Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Operative Experience Among General Surgery Residents

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between race/ethnicity and case volume among graduating surgical residents. BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic minority individuals face barriers to entry and advancement in surgery; however, no large-scale investigations of the operative experience of racial/ethnic minority residents have been performed. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective analysis of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case logs of categorical general surgery residents at 20 programs in the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium database was performed. All residents graduating between 2010 and 2020 were included. The total, surgeon chief, surgeon junior, and teaching assistant case volumes were compared between racial/ethnic groups. RESULTS: The cohort included 1343 residents. There were 211 (15.7%) Asian, 65 (4.8%) Black, 73 (5.4%) Hispanic, 71 (5.3%) "Other" (Native American or Multiple Race), and 923 (68.7%) White residents. On adjusted analysis, Black residents performed 76 fewer total cases (95% CI, -109 to -43, P <0.001) and 69 fewer surgeon junior cases (-98 to -40, P <0.001) than White residents. Comparing adjusted total case volume by graduation year, both Black residents and White residents performed more cases over time; however, there was no difference in the rates of annual increase (10 versus 12 cases per year increase, respectively, P =0.769). Thus, differences in total case volume persisted over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional study, Black residents graduated with lower case volume than non-minority residents throughout the previous decade. Reduced operative learning opportunities may negatively impact professional advancement. Systemic interventions are needed to promote equitable operative experience and positive culture change.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.