Letters of recommendation play a significant role in higher education and career progression, particularly for women and underrepresented groups in medicine and science. Already, there is evidence to suggest that written letters of recommendation contain language that expresses implicit biases, or unconscious biases, and that these biases occur for all recommenders regardless of the recommender’s sex. Given that all individuals have implicit biases that may influence language use, there may be opportunities to apply contemporary technologies, such as large language models or other forms of generative artificial intelligence (AI), to augment and potentially reduce implicit biases in the written language of letters of recommendation. In this editorial, we provide a brief overview of existing literature on the manifestations of implicit bias in letters of recommendation, with a focus on academia and medical education. We then highlight potential opportunities and drawbacks of applying this emerging technology in augmenting the focused, professional task of writing letters of recommendation. We also offer best practices for integrating their use into the routine writing of letters of recommendation and conclude with our outlook for the future of generative AI applications in supporting this task.

Objectives: To estimate racial/ethnic differences in the extent to which mental health treatment is obtained from mental health providers, primary care physicians (PCPs), or both and to examine the effects of provider type on change in mental component scores (MCS) of the SF-12 on different race/ethnic groups. Methods: Secondary data analysis of 2008 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Non-institutionalized civilian US population, aged 18 to 64 (N = 62 558). Based on counts of all mental health visits in a calendar year, we identified patients who obtained care from PCPs, mental health provider, PCP and mental health providers and other providers and examined changes in MCS by type of care. Results: 9.9% of Non-Hispanic Whites obtained mental health treatment, compared to 5.0% for Hispanics, 5.3% for Blacks and 5.5% for Other Races (P <.001). Non-Hispanic Blacks and non-Hispanic “Other” were more likely than other groups to obtain care from mental health providers only (P =.017). All obtaining care solely from PCP had better mental health (mean (se)) MCS: 43.2(0.28)) than those obtaining care solely from mental health provider (39.8 (0.48)), which in turn was higher than for those obtaining care from both PC and MH providers (38.5 (0.31), (P <.001). Conclusion: Even when diagnosed with a mental health disorder, Hispanics and Blacks were less likely to seek mental health treatment than Whites, highlighting the continuing disparity. Future research should focus on understanding how and what aspects of integrated care models and other mental health delivery models that reduce disparities and provide greater accessibility.

The unprecedented coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged our society to evaluate our core values and ethics. In a crisis like none other, health care facilities and physicians are now facing shortages of ventilators, beds, and even basic personal protective equipment. Many physicians are already facing a profound ethical dilemma: how to allocate these resources during shortages, with some hospitals, states, and countries even having to establish policies on which groups of patients to prioritize in providing lifesaving treatment during the COVID-19 crisis.

Background Some American households experience food insecurity, where access to adequate food is limited by lack of money and other resources. As such, we implemented a free 6-month Fruit and Vegetable Prescription Program within a large urban safety-net hospital. Methods 32 participants completed a baseline and postintervention qualitative evaluation about food-related behaviour 6 months after study completion. Deductive codes were developed based on the key topics addressed in the interviews; inductive codes were identified from analytically reading the transcripts. Transcripts were coded in MAXQDA V.12 (Release 12.3.2). Results The information collected in the qualitative interviews highlights the many factors that affect dietary habits, including the environmental and individual influences that play a role in food choices people make. Participants expressed very positive sentiments overall about their programme participation. Conclusions A multifaceted intervention that targets individual behaviour change, enhances nutritional knowledge and skills, and reduces socioeconomic barriers to accessing fresh produce may enhance participant knowledge and self-efficacy around healthy eating. However, socioeconomic factors remain as continual barriers to sustaining healthy eating over the long term. Ongoing efforts that address social determinants of health may be necessary to promote sustainability of behaviour change.

Statin-induced necrotizing autoimmune myopathy (SINAM) is an exceptionally rare yet devastating complication of statin therapy that can occur at any time after initiation. It should be considered in patients who develop proximal muscle weakness and marked elevated creatine phosphokinase while taking statin therapy.

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.

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.

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.

Letter to the Editor