For Residents

To the Editor:

Video-based coaching (VBC) involves a surgeon recording a surgery and then reviewing the video with a surgical coach; it is a form of education that is gaining popularity among surgical specialties.¹ Video-based education is underutilized in dermatology residency training.² We conducted a pilot study at our dermatology residency program to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of VBC.

The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School institutional review board approved this study. All 4 first-year dermatology residents were recruited to participate in this study. Participants filled out a prestudy survey assessing their surgical experience, confidence in performing surgery, and attitudes on VBC. Participants used a head-mounted point-of-view camera to record themselves performing a wide local excision on the trunk or extremities of a live human patient. Participants then reviewed the recording on their own and scored themselves using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scoring table (scored from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest possible score for each element), which is a validated tool for assessing surgical skills (eTable 1).³ Given that there were no assistants participating in the surgery, this element of the OSATS scoring table was excluded, making a maximum possible score of 30 and a minimum possible score of 6. After scoring themselves, participants then had a 1-on-1 coaching session with a fellowship-trained dermatologic surgeon (M.F. or T.H.) via online teleconferencing.

During the coaching session, participants and coaches reviewed the video. The surgical coaches also scored the residents using the OSATS, then residents and coaches discussed how the resident could improve using the OSATS scores as a guide. The residents then completed a poststudy survey assessing their surgical experience, confidence in performing surgery, and attitudes on VBC. Descriptive statistics were reported.

On average, residents spent 31.3 minutes reviewing their own surgeries and scoring themselves. The average time for a coaching session, which included time spent scoring, was 13.8 minutes. Residents scored themselves lower than the surgical coaches did by an average of 5.25 points (eTable 2). Residents gave themselves an average total score of 10.5, while their respective surgical coaches gave the residents an average score of 15.75. There was a trend of residents with greater surgical experience having higher OSATS scores (Figure). After the coaching session, 3 of 4 residents reported that they felt more confident in their surgical skills. All residents felt more confident in assessing their surgical skills and felt that VBC was an effective teaching measure. All residents agreed that VBC should be continued as part of their residency training.

Video-based coaching has the potential to provide several benefits for dermatology trainees. Because receiving feedback intraoperatively often can be distracting and incomplete, video review can instead allow the surgeon to focus on performing the surgery and then later focus on learning while reviewing the video.^1,4 Feedback also can be more comprehensive and delivered without concern for time constraints or disturbing clinic flow as well as without the additional concern of the patient overhearing comments and feedback.³ Although independent video review in the absence of coaching can lead to improvement in surgical skills, the addition of VBC provides even greater potential educational benefit.⁴ During the COVID-19 pandemic, VBC allowed coaches to provide feedback without additional exposures. We utilized dermatologic surgery faculty as coaches, but this format of training also would apply to general dermatology faculty.

Another goal of VBC is to enhance a trainee’s ability to perform self-directed learning, which requires accurate self-assessment.⁴ Accurately assessing one’s own strengths empowers a trainee to act with appropriate confidence, while understanding one’s own weaknesses allows a trainee to effectively balance confidence and caution in daily practice.⁵ Interestingly, in our study all residents scored themselves lower than surgical coaches, but with 1 coaching session, the residents subsequently reported greater surgical confidence.

Time constraints can be a potential barrier to surgical coaching.⁴ Our study demonstrates that VBC requires minimal time investment. Increasing the speed of video playback allowed for efficient evaluation of resident surgeries without compromising the coach’s ability to provide comprehensive feedback. Our feedback sessions were performed virtually, which allowed for ease of scheduling between trainees and coaches.

Our pilot study demonstrated that VBC is relatively easy to implement in a dermatology residency training setting, leveraging relatively low-cost technologies and allowing for a means of learning that residents felt was effective. Video-based coaching requires minimal time investment from both trainees and coaches and has the potential to enhance surgical confidence. Our current study is limited by its small sample size. Future studies should include follow-up recordings and assess the efficacy of VBC in enhancing surgical skills.

To the Editor:

Video-based coaching (VBC) involves a surgeon recording a surgery and then reviewing the video with a surgical coach; it is a form of education that is gaining popularity among surgical specialties.¹ Video-based education is underutilized in dermatology residency training.² We conducted a pilot study at our dermatology residency program to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of VBC.

The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School institutional review board approved this study. All 4 first-year dermatology residents were recruited to participate in this study. Participants filled out a prestudy survey assessing their surgical experience, confidence in performing surgery, and attitudes on VBC. Participants used a head-mounted point-of-view camera to record themselves performing a wide local excision on the trunk or extremities of a live human patient. Participants then reviewed the recording on their own and scored themselves using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scoring table (scored from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest possible score for each element), which is a validated tool for assessing surgical skills (eTable 1).³ Given that there were no assistants participating in the surgery, this element of the OSATS scoring table was excluded, making a maximum possible score of 30 and a minimum possible score of 6. After scoring themselves, participants then had a 1-on-1 coaching session with a fellowship-trained dermatologic surgeon (M.F. or T.H.) via online teleconferencing.

During the coaching session, participants and coaches reviewed the video. The surgical coaches also scored the residents using the OSATS, then residents and coaches discussed how the resident could improve using the OSATS scores as a guide. The residents then completed a poststudy survey assessing their surgical experience, confidence in performing surgery, and attitudes on VBC. Descriptive statistics were reported.

On average, residents spent 31.3 minutes reviewing their own surgeries and scoring themselves. The average time for a coaching session, which included time spent scoring, was 13.8 minutes. Residents scored themselves lower than the surgical coaches did by an average of 5.25 points (eTable 2). Residents gave themselves an average total score of 10.5, while their respective surgical coaches gave the residents an average score of 15.75. There was a trend of residents with greater surgical experience having higher OSATS scores (Figure). After the coaching session, 3 of 4 residents reported that they felt more confident in their surgical skills. All residents felt more confident in assessing their surgical skills and felt that VBC was an effective teaching measure. All residents agreed that VBC should be continued as part of their residency training.

Video-based coaching has the potential to provide several benefits for dermatology trainees. Because receiving feedback intraoperatively often can be distracting and incomplete, video review can instead allow the surgeon to focus on performing the surgery and then later focus on learning while reviewing the video.^1,4 Feedback also can be more comprehensive and delivered without concern for time constraints or disturbing clinic flow as well as without the additional concern of the patient overhearing comments and feedback.³ Although independent video review in the absence of coaching can lead to improvement in surgical skills, the addition of VBC provides even greater potential educational benefit.⁴ During the COVID-19 pandemic, VBC allowed coaches to provide feedback without additional exposures. We utilized dermatologic surgery faculty as coaches, but this format of training also would apply to general dermatology faculty.

Another goal of VBC is to enhance a trainee’s ability to perform self-directed learning, which requires accurate self-assessment.⁴ Accurately assessing one’s own strengths empowers a trainee to act with appropriate confidence, while understanding one’s own weaknesses allows a trainee to effectively balance confidence and caution in daily practice.⁵ Interestingly, in our study all residents scored themselves lower than surgical coaches, but with 1 coaching session, the residents subsequently reported greater surgical confidence.

Time constraints can be a potential barrier to surgical coaching.⁴ Our study demonstrates that VBC requires minimal time investment. Increasing the speed of video playback allowed for efficient evaluation of resident surgeries without compromising the coach’s ability to provide comprehensive feedback. Our feedback sessions were performed virtually, which allowed for ease of scheduling between trainees and coaches.

Our pilot study demonstrated that VBC is relatively easy to implement in a dermatology residency training setting, leveraging relatively low-cost technologies and allowing for a means of learning that residents felt was effective. Video-based coaching requires minimal time investment from both trainees and coaches and has the potential to enhance surgical confidence. Our current study is limited by its small sample size. Future studies should include follow-up recordings and assess the efficacy of VBC in enhancing surgical skills.

To the Editor:

Video-based coaching (VBC) involves a surgeon recording a surgery and then reviewing the video with a surgical coach; it is a form of education that is gaining popularity among surgical specialties.¹ Video-based education is underutilized in dermatology residency training.² We conducted a pilot study at our dermatology residency program to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of VBC.

The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School institutional review board approved this study. All 4 first-year dermatology residents were recruited to participate in this study. Participants filled out a prestudy survey assessing their surgical experience, confidence in performing surgery, and attitudes on VBC. Participants used a head-mounted point-of-view camera to record themselves performing a wide local excision on the trunk or extremities of a live human patient. Participants then reviewed the recording on their own and scored themselves using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scoring table (scored from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest possible score for each element), which is a validated tool for assessing surgical skills (eTable 1).³ Given that there were no assistants participating in the surgery, this element of the OSATS scoring table was excluded, making a maximum possible score of 30 and a minimum possible score of 6. After scoring themselves, participants then had a 1-on-1 coaching session with a fellowship-trained dermatologic surgeon (M.F. or T.H.) via online teleconferencing.

During the coaching session, participants and coaches reviewed the video. The surgical coaches also scored the residents using the OSATS, then residents and coaches discussed how the resident could improve using the OSATS scores as a guide. The residents then completed a poststudy survey assessing their surgical experience, confidence in performing surgery, and attitudes on VBC. Descriptive statistics were reported.

On average, residents spent 31.3 minutes reviewing their own surgeries and scoring themselves. The average time for a coaching session, which included time spent scoring, was 13.8 minutes. Residents scored themselves lower than the surgical coaches did by an average of 5.25 points (eTable 2). Residents gave themselves an average total score of 10.5, while their respective surgical coaches gave the residents an average score of 15.75. There was a trend of residents with greater surgical experience having higher OSATS scores (Figure). After the coaching session, 3 of 4 residents reported that they felt more confident in their surgical skills. All residents felt more confident in assessing their surgical skills and felt that VBC was an effective teaching measure. All residents agreed that VBC should be continued as part of their residency training.

Video-based coaching has the potential to provide several benefits for dermatology trainees. Because receiving feedback intraoperatively often can be distracting and incomplete, video review can instead allow the surgeon to focus on performing the surgery and then later focus on learning while reviewing the video.^1,4 Feedback also can be more comprehensive and delivered without concern for time constraints or disturbing clinic flow as well as without the additional concern of the patient overhearing comments and feedback.³ Although independent video review in the absence of coaching can lead to improvement in surgical skills, the addition of VBC provides even greater potential educational benefit.⁴ During the COVID-19 pandemic, VBC allowed coaches to provide feedback without additional exposures. We utilized dermatologic surgery faculty as coaches, but this format of training also would apply to general dermatology faculty.

Another goal of VBC is to enhance a trainee’s ability to perform self-directed learning, which requires accurate self-assessment.⁴ Accurately assessing one’s own strengths empowers a trainee to act with appropriate confidence, while understanding one’s own weaknesses allows a trainee to effectively balance confidence and caution in daily practice.⁵ Interestingly, in our study all residents scored themselves lower than surgical coaches, but with 1 coaching session, the residents subsequently reported greater surgical confidence.

Time constraints can be a potential barrier to surgical coaching.⁴ Our study demonstrates that VBC requires minimal time investment. Increasing the speed of video playback allowed for efficient evaluation of resident surgeries without compromising the coach’s ability to provide comprehensive feedback. Our feedback sessions were performed virtually, which allowed for ease of scheduling between trainees and coaches.

