No abstract

No abstract

Introduction The year 2020 marked the first year in which a match under single accreditation took place. Both osteopathic (DO) and allopathic (MD) students would participate in the first match cycle without a dedicated DO match system. Our primary objective was to investigate how single accreditation has impacted the DO applicants attempting to match into surgical specialties. Our secondary objective was to investigate the impact of single accreditation at the program director (PD) level and whether or not this process would see a change in DO PD distribution in previously American Osteopathic Association (AOA)-approved programs. Method Information on number of applicants and post-match positions was gathered from AOA and National Residency Match Program (NRMP) websites. Credentials of PDs were obtained from the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education website. Based on the available data, the following surgical specialties were compared for the years 2020, 2018, and 2016: General Surgery, Neurological Surgery (NSGY), Orthopedic Surgery, Otolaryngology/ENT (ENT), Plastic Surgery, and Thoracic Surgery. Data from 2016 were not included in the results as the AOA match results analysis was insufficient and unable to be directly compared to the NRMP data. Results of matched DO and MD applicants were compared using bivariate analysis. A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results From the year 2018 to 2020, the DO applicants saw a decrease of 3% in the total number of matched postgraduate year 1 spots in surgical specialties. NRMP results from 2020 saw that 51.7% of DO applicants matched and 67.7% (p < 0.001) of MD applicants matched for the specialties examined. Percent of matched:applied for DO applicants was lower than MD applicants in the fields of NSGY (p < 0.001), ENT (p < 0.001), Plastic Surgery (p < 0.001), General Surgery (p < 0.001), and Thoracic Surgery (p = 0.011). After evaluating 60 former AOA General Surgery programs, 56% were found to have MD as PD. Another 26 former AOA surgical programs were investigated, and 58% were found to have MD PD. Conclusion Single accreditation has impacted the match process now that a large number of both MD and DO applicants are using the NRMP match system for postgraduate placement. Based on the available data, our results indicate that in the examined surgical specialties, there is a statistically significant difference in the number of MD and DO residents.

BACKGROUND:Opioids are often used to treat pain after traumatic injury, but patient education on safe use of opioids is not standard. To address this gap, we created a video-based opioid education program for patients. We hypothesized that video viewing would lead to a decrease in overall opioid use and morphine equivalent doses (MEDs) on their penultimate hospital day. Our secondary aim was to study barriers to video implementation. METHODS:We performed a prospective pragmatic cluster-randomized pilot study of video education for trauma floor patients. One of two equivalent trauma floors was selected as the intervention group; patients were equally likely to be admitted to either floor. Nursing staff were to show videos to English-speaking or Spanish-literate patients within 1 day of floor arrival, excluding patients with Glasgow Coma Scale score less than 15. Opioid use and MEDs taken on the day before discharge were compared. Intention to treat (ITT) (intervention vs. control) and per-protocol groups (video viewers vs. nonviewers) were compared (α = 0.05). Protocol compliance was also assessed. RESULTS:In intention to treat analysis, there was no difference in percent of patients using opioids or MEDs on the day before discharge. In per-protocol analysis, there was no different in percent of patients using opioids on the day before discharge. However, video viewers still on opioids took significantly fewer MEDs than patients who did not see the video (26 vs. 38, p < 0.05). Protocol compliance was poor; only 46% of the intervention group saw the videos. CONCLUSION:Video-based education did not reduce inpatient opioid consumption, although there may be benefits in specific subgroups. Implementation was hindered by staffing and workflow limitations, and staff bias may have limited the effect of randomization. We must continue to establish effective methods to educate patients about safe pain management and translate these into standard practices.