128 - Serving on a Graduate Medical Education diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) committee: Exploring a journey of growth and healing

Poster Number: 128
Publication Number: 128.216

Levi Funches, Riley Hospital for Children at Indiana University School of Medicine, FISHERS, IN, United States; Areeba Kara, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States; Ralph Hicks, Indiana University Department of Pediatrics, Indianapolis, IN, United States; Timothy A. Sutton, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States; Francesca Williamson, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States; Curtis Wright, Indiana University School of Medicine, Carmel, IN, United States; Zeina Nabhan, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States

Background: Graduate medical education (GME) programs across the country are working to dismantle discriminatory infrastructures which have contributed to the underrepresentation of Black and Latinx members in the physician workforce. Driven by new diversity requirements and increased calls for change, many GME programs have created committees to deliver on their diversity, equity, inclusion and justice (DEIJ) responsibilities.

Objective: Our goal was to gain insights and improve the work of DEIJ committees by describing the experiences of members of a GME DEIJ committee at Indiana University School of Medicine.

Design/Methods: We designed using RedCap an open-ended survey which was delivered electronically to all committee members. Questions addressed the motivation to join the committee, challenges and fulfillment from membership, and the facilitators and barriers to work done.

Results: The committee consists of 31 members (22 faculty, 6 trainees, 3 staff). A total of 18 members (59%) responded to the survey. Two-thirds of respondents were women. Five (27.7%) identified as Black and 5 (27.7%) as immigrants. Members described multiple motivators to join this committee, including recognition of the lack of diversity on campus and that they did not view themselves as content experts but felt compelled to contribute to positive change. Challenges to participating fully often revolved around lack of dedicated time for doing the work. Committee members also described a unique set of challenges, which included the self-examination that resulted from participation. The emotional cost of participation was described as both draining and uplifting. One participant noted "This role is very emotionally taxing. We got to hear about most of the racist things that occur in our community and relive some of our own trauma.” Committee members described being encouraged by the committee’s tangible achievements and feeling uplifted by finding a group of like-minded individuals with shared goals. Effective committee leadership was identified by many as a facilitator of the work achieved.Conclusion(s): These exploratory findings provide novel insights into the experience of serving on a GME DEIJ committee. Moreover, our findings have implications for the infrastructural and institutional support needed for successful committee work- including protected time and embedded DEIJ specialists. Anticipating the emotional toll and barriers, understanding what is perceived as valuable, and fostering facilitators as gleaned from this work may help advance committees focused on DEIJ efforts.