Our pilot study demonstrated that VBC is relatively easy to implement in a dermatology residency training setting, leveraging relatively low-cost technologies and allowing for a means of learning that residents felt was effective. Video-based coaching requires minimal time investment from both trainees and coaches and has the potential to enhance surgical confidence. Our current study is limited by its small sample size. Future studies should include follow-up recordings and assess the efficacy of VBC in enhancing surgical skills.

Dermatology residency positions continue to be highly coveted among applicants in the match. In 2019, dermatology proved to be the most competitive specialty, with 36.3% of US medical school seniors and independent applicants going unmatched.¹ Prior to the transition to a pass/fail system, the mean US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score for matched applicants increased from 247 in 2014 to 251 in 2019. The growing number of scholarly activities reported by applicants has contributed to the competitiveness of the specialty. In 2018, the mean number of abstracts, presentations, and publications reported by matched applicants was 14.71, which was higher than other competitive specialties, including orthopedic surgery and otolaryngology (11.5 and 10.4, respectively). Dermatology applicants who did not match in 2018 reported a mean of 8.6 abstracts, presentations, and publications, which was on par with successful applicants in many other specialties.¹ In 2011, Stratman and Ness² found that publishing manuscripts and listing research experience were factors strongly associated with matching into dermatology for reapplicants. These trends in reported research have added pressure for applicants to increase their publications.

Given that many students do not choose a career in dermatology until later in medical school, some students choose to take a gap year between their third and fourth years of medical school to pursue a research fellowship (RF) and produce publications, in theory to increase the chances of matching in dermatology. A survey of dermatology applicants conducted by Costello et al³ in 2021 found that, of the students who completed a gap year (n=90; 31.25%), 78.7% (n=71) of them completed an RF, and those who completed RFs were more likely to match at top dermatology residency programs (P<.01). The authors also reported that there was no significant difference in overall match rates between gap-year and non–gap-year applicants.³ Another survey of 328 medical students found that the most common reason students take years off for research during medical school is to increase competitiveness for residency application.⁴ Although it is clear that students completing an RF often find success in the match, there are limited published data on how those involved in selecting dermatology residents view this additional year. We surveyed faculty members participating in the resident selection process to assess their viewpoints on how RFs factored into an applicant’s odds of matching into dermatology residency and performance as a resident.

Materials and Methods

An institutional review board application was submitted through the Geisinger Health System (Danville, Pennsylvania), and an exemption to complete the survey was granted. The survey consisted of 16 questions via REDCap electronic data capture and was sent to a listserve of dermatology program directors who were asked to distribute the survey to program chairs and faculty members within their department. Survey questions evaluated the participants’ involvement in medical student advising and the residency selection process. Questions relating to the respondents’ opinions were based on a 5-point Likert scale on level of agreement (1=strongly agree; 5=strongly disagree) or importance (1=a great deal; 5=not at all). All responses were collected anonymously. Data points were compiled and analyzed using REDCap. Statistical analysis via χ² tests were conducted when appropriate.

Results

The survey was sent to 142 individuals and distributed to faculty members within those departments between August 16, 2019, and September 24, 2019. The survey elicited a total of 110 respondents. Demographic information is shown in eTable 1. Of these respondents, 35.5% were program directors, 23.6% were program chairs, 3.6% were both program director and program chair, and 37.3% were core faculty members. Although respondents’ roles were varied, 96.4% indicated that they were involved in both advising medical students and in selecting residents.

None of the respondents indicated that they always recommend that students complete an RF, and only 4.5% indicated that they usually recommend it; 40% of respondents rarely or never recommend an RF, while 55.5% sometimes recommend it. Although there was a variety of responses to how frequently faculty members recommend an RF, almost all respondents (98.2%) agreed that the reason medical students pursued an RF prior to residency application was to increase the competitiveness of their residency application. However, 20% of respondents believed that students in this cohort were seeking to gain a deeper understanding of the specialty, and 27.3% thought that this cohort had genuine interest in research. Interestingly, despite the medical students’ intentions of choosing an RF, most respondents (67.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that the publications produced by fellows make an impact on the dermatologic scientific community.

Although some respondents indicated that completion of an RF positively impacts resident performance with regard to patient care, most indicated that the impact was a little (26.4%) or not at all (50%). Additionally, a minority of respondents (11.8%) believed that RFs positively impact resident performance on in-service and board examinations at least a moderate amount, with 62.7% indicating no positive impact at all. Only 12.7% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF led to increased applicant involvement in research throughout their career, and most (73.6%) believed there were downsides to completing an RF. Finally, only 20% agreed or strongly agreed that students who completed an RF were more dedicated to the field of dermatology (eTable 2).

Further evaluation of the data indicated that the perceived utility of RFs did not affect respondents’ recommendation on whether to pursue an RF or not. For example, of the 4.5% of respondents who indicated that they always or usually recommended RFs, only 1 respondent believed that students who completed an RF were more dedicated to the field of dermatology than those who did not. Although 55.5% of respondents answered that they sometimes recommended completion of an RF, less than a quarter of this group believed that students who completed an RF were more likely to be heavily involved in research throughout their career (P=.99).

Overall, 11.8% of respondents indicated that completion of a dermatology RF influenced the evaluation of an applicant a great deal or a lot, while 53.6% of respondents indicated a little or no influence at all. Most respondents (62.8%) agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF can compensate for flaws in a residency application. Furthermore, when asked if completion of an RF could set 2 otherwise equivocal applicants apart from one another, 46.4% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, while only 17.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed (eTable 2).

Comment

This study characterized how completion of an RF is viewed by those involved in advising medical students and selecting dermatology residents. The growing pressure for applicants to increase the number of publications combined with the competitiveness of applying for a dermatology residency position has led to increased participation in RFs. However, studies have found that students who completed an RF often did so despite a lack of interest.⁴ Nonetheless, little is known about how this is perceived by those involved in choosing residents.

We found that few respondents always or usually advised applicants to complete an RF, but the majority sometimes recommended them, demonstrating the complexity of this issue. Completion of an RF impacted 11.8% of respondents’ overall opinion of an applicant a lot or a great deal, while most respondents (53.6%) were influenced a little or not at all. However, 46.4% of respondents indicated that completion of a dermatology RF would set apart 2 applicants of otherwise equal standing, and 62.8% agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF would compensate for flaws in an application. These responses align with the findings of a study conducted by Kaffenberger et al,⁵ who surveyed members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology and found that 74.5% (73/98) of mentors almost always or sometimes recommended a research gap year for reasons that included low grades, low USMLE Step scores, and little research. These data suggest that completion of an RF can give a competitive advantage to applicants despite most advisors acknowledging that these applicants are not likely to be involved in research throughout their careers, perform better on standardized examinations, or provide better patient care.

Given the complexity of this issue, respondents may not have been able to accurately answer the question about how much an RF influenced their overall opinion of an applicant because of subconscious bias. Furthermore, respondents likely tailored their recommendations to complete an RF based on individual applicant strengths and weaknesses, and the specific reasons why one may recommend an RF need to be further investigated.

Although there may be other perceived advantages to RFs that were not captured by our survey, completion of a dermatology RF is not without disadvantages. Fellowships often are unfunded and offered in cities with high costs of living. Additionally, students are forced to delay graduation from medical school by a year at minimum and continue to accrue interest on medical school loans during this time. The financial burdens of completing an RF may exclude students of lower socioeconomic status and contribute to a decrease in diversity within the field. Dermatology has been found to be the second least diverse specialty, behind orthopedics.⁶ Soliman et al⁷ found that racial minorities and low-income students were more likely to cite socioeconomic barriers as factors involved in their decision not to pursue a career in dermatology. This notion was supported by Rinderknecht et al,⁸ who found that Black and Latinx dermatology applicants were more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and Black applicants were more likely to indicate financial concerns as their primary reason for not pursuing an RF. The impact of accumulated student debt and decreased access should be carefully weighed against the potential benefits of an RF. However, as the USMLE transitions their Step 1 score reporting from numerical to a pass/fail system, it also is possible that dermatology programs will place more emphasis on research productivity when evaluating applications for residency. Overall, the decision to recommend an RF represents an extremely complex topic, as indicated by the results of this study.

Limitations—Our survey-based study is limited by response rate and response bias. Despite the large number of responses, the overall response rate cannot be determined because it is unknown how many total faculty members actually received the survey. Moreover, data collected from current dermatology residents who have completed RFs vs those who have not as they pertain to resident performance and preparedness for the rigors of a dermatology residency would be useful.

Dermatology residency positions continue to be highly coveted among applicants in the match. In 2019, dermatology proved to be the most competitive specialty, with 36.3% of US medical school seniors and independent applicants going unmatched.¹ Prior to the transition to a pass/fail system, the mean US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score for matched applicants increased from 247 in 2014 to 251 in 2019. The growing number of scholarly activities reported by applicants has contributed to the competitiveness of the specialty. In 2018, the mean number of abstracts, presentations, and publications reported by matched applicants was 14.71, which was higher than other competitive specialties, including orthopedic surgery and otolaryngology (11.5 and 10.4, respectively). Dermatology applicants who did not match in 2018 reported a mean of 8.6 abstracts, presentations, and publications, which was on par with successful applicants in many other specialties.¹ In 2011, Stratman and Ness² found that publishing manuscripts and listing research experience were factors strongly associated with matching into dermatology for reapplicants. These trends in reported research have added pressure for applicants to increase their publications.

Given that many students do not choose a career in dermatology until later in medical school, some students choose to take a gap year between their third and fourth years of medical school to pursue a research fellowship (RF) and produce publications, in theory to increase the chances of matching in dermatology. A survey of dermatology applicants conducted by Costello et al³ in 2021 found that, of the students who completed a gap year (n=90; 31.25%), 78.7% (n=71) of them completed an RF, and those who completed RFs were more likely to match at top dermatology residency programs (P<.01). The authors also reported that there was no significant difference in overall match rates between gap-year and non–gap-year applicants.³ Another survey of 328 medical students found that the most common reason students take years off for research during medical school is to increase competitiveness for residency application.⁴ Although it is clear that students completing an RF often find success in the match, there are limited published data on how those involved in selecting dermatology residents view this additional year. We surveyed faculty members participating in the resident selection process to assess their viewpoints on how RFs factored into an applicant’s odds of matching into dermatology residency and performance as a resident.

Materials and Methods

An institutional review board application was submitted through the Geisinger Health System (Danville, Pennsylvania), and an exemption to complete the survey was granted. The survey consisted of 16 questions via REDCap electronic data capture and was sent to a listserve of dermatology program directors who were asked to distribute the survey to program chairs and faculty members within their department. Survey questions evaluated the participants’ involvement in medical student advising and the residency selection process. Questions relating to the respondents’ opinions were based on a 5-point Likert scale on level of agreement (1=strongly agree; 5=strongly disagree) or importance (1=a great deal; 5=not at all). All responses were collected anonymously. Data points were compiled and analyzed using REDCap. Statistical analysis via χ² tests were conducted when appropriate.

Results

The survey was sent to 142 individuals and distributed to faculty members within those departments between August 16, 2019, and September 24, 2019. The survey elicited a total of 110 respondents. Demographic information is shown in eTable 1. Of these respondents, 35.5% were program directors, 23.6% were program chairs, 3.6% were both program director and program chair, and 37.3% were core faculty members. Although respondents’ roles were varied, 96.4% indicated that they were involved in both advising medical students and in selecting residents.

