An Effective, Reproducible, and Cost-Effective Approach for Achieving Symmetry in Bicoronal Incisions in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Craniofacial Surgery

Using the SCAR-Q to Evaluate Morbidity of Scars in Craniosynostosis Repair

OBJECTIVE

While previous literature has investigated the psychosocial impact and aesthetic satisfaction associated with post-operative scarring for certain pediatric craniofacial conditions, the impact of the scar burden resulting from craniosynostosis surgery has not been adequately studied.

PARTICIPANTS

SCAR-Q was shared with patients ages 8 and older. Thirty-two complete patient responses were recorded.

INTERVENTIONS

SCAR-Q is a PROM that consists of three independent scales - appearance, symptoms, and psychosocial impact - associated with a scar.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mann-Whitney U, linear regression, and Pearson correlation tests were used to evaluate associations between the scales, in addition to patient characteristics such as sex and suture involvement.

RESULTS

Mean ages at time of surgery and survey completion were 9.65 ± 10.10 months and 12.10 ± 3.92 years, respectively. Mean scale scores were 81.5 ± 17.9 for appearance, 86.8 ± 12.4 for symptoms, and 79.3 ± 25.7 for psychosocial impact. Higher patient dissatisfaction with scar appearance correlated with more scar-related symptoms (r = 0.389; p = 0.028) and a greater psychosocial impact (r = 0.725; p < 0.001). SCAR-Q scales did not significantly correlate with age at surgery, age at survey completion, type of synostosis, or type of surgery; however, female patients reported lower mean appearance (65.4 vs. 86.0; p = 0.012) and psychosocial impact (57.3 vs. 85.5; p = 0.010) scores when compared to their male counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

It is vital that surgeons discuss patients' aesthetic satisfaction following craniosynostosis surgery in order to appropriately address and limit deleterious, long-term physical and psychosocial outcomes.

Advancing Equity in Academic Medicine Through Holistic Review for Faculty Recruitment and Retention

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) in 2007 developed the Holistic Review Framework for medical school admissions to increase mission-aligned student diversity. This approach balances an applicant's experiences, attributes, and metrics during the screening, interview, and selection processes. Faculty recruitment provides its own set of challenges, and there is persistent underrepresentation of certain racial and ethnic minority groups and women in faculty and leadership positions in U.S. academic health centers (AHCs). In 2019, the AAMC initiated a pilot program to adapt and implement the framework for use in faculty recruitment at AHCs. In this Invited Commentary, the authors describe the pilot implementation of the Holistic Review Framework for Faculty Recruitment and Retention and share lessons learned to date. Although the pilot proceeded during 2020, institutional implementation was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and racial justice movement. Pilot institutions encountered hiring freezes, reductions in funding, and restrictions on in-person meetings due to COVID-19 that resulted in both barriers and opportunities in implementing the framework. Renewed commitment to racial justice was associated with increased momentum and urgency for the implementation of faculty holistic review at the majority of pilot institutions. Common themes from the pilot leads' experiences included the importance of achieving "buy in," having a dedicated implementation team, and being explicit about core values. Other themes included the importance of adaptability and flexibility to meet the needs of different institutions and mission areas. The faculty holistic review framework has shown promise as an approach to advancing faculty diversity goals. The pilot institutions will continue to share best practices, track outcomes, implement quality improvement, and disseminate findings to assist other institutions and health care communities with their endeavors to recruit and retain diverse faculty.