Bereavement Practices Among Head and Neck Cancer Surgeons

OBJECTIVES

Head and neck cancer surgeons frequently interact with dying patients with advanced disease and their families, but little is known about their bereavement practices after a patient's death. The aim of this study is to elucidate the frequency of common bereavement practices, cited barriers to bereavement, and predictive physician factors that lead to an increase in bereavement practices among head and neck cancer surgeons.

METHODS

A 20-item survey was sent to 827 active surgeons of the American Head and Neck Society. Approval was obtained and the survey was distributed through the American Head and Neck Society. Demographics, frequency of common bereavement practices, empathy, and barriers were assessed. Multiple linear regression was performed to determine physician factors associated with more frequent bereavement follow-up.

RESULTS

There were 156 respondents (18.9% response rate). Overall, surgeons were more likely to usually/always call (48.5%) or send a letter (42.4%) compared with other practices such as attending funerals (0%), offering family meetings (18.6%), or referring family members to counseling (7.7%). Many barriers were cited as being at least somewhat important: being unaware about a patient's death (67.3%) was the most cited, whereas 51.3% cited a lack of mentorship/training in this area. Scoring higher on empathy questions (P ≤ .001) was associated with more frequent surgeon bereavement follow-up with the family of deceased patients.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial practice variation among surgeons suggesting a lack of consensus on their roles in bereavement follow-up. Having higher empathy was predictive of higher engagement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 2022.

Overemphasis of USMLE and Its Potential Impact on Diversity in Otolaryngology

Objective

Applicant demographics during the 2019-2020 residency cycle were evaluated to determine if strict utilization of United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores in applicant selection could lead to a restriction in diversity.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study.

Setting

Otolaryngology residency applicants to a single institution.

Methods

A total of 381 applicants were analyzed by age, gender, applicant type, race/ethnicity, USMLE scores, permanent zip code, and graduating medical school.

Results

Among applicants, 37% were women; 9% were ≥30 years of age; 12% were underrepresented minorities (URMs); 71% to 81% had above-average socioeconomic surrogate markers; 22% were from a top 25 US News & World Report–ranked institution; and 81% were from an institution with an otolaryngology residency program. There was no increase in applicants who identified as URM from the 2015-2020 cycles. Multivariable regression analysis showed that applicants who were international medical graduates, URMs, and ≥30 years of age had lower Step 1 and Step 2 scores (P < .05). Applicants who identified as women had a lower Step 1 score, and those from top 25 National Institutes of Health–funded institutions had a higher Step 1 score; however, there was no difference when Step 2 scores were compared (P > .05).

Conclusion

Our data suggest that in the pre–USMLE Step 1 pass/fail setting, strict adherence to USMLE scores may lead to disproportionally low recruitment of applicants who are women, ≥30 years of age, URMs, and from institutions without an otolaryngology residency program. We must implement measures against overemphasizing the absolute values of USMLE scores for a true holistic review of applicants, specifically to prevent an overemphasis on the USMLE Step 2 score.