None of the respondents indicated that they always recommend that students complete an RF, and only 4.5% indicated that they usually recommend it; 40% of respondents rarely or never recommend an RF, while 55.5% sometimes recommend it. Although there was a variety of responses to how frequently faculty members recommend an RF, almost all respondents (98.2%) agreed that the reason medical students pursued an RF prior to residency application was to increase the competitiveness of their residency application. However, 20% of respondents believed that students in this cohort were seeking to gain a deeper understanding of the specialty, and 27.3% thought that this cohort had genuine interest in research. Interestingly, despite the medical students’ intentions of choosing an RF, most respondents (67.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that the publications produced by fellows make an impact on the dermatologic scientific community.

Although some respondents indicated that completion of an RF positively impacts resident performance with regard to patient care, most indicated that the impact was a little (26.4%) or not at all (50%). Additionally, a minority of respondents (11.8%) believed that RFs positively impact resident performance on in-service and board examinations at least a moderate amount, with 62.7% indicating no positive impact at all. Only 12.7% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF led to increased applicant involvement in research throughout their career, and most (73.6%) believed there were downsides to completing an RF. Finally, only 20% agreed or strongly agreed that students who completed an RF were more dedicated to the field of dermatology (eTable 2).

Further evaluation of the data indicated that the perceived utility of RFs did not affect respondents’ recommendation on whether to pursue an RF or not. For example, of the 4.5% of respondents who indicated that they always or usually recommended RFs, only 1 respondent believed that students who completed an RF were more dedicated to the field of dermatology than those who did not. Although 55.5% of respondents answered that they sometimes recommended completion of an RF, less than a quarter of this group believed that students who completed an RF were more likely to be heavily involved in research throughout their career (P=.99).

Overall, 11.8% of respondents indicated that completion of a dermatology RF influenced the evaluation of an applicant a great deal or a lot, while 53.6% of respondents indicated a little or no influence at all. Most respondents (62.8%) agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF can compensate for flaws in a residency application. Furthermore, when asked if completion of an RF could set 2 otherwise equivocal applicants apart from one another, 46.4% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, while only 17.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed (eTable 2).

Comment

This study characterized how completion of an RF is viewed by those involved in advising medical students and selecting dermatology residents. The growing pressure for applicants to increase the number of publications combined with the competitiveness of applying for a dermatology residency position has led to increased participation in RFs. However, studies have found that students who completed an RF often did so despite a lack of interest.⁴ Nonetheless, little is known about how this is perceived by those involved in choosing residents.

We found that few respondents always or usually advised applicants to complete an RF, but the majority sometimes recommended them, demonstrating the complexity of this issue. Completion of an RF impacted 11.8% of respondents’ overall opinion of an applicant a lot or a great deal, while most respondents (53.6%) were influenced a little or not at all. However, 46.4% of respondents indicated that completion of a dermatology RF would set apart 2 applicants of otherwise equal standing, and 62.8% agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF would compensate for flaws in an application. These responses align with the findings of a study conducted by Kaffenberger et al,⁵ who surveyed members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology and found that 74.5% (73/98) of mentors almost always or sometimes recommended a research gap year for reasons that included low grades, low USMLE Step scores, and little research. These data suggest that completion of an RF can give a competitive advantage to applicants despite most advisors acknowledging that these applicants are not likely to be involved in research throughout their careers, perform better on standardized examinations, or provide better patient care.

Given the complexity of this issue, respondents may not have been able to accurately answer the question about how much an RF influenced their overall opinion of an applicant because of subconscious bias. Furthermore, respondents likely tailored their recommendations to complete an RF based on individual applicant strengths and weaknesses, and the specific reasons why one may recommend an RF need to be further investigated.

Although there may be other perceived advantages to RFs that were not captured by our survey, completion of a dermatology RF is not without disadvantages. Fellowships often are unfunded and offered in cities with high costs of living. Additionally, students are forced to delay graduation from medical school by a year at minimum and continue to accrue interest on medical school loans during this time. The financial burdens of completing an RF may exclude students of lower socioeconomic status and contribute to a decrease in diversity within the field. Dermatology has been found to be the second least diverse specialty, behind orthopedics.⁶ Soliman et al⁷ found that racial minorities and low-income students were more likely to cite socioeconomic barriers as factors involved in their decision not to pursue a career in dermatology. This notion was supported by Rinderknecht et al,⁸ who found that Black and Latinx dermatology applicants were more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and Black applicants were more likely to indicate financial concerns as their primary reason for not pursuing an RF. The impact of accumulated student debt and decreased access should be carefully weighed against the potential benefits of an RF. However, as the USMLE transitions their Step 1 score reporting from numerical to a pass/fail system, it also is possible that dermatology programs will place more emphasis on research productivity when evaluating applications for residency. Overall, the decision to recommend an RF represents an extremely complex topic, as indicated by the results of this study.

Limitations—Our survey-based study is limited by response rate and response bias. Despite the large number of responses, the overall response rate cannot be determined because it is unknown how many total faculty members actually received the survey. Moreover, data collected from current dermatology residents who have completed RFs vs those who have not as they pertain to resident performance and preparedness for the rigors of a dermatology residency would be useful.

Dermatology residency positions continue to be highly coveted among applicants in the match. In 2019, dermatology proved to be the most competitive specialty, with 36.3% of US medical school seniors and independent applicants going unmatched.¹ Prior to the transition to a pass/fail system, the mean US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score for matched applicants increased from 247 in 2014 to 251 in 2019. The growing number of scholarly activities reported by applicants has contributed to the competitiveness of the specialty. In 2018, the mean number of abstracts, presentations, and publications reported by matched applicants was 14.71, which was higher than other competitive specialties, including orthopedic surgery and otolaryngology (11.5 and 10.4, respectively). Dermatology applicants who did not match in 2018 reported a mean of 8.6 abstracts, presentations, and publications, which was on par with successful applicants in many other specialties.¹ In 2011, Stratman and Ness² found that publishing manuscripts and listing research experience were factors strongly associated with matching into dermatology for reapplicants. These trends in reported research have added pressure for applicants to increase their publications.

Given that many students do not choose a career in dermatology until later in medical school, some students choose to take a gap year between their third and fourth years of medical school to pursue a research fellowship (RF) and produce publications, in theory to increase the chances of matching in dermatology. A survey of dermatology applicants conducted by Costello et al³ in 2021 found that, of the students who completed a gap year (n=90; 31.25%), 78.7% (n=71) of them completed an RF, and those who completed RFs were more likely to match at top dermatology residency programs (P<.01). The authors also reported that there was no significant difference in overall match rates between gap-year and non–gap-year applicants.³ Another survey of 328 medical students found that the most common reason students take years off for research during medical school is to increase competitiveness for residency application.⁴ Although it is clear that students completing an RF often find success in the match, there are limited published data on how those involved in selecting dermatology residents view this additional year. We surveyed faculty members participating in the resident selection process to assess their viewpoints on how RFs factored into an applicant’s odds of matching into dermatology residency and performance as a resident.

Materials and Methods

An institutional review board application was submitted through the Geisinger Health System (Danville, Pennsylvania), and an exemption to complete the survey was granted. The survey consisted of 16 questions via REDCap electronic data capture and was sent to a listserve of dermatology program directors who were asked to distribute the survey to program chairs and faculty members within their department. Survey questions evaluated the participants’ involvement in medical student advising and the residency selection process. Questions relating to the respondents’ opinions were based on a 5-point Likert scale on level of agreement (1=strongly agree; 5=strongly disagree) or importance (1=a great deal; 5=not at all). All responses were collected anonymously. Data points were compiled and analyzed using REDCap. Statistical analysis via χ² tests were conducted when appropriate.

Results

The survey was sent to 142 individuals and distributed to faculty members within those departments between August 16, 2019, and September 24, 2019. The survey elicited a total of 110 respondents. Demographic information is shown in eTable 1. Of these respondents, 35.5% were program directors, 23.6% were program chairs, 3.6% were both program director and program chair, and 37.3% were core faculty members. Although respondents’ roles were varied, 96.4% indicated that they were involved in both advising medical students and in selecting residents.

None of the respondents indicated that they always recommend that students complete an RF, and only 4.5% indicated that they usually recommend it; 40% of respondents rarely or never recommend an RF, while 55.5% sometimes recommend it. Although there was a variety of responses to how frequently faculty members recommend an RF, almost all respondents (98.2%) agreed that the reason medical students pursued an RF prior to residency application was to increase the competitiveness of their residency application. However, 20% of respondents believed that students in this cohort were seeking to gain a deeper understanding of the specialty, and 27.3% thought that this cohort had genuine interest in research. Interestingly, despite the medical students’ intentions of choosing an RF, most respondents (67.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that the publications produced by fellows make an impact on the dermatologic scientific community.

Although some respondents indicated that completion of an RF positively impacts resident performance with regard to patient care, most indicated that the impact was a little (26.4%) or not at all (50%). Additionally, a minority of respondents (11.8%) believed that RFs positively impact resident performance on in-service and board examinations at least a moderate amount, with 62.7% indicating no positive impact at all. Only 12.7% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF led to increased applicant involvement in research throughout their career, and most (73.6%) believed there were downsides to completing an RF. Finally, only 20% agreed or strongly agreed that students who completed an RF were more dedicated to the field of dermatology (eTable 2).

Further evaluation of the data indicated that the perceived utility of RFs did not affect respondents’ recommendation on whether to pursue an RF or not. For example, of the 4.5% of respondents who indicated that they always or usually recommended RFs, only 1 respondent believed that students who completed an RF were more dedicated to the field of dermatology than those who did not. Although 55.5% of respondents answered that they sometimes recommended completion of an RF, less than a quarter of this group believed that students who completed an RF were more likely to be heavily involved in research throughout their career (P=.99).

Overall, 11.8% of respondents indicated that completion of a dermatology RF influenced the evaluation of an applicant a great deal or a lot, while 53.6% of respondents indicated a little or no influence at all. Most respondents (62.8%) agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF can compensate for flaws in a residency application. Furthermore, when asked if completion of an RF could set 2 otherwise equivocal applicants apart from one another, 46.4% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, while only 17.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed (eTable 2).

Comment

This study characterized how completion of an RF is viewed by those involved in advising medical students and selecting dermatology residents. The growing pressure for applicants to increase the number of publications combined with the competitiveness of applying for a dermatology residency position has led to increased participation in RFs. However, studies have found that students who completed an RF often did so despite a lack of interest.⁴ Nonetheless, little is known about how this is perceived by those involved in choosing residents.

We found that few respondents always or usually advised applicants to complete an RF, but the majority sometimes recommended them, demonstrating the complexity of this issue. Completion of an RF impacted 11.8% of respondents’ overall opinion of an applicant a lot or a great deal, while most respondents (53.6%) were influenced a little or not at all. However, 46.4% of respondents indicated that completion of a dermatology RF would set apart 2 applicants of otherwise equal standing, and 62.8% agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF would compensate for flaws in an application. These responses align with the findings of a study conducted by Kaffenberger et al,⁵ who surveyed members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology and found that 74.5% (73/98) of mentors almost always or sometimes recommended a research gap year for reasons that included low grades, low USMLE Step scores, and little research. These data suggest that completion of an RF can give a competitive advantage to applicants despite most advisors acknowledging that these applicants are not likely to be involved in research throughout their careers, perform better on standardized examinations, or provide better patient care.

Given the complexity of this issue, respondents may not have been able to accurately answer the question about how much an RF influenced their overall opinion of an applicant because of subconscious bias. Furthermore, respondents likely tailored their recommendations to complete an RF based on individual applicant strengths and weaknesses, and the specific reasons why one may recommend an RF need to be further investigated.

