Introduction Over the past year, there has been a worldwide increase in the focus on systemic discrimination and inequitable practices within different societies, particularly concerning race and ethnicity. The inherent (experience of) inequity in racism is notonly limited to individuals but also found in different domains of societal structures, including healthcare and academia. In academia and healthcare organisations, junior Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) doctors and students regularly find themselves caught between the leaky pipeline phenomenon and hierarchically dependent positions in academic healthcare settings. Voicing their experiences after such encounters is neither an option nor a choice they can do without repercussions. The prejudices, stigmas, implicit biases present within these environments result in segregated practices, where BAME doctors become the ‘other’ doctor (otherism), and based on their religion, ethnicity, migrant background or physical features are boxed into a specific group or category.
Reflections & recommendations The outcome of this exercise (re-) emphasised that more improvement in the Dutch healthcare systems concerning stigmas and biases towards race and ethnicity are needed to promote the inclusion of future BAME doctors and students. A pivotal turn is urgently needed to repair the racial stigmas and biases that have distorted the image of BAME doctors/students, limiting their academic and professional progress. By structurally implementing focused strategies to promote inclusivity, the current gap within healthcare and the participation between non- BAME and BAME-doctors/students can be bridged, inevitably leading to better healthcare services, safer learning environments and a balanced representation of our multicultural societies in healthcare.
We argue that increased self-reflection from such critical inquiry will ultimately result in clear and objective understandings of (pre) existent inequitable practices in our societies.
- clinical leadership
- health system
- medical leadership
Statistics from Altmetric.com
MP and JOB are joint senior authors.
Contributors TT and JB planned the study. All authors conducted in-depth reviews of the available data and shared a personal case. TT, CM and NG contributed to the first draft of the study. JB and MP conducted the first review of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the review of the subsequent drafts of the manuscript and approved the final version for submission.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.