multiple complex conditions. Students realized they could support patients from the sidelines by helping navigate abrupt healthcare changes and proactively addressing needs at home. Aim: To comprehensively identify and meet the clinical and social needs of Atlanta, Georgia’s patients at highest risk, left without their usual access to healthcare, through proactive telephonic outreach. Setting and Patients: Medical and Physician’s Assistant students from Emory and Morehouse Schools of Medicine partnered with Grady Health System, Atlanta’s safety-net hospital. Artificial intelligence prioritized over 15,000 patients by risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. Program Description: In this novel program, students performed telephonic outreach to thousands of patients at highest risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19. Students used a custom REDCap form that served as both a call script and data collection tool. It provided step-by-step guidance to (1) screen for COVID-19 and educate on prevention; (2) help patients navigate health system changes to fill gaps in care; and (3) identify and address social needs. Based on patients’ responses, the form prompted tailored reminders for next steps and connections to medical and social resources. Program Evaluation: In the program’s first 16 months, students made 7,988 calls, of which 3,354 were answered. Over half (53%) of patients had at least one need requiring action: 48% health and 16% social. Discussion: This proactive, novel initiative identified substantial clinical and social need among patients at highest risk for poor outcomes and filled a pressing health system gap exacerbated by COVID-19. Simultaneously, interprofessional students gained applied exposure to health systems sciences. This program can serve as a model for rapid, cost-effective, high-yield outreach to promote patient health at home both during and beyond the pandemic.

As a 2nd year medical student with a public-health-oriented undergraduate education, I have been attuned to observing dialogues around race and medicine. As a Black woman at a predominantly white institution, I have had recurring concerns about the way we speak about race in medical curricula. I continue to wrestle with questions such as why do lectures and exams indicate patients’ race in clinical vignettes in which race has no bearing? Why do we use race as a proxy for ancestry in cases where genetics is relevant? Why do we remain inconsistent in using race terminology, from oversimplifying race by using “African American” and “Black” interchangeably to hierarchizing it by using outdated terms like “Caucasian”?

As members of the Clinical Practice Committee (CPC) of the Society for General Internal Medicine (SGIM), we support practice innovation and transformation to achieve a more just system by which all people can achieve and maintain optimal health. The COVID-19 pandemic has tested the US healthcare delivery system and sharpened our national awareness of long-standing and ingrained system shortcomings. In the face of crisis, SGIM members innovated and energetically mobilized to focus on the immediate needs of our patients and communities. Reflecting on these experiences, we are called to consider what was learned from the pandemic that applies to the future of healthcare delivery. CPC members include leaders in primary care delivery, practice finance, quality of care, patient safety, hospital practice, and health policy. CPC members provide expertise in clinical practice, serving as primary care doctors, hospitalists, and patient advocates who understand the intensity of care needed for those with severe COVID-19 infections, the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on Black and Brown communities, the struggles created for those with poor access to care, and the physical and emotional impact it has placed on patients, families, and clinicians. In this consensus statement, we summarize lessons learned from the 2020-2021 pandemic and their broader implications for reform in healthcare delivery. We provide a platform for future work by identifying many interactive elements of healthcare delivery that must be simultaneously addressed in order to ensure that care is accessible, equitably provided, patient-centered, and cost-effective.