Although there may be other perceived advantages to RFs that were not captured by our survey, completion of a dermatology RF is not without disadvantages. Fellowships often are unfunded and offered in cities with high costs of living. Additionally, students are forced to delay graduation from medical school by a year at minimum and continue to accrue interest on medical school loans during this time. The financial burdens of completing an RF may exclude students of lower socioeconomic status and contribute to a decrease in diversity within the field. Dermatology has been found to be the second least diverse specialty, behind orthopedics.⁶ Soliman et al⁷ found that racial minorities and low-income students were more likely to cite socioeconomic barriers as factors involved in their decision not to pursue a career in dermatology. This notion was supported by Rinderknecht et al,⁸ who found that Black and Latinx dermatology applicants were more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and Black applicants were more likely to indicate financial concerns as their primary reason for not pursuing an RF. The impact of accumulated student debt and decreased access should be carefully weighed against the potential benefits of an RF. However, as the USMLE transitions their Step 1 score reporting from numerical to a pass/fail system, it also is possible that dermatology programs will place more emphasis on research productivity when evaluating applications for residency. Overall, the decision to recommend an RF represents an extremely complex topic, as indicated by the results of this study.

Limitations—Our survey-based study is limited by response rate and response bias. Despite the large number of responses, the overall response rate cannot be determined because it is unknown how many total faculty members actually received the survey. Moreover, data collected from current dermatology residents who have completed RFs vs those who have not as they pertain to resident performance and preparedness for the rigors of a dermatology residency would be useful.

Educational organizations across several specialties, including internal medicine and obstetrics and gynecology, have formal surveys¹; however, the field of dermatology has been without one. This study aimed to establish a formal survey for dermatology program directors (PDs) and clinician-educators. Because the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Board of Dermatology surveys do not capture all metrics relevant to dermatology residency educators, an annual survey for our specialty may be helpful to compare dermatology-specific data among programs. Responses could provide context and perspective to faculty and residents who respond to the ACGME annual survey, as our Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) survey asks more in-depth questions, such as how often didactics occur and who leads them. Resident commute time and faculty demographics and training also are covered. Current ad hoc surveys disseminated through listserves of various medical associations contain overlapping questions and reflect relatively low response rates; dermatology PDs may benefit from a survey with a high response rate to which they can contribute future questions and topics that reflect recent trends and current needs in graduate medical education. As future surveys are administered, the results can be captured in a centralized database accessible by dermatology PDs.

Methods

A survey of PDs from 141 ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs was conducted by the Residency Program Director Steering Committee of the APD from November 2022 to January 2023 using a prevalidated questionnaire. Personalized survey links were created and sent individually to each PD’s email listed in the ACGME accreditation data system. All survey responses were captured anonymously, with a number assigned to keep de-identified responses separate and organized. The survey consisted of 137 survey questions addressing topics that included program characteristics, PD demographics, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical rotation and educational conferences, available resident resources, quality improvement, clinical and didactic instruction, research content, diversity and inclusion, wellness, professionalism, evaluation systems, and graduate outcomes.

Data were collected using Qualtrics survey tools. After removing duplicate and incomplete surveys, data were analyzed using Qualtrics reports and Microsoft Excel for data plotting, averages, and range calculations.

Results

One hundred forty-one personalized survey links were created and sent individually to each program’s filed email obtained from the APD listserv. Fifty-three responses were recorded after removing duplicate or incomplete surveys (38% [53/141] response rate). As of May 2023, there were 144 ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs due to 3 newly accredited programs in 2022-2023 academic year, which were not included in our survey population.

Program Characteristics—Forty-four respondents (83%) were from a university-based program. Fifty respondents (94%) were from programs that were ACGME accredited prior to 2020, while 3 programs (6%) were American Osteopathic Association accredited prior to singular accreditation. Seventy-one percent (38/53) of respondents had 1 or more associate PDs.

PD Demographics—Eighty-seven percent (45/52) of PDs who responded to the survey graduated from a US allopathic medical school (MD), 10% (5/52) graduated from a US osteopathic medical school (DO), and 4% (2/52) graduated from an international medical school. Seventy-four percent (35/47) of respondents were White, 17% (8/47) were Asian, and 2% (1/47) were Black or African American; this data was not provided for 4 respondents. Forty-eight percent (23/48) of PDs identified as cisgender man, 48% (23/48) identified as cisgender woman, and 4% (2/48) preferred not to answer. Eighty-one percent (38/47) of PDs identified as heterosexual or straight, 15% (7/47) identified as gay or lesbian, and 4% (2/47) preferred not to answer.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Residency Training—Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 88% (45/51) of respondents incorporated telemedicine into the resident clinical rotation schedule. Moving forward, 75% (38/51) of respondents indicated that their programs plan to continue to incorporate telemedicine into the rotation schedule. Based on 50 responses, the average of educational conferences that became virtual at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic was 87%; based on 46 responses, the percentage of educational conferences that will remain virtual moving forward is 46%, while 90% (46/51) of respondents indicated that their programs plan to use virtual conferences in some capacity moving forward. Seventy-three percent (37/51) of respondents indicated that they plan to use virtual interviews as part of residency recruitment moving forward.

Available Resources—Twenty-four percent (11/46) of respondents indicated that residents in their program do not get protected time or time off for CORE examinations. Seventy-five percent (33/44) of PDs said their program provides funding for residents to participate in board review courses. The chief residents at 63% (31/49) of programs receive additional compensation, and 69% (34/49) provide additional administrative time to chief residents. Seventy-one percent (24/34) of PDs reported their programs have scribes for attendings, and 12% (4/34) have scribes for residents. Support staff help residents with callbacks and in-basket messages according to 76% (35/46) of respondents. The majority (98% [45/46]) of PDs indicated that residents follow-up on results and messages from patients seen in resident clinics, and 43% (20/46) of programs have residents follow-up with patients seen in faculty clinics. Only 15% (7/46) of PDs responded they have schedules with residents dedicated to handle these tasks. According to respondents, 33% (17/52) have residents who are required to travel more than 25 miles to distant clinical sites. Of them, 35% (6/17) provide accommodations.

Quality Improvement—Seventy-one percent (35/49) of respondents indicated their department has a quality improvement/patient safety team or committee, and 94% (33/35) of these teams include residents. A lecture series on quality improvement and patient safety is offered at 67% (33/49) of the respondents’ programs, while morbidity and mortality conferences are offered in 73% (36/49).

Clinical Instruction—Our survey asked PDs how many months each residency year spends on a certain rotational service. Based on 46 respondents, the average number of months dedicated to medical dermatology is 7, 5, and 6 months for postgraduate year (PGY) 2, PGY3, and PGY4, respectively. The average number of months spent in other subspecialties is provided in the Table. On average, PGY2 residents spend 8 half-days per week seeing patients in clinic, while PGY3 and PGY4 residents see patients for 7 half-days. The median and mean number of patients staffed by a single attending per hour in teaching clinics are 6 and 5.88, respectively. Respondents indicated that residents participate in the following specialty clinics: pediatric dermatology (96% [44/46]), laser/cosmetic (87% [40/44]), high-risk skin cancer (ie, immunosuppressed/transplant patient)(65% [30/44]), pigmented lesion/melanoma (52% [24/44]), connective tissue disease (52% [24/44]), teledermatology (50% [23/44]), free clinic for homeless and/or indigent populations (48% [22/44]), contact dermatitis (43% [20/44]), skin of color (43% [20/44]), oncodermatology (41% [19/44]), and bullous disease (33% [15/44]).

Additionally, in 87% (40/46) of programs, residents participate in a dedicated inpatient consultation service. Most respondents (98% [45/46]) responded that they utilize in-person consultations with a teledermatology supplement. Fifteen percent (7/46) utilize virtual teledermatology (live video-based consultations), and 57% (26/46) utilize asynchronous teledermatology (picture-based consultations). All respondents (n=46) indicated that 0% to 25% of patient encounters involving residents are teledermatology visits. Thirty-three percent (6/18) of programs have a global health special training track, 56% (10/18) have a Specialty Training and Advanced Research/Physician-Scientist Research Training track, 28% (5/18) have a diversity training track, and 50% (9/18) have a clinician educator training track.

Didactic Instruction—Five programs have a full day per week dedicated to didactics, while 36 programs have at least one half-day per week for didactics. On average, didactics in 57% (26/46) of programs are led by faculty alone, while 43% (20/46) are led at least in part by residents or fellows.

Research Content—Fifty percent (23/46) of programs have a specific research requirement for residents beyond general ACGME requirements, and 35% (16/46) require residents to participate in a longitudinal research project over the course of residency. There is a dedicated research coordinator for resident support at 63% (29/46) of programs. Dedicated biostatistics research support is available for resident projects at 42% (19/45) of programs. Additionally, at 42% (19/45) of programs, there is a dedicated faculty member for oversight of resident research.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—Seventy-three percent (29/40) of programs have special diversity, equity, and inclusion programs or meetings specific to residency, 60% (24/40) have residency initiatives, and 55% (22/40) have a residency diversity committee. Eighty-six percent (42/49) of respondents strongly agreed that their current residents represent diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds (ie, >15% are not White). eTable 1 shows PD responses to this statement, which were stratified based on self-identified race. eTable 2 shows PD responses to the statement, “Our current residents represent an inclusion of gender/sexual orientation,” which were stratified based on self-identified gender identity/sexual orientation. Lastly, eTable 3 highlights the percentage of residents with an MD and DO degree, stratified based on PD degree.

Wellness—Forty-eight percent (20/42) of respondents indicated they are under stress and do not always have as much energy as before becoming a PD but do not feel burned out. Thirty-one percent (13/42) indicated they have 1 or more symptoms of burnout, such as emotional exhaustion. Eighty-six percent (36/42) are satisfied with their jobs overall (43% agree and 43% strongly agree [18/42 each]).

Evaluation System—Seventy-five percent (33/44) of programs deliver evaluations of residents by faculty online, 86% (38/44) of programs have PDs discuss evaluations in-person, and 20% (9/44) of programs have faculty evaluators discuss evaluations in-person. Seventy-seven percent (34/44) of programs have formal faculty-resident mentor-mentee programs. Clinical competency committee chair positions are filled by PDs, assistant PDs, or core faculty members 47%, 38%, and 16% of the time, respectively.

Graduation Outcomes of PGY4 Residents—About 28% (55/199) of graduating residents applied to a fellowship position, with the majority (15% [29/55]) matching into Mohs micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology (MSDO) fellowships. Approximately 5% (9/199) and 4% (7/199) of graduates matched into dermatopathology and pediatric dermatology, respectively. The remaining 5% (10/199) of graduating residents applied to a fellowship but did not match. The majority (45% [91/199]) of residency graduates entered private practice after graduation. Approximately 21% (42/199) of graduating residents chose an academic practice with 17% (33/199), 2% (4/199), and 2% (3/199) of those positions being full-time, part-time, and adjunct, respectively.

Comment

The first annual APD survey is a novel data source and provides opportunities for areas of discussion and investigation. Evaluating the similarities and differences among dermatology residency programs across the United States can strengthen individual programs through collaboration and provide areas of cohesion among programs.

Diversity of PDs—An important area of discussion is diversity and PD demographics. Although DO students make up 1 in 4 US graduating medical students, they are not interviewed or ranked as often as MD students.² Diversity in PD race and ethnicity may be worthy of investigation in future studies, as match rates and recruitment of diverse medical school applicants may be impacted by these demographics.

Continued Use of Telemedicine in Training—Since 2020, the benefits of virtual residency recruitment have been debated among PDs across all medical specialties. Points in favor of virtual interviews include cost savings for programs and especially for applicants, as well as time efficiency, reduced burden of travel, and reduced carbon footprint. A problem posed by virtual interviews is that candidates are unable to fully learn institutional cultures and social environments of the programs.³ Likewise, telehealth was an important means of clinical teaching for residents during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, with benefits that included cost-effectiveness and reduction of disparities in access to dermatologic care.⁴ Seventy-five percent (38/51) of PDs indicated that their program plans to include telemedicine in resident clinical rotation moving forward.

Resources Available—Our survey showed that resources available for residents, delivery of lectures and program time allocated to didactics, protected academic or study time for residents, and allocation of program time for CORE examinations are highly variable across programs. This could inspire future studies to be done to determine the differences in success of the resident on CORE examinations and in digesting material.

Postgraduate Career Plans and Fellowship Matches—Residents of programs that have a home MSDO fellowship are more likely to successfully match into a MSDO fellowship.⁵ Based on this survey, approximately 28% of graduating residents applied to a fellowship position, with 15%, 5%, and 3% matching into desired MSDO, dermatopathology, and pediatric dermatology fellowships, respectively. Additional studies are needed to determine advantages and disadvantages that lead to residents reaching their career goals.

Limitations—Limitations of this study include a small sample size that may not adequately represent all ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs and selection bias toward respondents who are more likely to participate in survey-based research.

Conclusion

The APD plans to continue to administer this survey on an annual basis, with updates to the content and questions based on input from PDs. This survey will continue to provide valuable information to drive collaboration among residency programs and optimize the learning experience for residents. Our hope is that the response rate will increase in coming years, allowing us to draw more generalizable conclusions. Nonetheless, the survey data allow individual dermatology residency programs to compare their specific characteristics to other programs.

Educational organizations across several specialties, including internal medicine and obstetrics and gynecology, have formal surveys¹; however, the field of dermatology has been without one. This study aimed to establish a formal survey for dermatology program directors (PDs) and clinician-educators. Because the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Board of Dermatology surveys do not capture all metrics relevant to dermatology residency educators, an annual survey for our specialty may be helpful to compare dermatology-specific data among programs. Responses could provide context and perspective to faculty and residents who respond to the ACGME annual survey, as our Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) survey asks more in-depth questions, such as how often didactics occur and who leads them. Resident commute time and faculty demographics and training also are covered. Current ad hoc surveys disseminated through listserves of various medical associations contain overlapping questions and reflect relatively low response rates; dermatology PDs may benefit from a survey with a high response rate to which they can contribute future questions and topics that reflect recent trends and current needs in graduate medical education. As future surveys are administered, the results can be captured in a centralized database accessible by dermatology PDs.

Methods

A survey of PDs from 141 ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs was conducted by the Residency Program Director Steering Committee of the APD from November 2022 to January 2023 using a prevalidated questionnaire. Personalized survey links were created and sent individually to each PD’s email listed in the ACGME accreditation data system. All survey responses were captured anonymously, with a number assigned to keep de-identified responses separate and organized. The survey consisted of 137 survey questions addressing topics that included program characteristics, PD demographics, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical rotation and educational conferences, available resident resources, quality improvement, clinical and didactic instruction, research content, diversity and inclusion, wellness, professionalism, evaluation systems, and graduate outcomes.

Data were collected using Qualtrics survey tools. After removing duplicate and incomplete surveys, data were analyzed using Qualtrics reports and Microsoft Excel for data plotting, averages, and range calculations.

Results

One hundred forty-one personalized survey links were created and sent individually to each program’s filed email obtained from the APD listserv. Fifty-three responses were recorded after removing duplicate or incomplete surveys (38% [53/141] response rate). As of May 2023, there were 144 ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs due to 3 newly accredited programs in 2022-2023 academic year, which were not included in our survey population.

Program Characteristics—Forty-four respondents (83%) were from a university-based program. Fifty respondents (94%) were from programs that were ACGME accredited prior to 2020, while 3 programs (6%) were American Osteopathic Association accredited prior to singular accreditation. Seventy-one percent (38/53) of respondents had 1 or more associate PDs.

PD Demographics—Eighty-seven percent (45/52) of PDs who responded to the survey graduated from a US allopathic medical school (MD), 10% (5/52) graduated from a US osteopathic medical school (DO), and 4% (2/52) graduated from an international medical school. Seventy-four percent (35/47) of respondents were White, 17% (8/47) were Asian, and 2% (1/47) were Black or African American; this data was not provided for 4 respondents. Forty-eight percent (23/48) of PDs identified as cisgender man, 48% (23/48) identified as cisgender woman, and 4% (2/48) preferred not to answer. Eighty-one percent (38/47) of PDs identified as heterosexual or straight, 15% (7/47) identified as gay or lesbian, and 4% (2/47) preferred not to answer.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Residency Training—Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 88% (45/51) of respondents incorporated telemedicine into the resident clinical rotation schedule. Moving forward, 75% (38/51) of respondents indicated that their programs plan to continue to incorporate telemedicine into the rotation schedule. Based on 50 responses, the average of educational conferences that became virtual at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic was 87%; based on 46 responses, the percentage of educational conferences that will remain virtual moving forward is 46%, while 90% (46/51) of respondents indicated that their programs plan to use virtual conferences in some capacity moving forward. Seventy-three percent (37/51) of respondents indicated that they plan to use virtual interviews as part of residency recruitment moving forward.

Available Resources—Twenty-four percent (11/46) of respondents indicated that residents in their program do not get protected time or time off for CORE examinations. Seventy-five percent (33/44) of PDs said their program provides funding for residents to participate in board review courses. The chief residents at 63% (31/49) of programs receive additional compensation, and 69% (34/49) provide additional administrative time to chief residents. Seventy-one percent (24/34) of PDs reported their programs have scribes for attendings, and 12% (4/34) have scribes for residents. Support staff help residents with callbacks and in-basket messages according to 76% (35/46) of respondents. The majority (98% [45/46]) of PDs indicated that residents follow-up on results and messages from patients seen in resident clinics, and 43% (20/46) of programs have residents follow-up with patients seen in faculty clinics. Only 15% (7/46) of PDs responded they have schedules with residents dedicated to handle these tasks. According to respondents, 33% (17/52) have residents who are required to travel more than 25 miles to distant clinical sites. Of them, 35% (6/17) provide accommodations.

Quality Improvement—Seventy-one percent (35/49) of respondents indicated their department has a quality improvement/patient safety team or committee, and 94% (33/35) of these teams include residents. A lecture series on quality improvement and patient safety is offered at 67% (33/49) of the respondents’ programs, while morbidity and mortality conferences are offered in 73% (36/49).

Clinical Instruction—Our survey asked PDs how many months each residency year spends on a certain rotational service. Based on 46 respondents, the average number of months dedicated to medical dermatology is 7, 5, and 6 months for postgraduate year (PGY) 2, PGY3, and PGY4, respectively. The average number of months spent in other subspecialties is provided in the Table. On average, PGY2 residents spend 8 half-days per week seeing patients in clinic, while PGY3 and PGY4 residents see patients for 7 half-days. The median and mean number of patients staffed by a single attending per hour in teaching clinics are 6 and 5.88, respectively. Respondents indicated that residents participate in the following specialty clinics: pediatric dermatology (96% [44/46]), laser/cosmetic (87% [40/44]), high-risk skin cancer (ie, immunosuppressed/transplant patient)(65% [30/44]), pigmented lesion/melanoma (52% [24/44]), connective tissue disease (52% [24/44]), teledermatology (50% [23/44]), free clinic for homeless and/or indigent populations (48% [22/44]), contact dermatitis (43% [20/44]), skin of color (43% [20/44]), oncodermatology (41% [19/44]), and bullous disease (33% [15/44]).

Additionally, in 87% (40/46) of programs, residents participate in a dedicated inpatient consultation service. Most respondents (98% [45/46]) responded that they utilize in-person consultations with a teledermatology supplement. Fifteen percent (7/46) utilize virtual teledermatology (live video-based consultations), and 57% (26/46) utilize asynchronous teledermatology (picture-based consultations). All respondents (n=46) indicated that 0% to 25% of patient encounters involving residents are teledermatology visits. Thirty-three percent (6/18) of programs have a global health special training track, 56% (10/18) have a Specialty Training and Advanced Research/Physician-Scientist Research Training track, 28% (5/18) have a diversity training track, and 50% (9/18) have a clinician educator training track.

Didactic Instruction—Five programs have a full day per week dedicated to didactics, while 36 programs have at least one half-day per week for didactics. On average, didactics in 57% (26/46) of programs are led by faculty alone, while 43% (20/46) are led at least in part by residents or fellows.

Research Content—Fifty percent (23/46) of programs have a specific research requirement for residents beyond general ACGME requirements, and 35% (16/46) require residents to participate in a longitudinal research project over the course of residency. There is a dedicated research coordinator for resident support at 63% (29/46) of programs. Dedicated biostatistics research support is available for resident projects at 42% (19/45) of programs. Additionally, at 42% (19/45) of programs, there is a dedicated faculty member for oversight of resident research.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—Seventy-three percent (29/40) of programs have special diversity, equity, and inclusion programs or meetings specific to residency, 60% (24/40) have residency initiatives, and 55% (22/40) have a residency diversity committee. Eighty-six percent (42/49) of respondents strongly agreed that their current residents represent diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds (ie, >15% are not White). eTable 1 shows PD responses to this statement, which were stratified based on self-identified race. eTable 2 shows PD responses to the statement, “Our current residents represent an inclusion of gender/sexual orientation,” which were stratified based on self-identified gender identity/sexual orientation. Lastly, eTable 3 highlights the percentage of residents with an MD and DO degree, stratified based on PD degree.

Wellness—Forty-eight percent (20/42) of respondents indicated they are under stress and do not always have as much energy as before becoming a PD but do not feel burned out. Thirty-one percent (13/42) indicated they have 1 or more symptoms of burnout, such as emotional exhaustion. Eighty-six percent (36/42) are satisfied with their jobs overall (43% agree and 43% strongly agree [18/42 each]).

Evaluation System—Seventy-five percent (33/44) of programs deliver evaluations of residents by faculty online, 86% (38/44) of programs have PDs discuss evaluations in-person, and 20% (9/44) of programs have faculty evaluators discuss evaluations in-person. Seventy-seven percent (34/44) of programs have formal faculty-resident mentor-mentee programs. Clinical competency committee chair positions are filled by PDs, assistant PDs, or core faculty members 47%, 38%, and 16% of the time, respectively.

Graduation Outcomes of PGY4 Residents—About 28% (55/199) of graduating residents applied to a fellowship position, with the majority (15% [29/55]) matching into Mohs micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology (MSDO) fellowships. Approximately 5% (9/199) and 4% (7/199) of graduates matched into dermatopathology and pediatric dermatology, respectively. The remaining 5% (10/199) of graduating residents applied to a fellowship but did not match. The majority (45% [91/199]) of residency graduates entered private practice after graduation. Approximately 21% (42/199) of graduating residents chose an academic practice with 17% (33/199), 2% (4/199), and 2% (3/199) of those positions being full-time, part-time, and adjunct, respectively.

Comment

The first annual APD survey is a novel data source and provides opportunities for areas of discussion and investigation. Evaluating the similarities and differences among dermatology residency programs across the United States can strengthen individual programs through collaboration and provide areas of cohesion among programs.

Diversity of PDs—An important area of discussion is diversity and PD demographics. Although DO students make up 1 in 4 US graduating medical students, they are not interviewed or ranked as often as MD students.² Diversity in PD race and ethnicity may be worthy of investigation in future studies, as match rates and recruitment of diverse medical school applicants may be impacted by these demographics.

Continued Use of Telemedicine in Training—Since 2020, the benefits of virtual residency recruitment have been debated among PDs across all medical specialties. Points in favor of virtual interviews include cost savings for programs and especially for applicants, as well as time efficiency, reduced burden of travel, and reduced carbon footprint. A problem posed by virtual interviews is that candidates are unable to fully learn institutional cultures and social environments of the programs.³ Likewise, telehealth was an important means of clinical teaching for residents during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, with benefits that included cost-effectiveness and reduction of disparities in access to dermatologic care.⁴ Seventy-five percent (38/51) of PDs indicated that their program plans to include telemedicine in resident clinical rotation moving forward.

Resources Available—Our survey showed that resources available for residents, delivery of lectures and program time allocated to didactics, protected academic or study time for residents, and allocation of program time for CORE examinations are highly variable across programs. This could inspire future studies to be done to determine the differences in success of the resident on CORE examinations and in digesting material.

Postgraduate Career Plans and Fellowship Matches—Residents of programs that have a home MSDO fellowship are more likely to successfully match into a MSDO fellowship.⁵ Based on this survey, approximately 28% of graduating residents applied to a fellowship position, with 15%, 5%, and 3% matching into desired MSDO, dermatopathology, and pediatric dermatology fellowships, respectively. Additional studies are needed to determine advantages and disadvantages that lead to residents reaching their career goals.

Limitations—Limitations of this study include a small sample size that may not adequately represent all ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs and selection bias toward respondents who are more likely to participate in survey-based research.

Conclusion

The APD plans to continue to administer this survey on an annual basis, with updates to the content and questions based on input from PDs. This survey will continue to provide valuable information to drive collaboration among residency programs and optimize the learning experience for residents. Our hope is that the response rate will increase in coming years, allowing us to draw more generalizable conclusions. Nonetheless, the survey data allow individual dermatology residency programs to compare their specific characteristics to other programs.

Educational organizations across several specialties, including internal medicine and obstetrics and gynecology, have formal surveys¹; however, the field of dermatology has been without one. This study aimed to establish a formal survey for dermatology program directors (PDs) and clinician-educators. Because the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Board of Dermatology surveys do not capture all metrics relevant to dermatology residency educators, an annual survey for our specialty may be helpful to compare dermatology-specific data among programs. Responses could provide context and perspective to faculty and residents who respond to the ACGME annual survey, as our Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) survey asks more in-depth questions, such as how often didactics occur and who leads them. Resident commute time and faculty demographics and training also are covered. Current ad hoc surveys disseminated through listserves of various medical associations contain overlapping questions and reflect relatively low response rates; dermatology PDs may benefit from a survey with a high response rate to which they can contribute future questions and topics that reflect recent trends and current needs in graduate medical education. As future surveys are administered, the results can be captured in a centralized database accessible by dermatology PDs.

Methods

A survey of PDs from 141 ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs was conducted by the Residency Program Director Steering Committee of the APD from November 2022 to January 2023 using a prevalidated questionnaire. Personalized survey links were created and sent individually to each PD’s email listed in the ACGME accreditation data system. All survey responses were captured anonymously, with a number assigned to keep de-identified responses separate and organized. The survey consisted of 137 survey questions addressing topics that included program characteristics, PD demographics, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical rotation and educational conferences, available resident resources, quality improvement, clinical and didactic instruction, research content, diversity and inclusion, wellness, professionalism, evaluation systems, and graduate outcomes.

Data were collected using Qualtrics survey tools. After removing duplicate and incomplete surveys, data were analyzed using Qualtrics reports and Microsoft Excel for data plotting, averages, and range calculations.

Results

One hundred forty-one personalized survey links were created and sent individually to each program’s filed email obtained from the APD listserv. Fifty-three responses were recorded after removing duplicate or incomplete surveys (38% [53/141] response rate). As of May 2023, there were 144 ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs due to 3 newly accredited programs in 2022-2023 academic year, which were not included in our survey population.

Program Characteristics—Forty-four respondents (83%) were from a university-based program. Fifty respondents (94%) were from programs that were ACGME accredited prior to 2020, while 3 programs (6%) were American Osteopathic Association accredited prior to singular accreditation. Seventy-one percent (38/53) of respondents had 1 or more associate PDs.

PD Demographics—Eighty-seven percent (45/52) of PDs who responded to the survey graduated from a US allopathic medical school (MD), 10% (5/52) graduated from a US osteopathic medical school (DO), and 4% (2/52) graduated from an international medical school. Seventy-four percent (35/47) of respondents were White, 17% (8/47) were Asian, and 2% (1/47) were Black or African American; this data was not provided for 4 respondents. Forty-eight percent (23/48) of PDs identified as cisgender man, 48% (23/48) identified as cisgender woman, and 4% (2/48) preferred not to answer. Eighty-one percent (38/47) of PDs identified as heterosexual or straight, 15% (7/47) identified as gay or lesbian, and 4% (2/47) preferred not to answer.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Residency Training—Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 88% (45/51) of respondents incorporated telemedicine into the resident clinical rotation schedule. Moving forward, 75% (38/51) of respondents indicated that their programs plan to continue to incorporate telemedicine into the rotation schedule. Based on 50 responses, the average of educational conferences that became virtual at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic was 87%; based on 46 responses, the percentage of educational conferences that will remain virtual moving forward is 46%, while 90% (46/51) of respondents indicated that their programs plan to use virtual conferences in some capacity moving forward. Seventy-three percent (37/51) of respondents indicated that they plan to use virtual interviews as part of residency recruitment moving forward.

Available Resources—Twenty-four percent (11/46) of respondents indicated that residents in their program do not get protected time or time off for CORE examinations. Seventy-five percent (33/44) of PDs said their program provides funding for residents to participate in board review courses. The chief residents at 63% (31/49) of programs receive additional compensation, and 69% (34/49) provide additional administrative time to chief residents. Seventy-one percent (24/34) of PDs reported their programs have scribes for attendings, and 12% (4/34) have scribes for residents. Support staff help residents with callbacks and in-basket messages according to 76% (35/46) of respondents. The majority (98% [45/46]) of PDs indicated that residents follow-up on results and messages from patients seen in resident clinics, and 43% (20/46) of programs have residents follow-up with patients seen in faculty clinics. Only 15% (7/46) of PDs responded they have schedules with residents dedicated to handle these tasks. According to respondents, 33% (17/52) have residents who are required to travel more than 25 miles to distant clinical sites. Of them, 35% (6/17) provide accommodations.

Quality Improvement—Seventy-one percent (35/49) of respondents indicated their department has a quality improvement/patient safety team or committee, and 94% (33/35) of these teams include residents. A lecture series on quality improvement and patient safety is offered at 67% (33/49) of the respondents’ programs, while morbidity and mortality conferences are offered in 73% (36/49).

Clinical Instruction—Our survey asked PDs how many months each residency year spends on a certain rotational service. Based on 46 respondents, the average number of months dedicated to medical dermatology is 7, 5, and 6 months for postgraduate year (PGY) 2, PGY3, and PGY4, respectively. The average number of months spent in other subspecialties is provided in the Table. On average, PGY2 residents spend 8 half-days per week seeing patients in clinic, while PGY3 and PGY4 residents see patients for 7 half-days. The median and mean number of patients staffed by a single attending per hour in teaching clinics are 6 and 5.88, respectively. Respondents indicated that residents participate in the following specialty clinics: pediatric dermatology (96% [44/46]), laser/cosmetic (87% [40/44]), high-risk skin cancer (ie, immunosuppressed/transplant patient)(65% [30/44]), pigmented lesion/melanoma (52% [24/44]), connective tissue disease (52% [24/44]), teledermatology (50% [23/44]), free clinic for homeless and/or indigent populations (48% [22/44]), contact dermatitis (43% [20/44]), skin of color (43% [20/44]), oncodermatology (41% [19/44]), and bullous disease (33% [15/44]).

Additionally, in 87% (40/46) of programs, residents participate in a dedicated inpatient consultation service. Most respondents (98% [45/46]) responded that they utilize in-person consultations with a teledermatology supplement. Fifteen percent (7/46) utilize virtual teledermatology (live video-based consultations), and 57% (26/46) utilize asynchronous teledermatology (picture-based consultations). All respondents (n=46) indicated that 0% to 25% of patient encounters involving residents are teledermatology visits. Thirty-three percent (6/18) of programs have a global health special training track, 56% (10/18) have a Specialty Training and Advanced Research/Physician-Scientist Research Training track, 28% (5/18) have a diversity training track, and 50% (9/18) have a clinician educator training track.

Didactic Instruction—Five programs have a full day per week dedicated to didactics, while 36 programs have at least one half-day per week for didactics. On average, didactics in 57% (26/46) of programs are led by faculty alone, while 43% (20/46) are led at least in part by residents or fellows.

Research Content—Fifty percent (23/46) of programs have a specific research requirement for residents beyond general ACGME requirements, and 35% (16/46) require residents to participate in a longitudinal research project over the course of residency. There is a dedicated research coordinator for resident support at 63% (29/46) of programs. Dedicated biostatistics research support is available for resident projects at 42% (19/45) of programs. Additionally, at 42% (19/45) of programs, there is a dedicated faculty member for oversight of resident research.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—Seventy-three percent (29/40) of programs have special diversity, equity, and inclusion programs or meetings specific to residency, 60% (24/40) have residency initiatives, and 55% (22/40) have a residency diversity committee. Eighty-six percent (42/49) of respondents strongly agreed that their current residents represent diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds (ie, >15% are not White). eTable 1 shows PD responses to this statement, which were stratified based on self-identified race. eTable 2 shows PD responses to the statement, “Our current residents represent an inclusion of gender/sexual orientation,” which were stratified based on self-identified gender identity/sexual orientation. Lastly, eTable 3 highlights the percentage of residents with an MD and DO degree, stratified based on PD degree.

Wellness—Forty-eight percent (20/42) of respondents indicated they are under stress and do not always have as much energy as before becoming a PD but do not feel burned out. Thirty-one percent (13/42) indicated they have 1 or more symptoms of burnout, such as emotional exhaustion. Eighty-six percent (36/42) are satisfied with their jobs overall (43% agree and 43% strongly agree [18/42 each]).

Evaluation System—Seventy-five percent (33/44) of programs deliver evaluations of residents by faculty online, 86% (38/44) of programs have PDs discuss evaluations in-person, and 20% (9/44) of programs have faculty evaluators discuss evaluations in-person. Seventy-seven percent (34/44) of programs have formal faculty-resident mentor-mentee programs. Clinical competency committee chair positions are filled by PDs, assistant PDs, or core faculty members 47%, 38%, and 16% of the time, respectively.

Graduation Outcomes of PGY4 Residents—About 28% (55/199) of graduating residents applied to a fellowship position, with the majority (15% [29/55]) matching into Mohs micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology (MSDO) fellowships. Approximately 5% (9/199) and 4% (7/199) of graduates matched into dermatopathology and pediatric dermatology, respectively. The remaining 5% (10/199) of graduating residents applied to a fellowship but did not match. The majority (45% [91/199]) of residency graduates entered private practice after graduation. Approximately 21% (42/199) of graduating residents chose an academic practice with 17% (33/199), 2% (4/199), and 2% (3/199) of those positions being full-time, part-time, and adjunct, respectively.

Comment

The first annual APD survey is a novel data source and provides opportunities for areas of discussion and investigation. Evaluating the similarities and differences among dermatology residency programs across the United States can strengthen individual programs through collaboration and provide areas of cohesion among programs.

Diversity of PDs—An important area of discussion is diversity and PD demographics. Although DO students make up 1 in 4 US graduating medical students, they are not interviewed or ranked as often as MD students.² Diversity in PD race and ethnicity may be worthy of investigation in future studies, as match rates and recruitment of diverse medical school applicants may be impacted by these demographics.

Continued Use of Telemedicine in Training—Since 2020, the benefits of virtual residency recruitment have been debated among PDs across all medical specialties. Points in favor of virtual interviews include cost savings for programs and especially for applicants, as well as time efficiency, reduced burden of travel, and reduced carbon footprint. A problem posed by virtual interviews is that candidates are unable to fully learn institutional cultures and social environments of the programs.³ Likewise, telehealth was an important means of clinical teaching for residents during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, with benefits that included cost-effectiveness and reduction of disparities in access to dermatologic care.⁴ Seventy-five percent (38/51) of PDs indicated that their program plans to include telemedicine in resident clinical rotation moving forward.

Resources Available—Our survey showed that resources available for residents, delivery of lectures and program time allocated to didactics, protected academic or study time for residents, and allocation of program time for CORE examinations are highly variable across programs. This could inspire future studies to be done to determine the differences in success of the resident on CORE examinations and in digesting material.

Postgraduate Career Plans and Fellowship Matches—Residents of programs that have a home MSDO fellowship are more likely to successfully match into a MSDO fellowship.⁵ Based on this survey, approximately 28% of graduating residents applied to a fellowship position, with 15%, 5%, and 3% matching into desired MSDO, dermatopathology, and pediatric dermatology fellowships, respectively. Additional studies are needed to determine advantages and disadvantages that lead to residents reaching their career goals.

Limitations—Limitations of this study include a small sample size that may not adequately represent all ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs and selection bias toward respondents who are more likely to participate in survey-based research.

Conclusion

The APD plans to continue to administer this survey on an annual basis, with updates to the content and questions based on input from PDs. This survey will continue to provide valuable information to drive collaboration among residency programs and optimize the learning experience for residents. Our hope is that the response rate will increase in coming years, allowing us to draw more generalizable conclusions. Nonetheless, the survey data allow individual dermatology residency programs to compare their specific characteristics to other programs.

For decades, pre-med students depended on the annual medical school rankings by U.S. News and World Report to decide where to apply for physician education. But after several prominent med schools pulled out of the rankings, one resident began experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI) to create an alternative.

Brandon Turner MD, MSc, a radiation oncology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, developed a free do-it-yourself tool using AI that allows prospective students to rank medical schools based on considerations that are most important to them. His research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“One of the flaws with conventional ranking systems is that the metrics used in these tools are weighted based on the preferences and views of the people who developed these rankings, but those may not work for everyone,” Dr. Turner told this news organization.

He explained that there are different types of metrics used in the U.S. News ranking: one for research and the other for primary care. “The research rankings carry the most prestige and are the ones that most people know about,” he explained. These metrics take into account factors such as how many grant dollars the medical school receives and the average size of those grants per faculty member, Dr. Turner said.

Admission metrics are also included – for example, the median grade point average or MCAT scores of students who have been accepted. “These don’t tell you anything about the research output of the school, only about how selective the school is,” he said.

Primary care metrics might focus on how many graduates of a given school go into primary care, or how other schools rate the quality of primary care training at a given school – a process called peer assessment, Dr. Turner said.

But even though these might be helpful, students may be more interested in the cost of attendance, average debt, representation of minorities, and how many graduates pass their boards, he said. “U.S. News metrics don’t capture these things, but I included them in my algorithm.”

A U.S. News spokesperson said that the publication continues to help students and their families make decisions about their future education. The spokesperson cited U.S. News’ explanation of how it calculates its rankings. “A school’s overall Best Medical Schools rank should be one consideration and not the lone determinant in where a student applies and accepts,” the article states.

Dr. Turner agreed ranking systems are a good starting point when researching med schools, “but the values reflected in the ranking may not reflect an individual’s goals.”

Tyra-Lee Brett, a premed student at the University of South Florida, Tampa, believes an additional tool for students to evaluate medical schools is needed – and she could potentially see herself using Dr. Turner’s creation.

Still, Ms. Brett, a premed trustee of the American Medical Student Association, doesn’t regard any ranking tool as the “be all and end all.” Rather, she feels that the most effective tool would be based on students’ lived experiences. The AMSA is developing a scorecard in which students grade schools based on their opinions about such issues as housing, family planning, and environmental health, she said.
 

No prior judgments

To develop his algorithm, Dr. Turner used a branch of AI called “unsupervised learning.” It doesn’t make a prior judgment about what the data should look like, Dr. Turner explained.

“You’re just analyzing natural trends within the data.”

The algorithm tries to find and discover clusters or patterns within the data. “It’s like saying to the algorithm: ‘I want you to tell me what schools you think should be grouped together based on the data I feed you,’ which is the data that the user selects based on his or her personal preferences.”

U.S. News has been transparent about the metrics it uses, Dr. Turner notes. “When I started looking into how rankings are developed, I saw that there was transparency, and the reasoning for choosing the metrics used to develop the ranking was pretty sound,” he said.

“But I didn’t see any justification as to why they chose the particular metrics and weighted them in the way that they did.”

Dr. Turner extracted data from the 2023 U.S. News report, which ranked 109 allopathic medical schools, and applied several scenarios to the results to create his alternative ranking system.

In one scenario, he used the same research metrics used by U.S. News, such as a peer research assessment, median federal research activity per full-time faculty member, median GPA, median MCAT, acceptance rate, and faculty-student ratio.

In another scenario, he included four additional metrics: debt, in-state cost of attendance, USMLE Step 1 passing rate, and percentage of underrepresented students with minority race or ethnicity at the school.

For example, a user can rank the importance of the diversity of the class, amount of debt students expect to incur, and amount of research funding the medical school receives. After selecting those factors, the tool generates tiered results displayed in a circle, a shape chosen to avoid the appearance of the hierarchy associated with traditional rankings, Dr. Turner said.

“A prospective student might not care about acceptance rates and MCAT scores, and instead cares about diversity and debt,” Dr. Turner said. He looks forward to extending this approach to the ranking of colleges as well.
 

‘Imperfect measures’

“The model and interesting online tool that Dr. Turner created allows a premed [student] to generate custom rankings that are in line with their own priorities,” said Christopher Worsham, MD, MPH, a critical care physician in Mass General’s division of pulmonary and critical care medicine.

But Dr. Worsham, also a teaching associate at Harvard Medical School’s department of health care policy, expressed concern that factors figuring into the rankings by U.S. News and Dr. Turner’s alternative “are imperfect measures of medical school quality.”

For example, a student interested in research might favor federal research funding in their customized rankings with Dr. Turner’s model. “But higher research funding doesn’t necessarily translate into a better education for students, particularly when differentiating between two major research systems,” Dr. Worsham noted.

Dr. Worsham added that neither ranking system accurately predicts the quality of doctors graduating from the schools. Instead, he’d like to see ranking systems based on which schools’ graduates deliver the best patient outcomes, whether that’s through direct patient care, impactful research, or leadership within the health care system.

Michael Sauder, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said the model could offer a valuable alternative to the U.S. News ranking system. It might help users develop their own criteria for determining the ranking of medical schools, which is a big improvement over a “one-size-fits-all” approach, Dr. Sauder said.

And Hanna Stotland, an admission consultant based in Chicago, noted that most students rely on rankings because they “don’t have the luxury of advisers who know the ins and outs of different medical schools.” Given the role that rankings play, Ms. Stotland expects that every new ranking tool will have some influence on students.

This tool in particular “has the potential to be useful for students who have identified values they want their medical school to share.” For example, students who care about racial diversity “could use it to easily identify schools that are successful on that metric,” Ms. Stotland said.

Sujay Ratna, a 2nd-year med student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said he considered the U.S. News ranking his “go-to tool” when he was applying to med school.

But after reading Dr. Turner’s article, the AMSA membership vice president tried the algorithm. “I definitely would have used it had it existed when I was thinking of what schools to apply to and what [schools] to attend.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Turner, Dr. Worsham, Dr. Sauder, Ms. Stotland, Ms. Brett, and Mr. Ratna report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For decades, pre-med students depended on the annual medical school rankings by U.S. News and World Report to decide where to apply for physician education. But after several prominent med schools pulled out of the rankings, one resident began experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI) to create an alternative.

Brandon Turner MD, MSc, a radiation oncology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, developed a free do-it-yourself tool using AI that allows prospective students to rank medical schools based on considerations that are most important to them. His research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“One of the flaws with conventional ranking systems is that the metrics used in these tools are weighted based on the preferences and views of the people who developed these rankings, but those may not work for everyone,” Dr. Turner told this news organization.

He explained that there are different types of metrics used in the U.S. News ranking: one for research and the other for primary care. “The research rankings carry the most prestige and are the ones that most people know about,” he explained. These metrics take into account factors such as how many grant dollars the medical school receives and the average size of those grants per faculty member, Dr. Turner said.

Admission metrics are also included – for example, the median grade point average or MCAT scores of students who have been accepted. “These don’t tell you anything about the research output of the school, only about how selective the school is,” he said.

Primary care metrics might focus on how many graduates of a given school go into primary care, or how other schools rate the quality of primary care training at a given school – a process called peer assessment, Dr. Turner said.

But even though these might be helpful, students may be more interested in the cost of attendance, average debt, representation of minorities, and how many graduates pass their boards, he said. “U.S. News metrics don’t capture these things, but I included them in my algorithm.”

A U.S. News spokesperson said that the publication continues to help students and their families make decisions about their future education. The spokesperson cited U.S. News’ explanation of how it calculates its rankings. “A school’s overall Best Medical Schools rank should be one consideration and not the lone determinant in where a student applies and accepts,” the article states.

Dr. Turner agreed ranking systems are a good starting point when researching med schools, “but the values reflected in the ranking may not reflect an individual’s goals.”

Tyra-Lee Brett, a premed student at the University of South Florida, Tampa, believes an additional tool for students to evaluate medical schools is needed – and she could potentially see herself using Dr. Turner’s creation.

Still, Ms. Brett, a premed trustee of the American Medical Student Association, doesn’t regard any ranking tool as the “be all and end all.” Rather, she feels that the most effective tool would be based on students’ lived experiences. The AMSA is developing a scorecard in which students grade schools based on their opinions about such issues as housing, family planning, and environmental health, she said.
 

No prior judgments

To develop his algorithm, Dr. Turner used a branch of AI called “unsupervised learning.” It doesn’t make a prior judgment about what the data should look like, Dr. Turner explained.

“You’re just analyzing natural trends within the data.”

The algorithm tries to find and discover clusters or patterns within the data. “It’s like saying to the algorithm: ‘I want you to tell me what schools you think should be grouped together based on the data I feed you,’ which is the data that the user selects based on his or her personal preferences.”

U.S. News has been transparent about the metrics it uses, Dr. Turner notes. “When I started looking into how rankings are developed, I saw that there was transparency, and the reasoning for choosing the metrics used to develop the ranking was pretty sound,” he said.

“But I didn’t see any justification as to why they chose the particular metrics and weighted them in the way that they did.”

Dr. Turner extracted data from the 2023 U.S. News report, which ranked 109 allopathic medical schools, and applied several scenarios to the results to create his alternative ranking system.

In one scenario, he used the same research metrics used by U.S. News, such as a peer research assessment, median federal research activity per full-time faculty member, median GPA, median MCAT, acceptance rate, and faculty-student ratio.

In another scenario, he included four additional metrics: debt, in-state cost of attendance, USMLE Step 1 passing rate, and percentage of underrepresented students with minority race or ethnicity at the school.

For example, a user can rank the importance of the diversity of the class, amount of debt students expect to incur, and amount of research funding the medical school receives. After selecting those factors, the tool generates tiered results displayed in a circle, a shape chosen to avoid the appearance of the hierarchy associated with traditional rankings, Dr. Turner said.

“A prospective student might not care about acceptance rates and MCAT scores, and instead cares about diversity and debt,” Dr. Turner said. He looks forward to extending this approach to the ranking of colleges as well.
 

‘Imperfect measures’

“The model and interesting online tool that Dr. Turner created allows a premed [student] to generate custom rankings that are in line with their own priorities,” said Christopher Worsham, MD, MPH, a critical care physician in Mass General’s division of pulmonary and critical care medicine.

But Dr. Worsham, also a teaching associate at Harvard Medical School’s department of health care policy, expressed concern that factors figuring into the rankings by U.S. News and Dr. Turner’s alternative “are imperfect measures of medical school quality.”

For example, a student interested in research might favor federal research funding in their customized rankings with Dr. Turner’s model. “But higher research funding doesn’t necessarily translate into a better education for students, particularly when differentiating between two major research systems,” Dr. Worsham noted.

Dr. Worsham added that neither ranking system accurately predicts the quality of doctors graduating from the schools. Instead, he’d like to see ranking systems based on which schools’ graduates deliver the best patient outcomes, whether that’s through direct patient care, impactful research, or leadership within the health care system.

Michael Sauder, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said the model could offer a valuable alternative to the U.S. News ranking system. It might help users develop their own criteria for determining the ranking of medical schools, which is a big improvement over a “one-size-fits-all” approach, Dr. Sauder said.

And Hanna Stotland, an admission consultant based in Chicago, noted that most students rely on rankings because they “don’t have the luxury of advisers who know the ins and outs of different medical schools.” Given the role that rankings play, Ms. Stotland expects that every new ranking tool will have some influence on students.

This tool in particular “has the potential to be useful for students who have identified values they want their medical school to share.” For example, students who care about racial diversity “could use it to easily identify schools that are successful on that metric,” Ms. Stotland said.

Sujay Ratna, a 2nd-year med student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said he considered the U.S. News ranking his “go-to tool” when he was applying to med school.

But after reading Dr. Turner’s article, the AMSA membership vice president tried the algorithm. “I definitely would have used it had it existed when I was thinking of what schools to apply to and what [schools] to attend.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Turner, Dr. Worsham, Dr. Sauder, Ms. Stotland, Ms. Brett, and Mr. Ratna report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For decades, pre-med students depended on the annual medical school rankings by U.S. News and World Report to decide where to apply for physician education. But after several prominent med schools pulled out of the rankings, one resident began experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI) to create an alternative.

Brandon Turner MD, MSc, a radiation oncology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, developed a free do-it-yourself tool using AI that allows prospective students to rank medical schools based on considerations that are most important to them. His research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“One of the flaws with conventional ranking systems is that the metrics used in these tools are weighted based on the preferences and views of the people who developed these rankings, but those may not work for everyone,” Dr. Turner told this news organization.

He explained that there are different types of metrics used in the U.S. News ranking: one for research and the other for primary care. “The research rankings carry the most prestige and are the ones that most people know about,” he explained. These metrics take into account factors such as how many grant dollars the medical school receives and the average size of those grants per faculty member, Dr. Turner said.

Admission metrics are also included – for example, the median grade point average or MCAT scores of students who have been accepted. “These don’t tell you anything about the research output of the school, only about how selective the school is,” he said.

Primary care metrics might focus on how many graduates of a given school go into primary care, or how other schools rate the quality of primary care training at a given school – a process called peer assessment, Dr. Turner said.

But even though these might be helpful, students may be more interested in the cost of attendance, average debt, representation of minorities, and how many graduates pass their boards, he said. “U.S. News metrics don’t capture these things, but I included them in my algorithm.”

A U.S. News spokesperson said that the publication continues to help students and their families make decisions about their future education. The spokesperson cited U.S. News’ explanation of how it calculates its rankings. “A school’s overall Best Medical Schools rank should be one consideration and not the lone determinant in where a student applies and accepts,” the article states.

Dr. Turner agreed ranking systems are a good starting point when researching med schools, “but the values reflected in the ranking may not reflect an individual’s goals.”

Tyra-Lee Brett, a premed student at the University of South Florida, Tampa, believes an additional tool for students to evaluate medical schools is needed – and she could potentially see herself using Dr. Turner’s creation.

Still, Ms. Brett, a premed trustee of the American Medical Student Association, doesn’t regard any ranking tool as the “be all and end all.” Rather, she feels that the most effective tool would be based on students’ lived experiences. The AMSA is developing a scorecard in which students grade schools based on their opinions about such issues as housing, family planning, and environmental health, she said.
 

No prior judgments

To develop his algorithm, Dr. Turner used a branch of AI called “unsupervised learning.” It doesn’t make a prior judgment about what the data should look like, Dr. Turner explained.

“You’re just analyzing natural trends within the data.”

The algorithm tries to find and discover clusters or patterns within the data. “It’s like saying to the algorithm: ‘I want you to tell me what schools you think should be grouped together based on the data I feed you,’ which is the data that the user selects based on his or her personal preferences.”

U.S. News has been transparent about the metrics it uses, Dr. Turner notes. “When I started looking into how rankings are developed, I saw that there was transparency, and the reasoning for choosing the metrics used to develop the ranking was pretty sound,” he said.

“But I didn’t see any justification as to why they chose the particular metrics and weighted them in the way that they did.”

Dr. Turner extracted data from the 2023 U.S. News report, which ranked 109 allopathic medical schools, and applied several scenarios to the results to create his alternative ranking system.

In one scenario, he used the same research metrics used by U.S. News, such as a peer research assessment, median federal research activity per full-time faculty member, median GPA, median MCAT, acceptance rate, and faculty-student ratio.

In another scenario, he included four additional metrics: debt, in-state cost of attendance, USMLE Step 1 passing rate, and percentage of underrepresented students with minority race or ethnicity at the school.

For example, a user can rank the importance of the diversity of the class, amount of debt students expect to incur, and amount of research funding the medical school receives. After selecting those factors, the tool generates tiered results displayed in a circle, a shape chosen to avoid the appearance of the hierarchy associated with traditional rankings, Dr. Turner said.

“A prospective student might not care about acceptance rates and MCAT scores, and instead cares about diversity and debt,” Dr. Turner said. He looks forward to extending this approach to the ranking of colleges as well.
 

‘Imperfect measures’

“The model and interesting online tool that Dr. Turner created allows a premed [student] to generate custom rankings that are in line with their own priorities,” said Christopher Worsham, MD, MPH, a critical care physician in Mass General’s division of pulmonary and critical care medicine.

But Dr. Worsham, also a teaching associate at Harvard Medical School’s department of health care policy, expressed concern that factors figuring into the rankings by U.S. News and Dr. Turner’s alternative “are imperfect measures of medical school quality.”

For example, a student interested in research might favor federal research funding in their customized rankings with Dr. Turner’s model. “But higher research funding doesn’t necessarily translate into a better education for students, particularly when differentiating between two major research systems,” Dr. Worsham noted.

Dr. Worsham added that neither ranking system accurately predicts the quality of doctors graduating from the schools. Instead, he’d like to see ranking systems based on which schools’ graduates deliver the best patient outcomes, whether that’s through direct patient care, impactful research, or leadership within the health care system.

Michael Sauder, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said the model could offer a valuable alternative to the U.S. News ranking system. It might help users develop their own criteria for determining the ranking of medical schools, which is a big improvement over a “one-size-fits-all” approach, Dr. Sauder said.

And Hanna Stotland, an admission consultant based in Chicago, noted that most students rely on rankings because they “don’t have the luxury of advisers who know the ins and outs of different medical schools.” Given the role that rankings play, Ms. Stotland expects that every new ranking tool will have some influence on students.

This tool in particular “has the potential to be useful for students who have identified values they want their medical school to share.” For example, students who care about racial diversity “could use it to easily identify schools that are successful on that metric,” Ms. Stotland said.

Sujay Ratna, a 2nd-year med student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said he considered the U.S. News ranking his “go-to tool” when he was applying to med school.

But after reading Dr. Turner’s article, the AMSA membership vice president tried the algorithm. “I definitely would have used it had it existed when I was thinking of what schools to apply to and what [schools] to attend.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Turner, Dr. Worsham, Dr. Sauder, Ms. Stotland, Ms. Brett, and Mr. Ratna report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An increasing number of unclaimed dead bodies went to help train medical students in Texas between 2017 and 2021, new research reveals.

Investigators did not expect to see such an increase, said lead author Eli Shupe, PhD, assistant professor in the department of philosophy and humanities at the University of Texas at Arlington. 

The numbers jumped from 64 unclaimed bodies to 446 bodies annually over those 5 years. “People are usually under the impression that this is something that either doesn’t happen anymore or it’s on the decline as more people step up to be willed body donors,” said Dr. Shupe, who is also codirector of the medical humanities and bioethics program at UTA. 

The study findings were published in JAMA as a research letter. Researchers said that the number of unclaimed bodies – those not claimed by next of kin for burial or cremation – has dropped significantly across the United States since the middle of the 20th century. 

Some people don’t want to discuss the practice because it is controversial, said Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, associate professor at the Center for Bioethics and Humanities and Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora. “But ‘sweeping it under the rug’ means we miss the opportunity for dialogues about respect, consent, social justice, and so on – as well as the opportunity to change policy.”

The study included all medical schools in Texas, and researchers say it’s likely happening elsewhere in the United States and abroad. The practice is legal in most counties and states. One exception is New York, which passed a law in 2016 that does not allow unclaimed bodies to go to medical schools without prior written consent from the deceased.

“Although limited to one state, these findings suggest that use of unclaimed bodies may be both more common than we thought and increasing,” added Dr. DeCamp, who was not affiliated with the current study.

Even doctors can be split on the value to medical training versus the rights of the dead. “I know that medical professionals are divided on the role of dissection and anatomy learning and its necessity,” Dr. Shupe said. She predicted working with cadavers in medical schools will probably continue for the foreseeable future.
 

The marginalized and the vulnerable

So who are the unclaimed? They can include those who are unhoused and those who do not leave enough money to cover cost of burial or cremation. In some cases, they don’t have a next of kin or their next of kin is unwilling or unable to pay for their burial or cremation. 

“Predominantly, these are going to be people who are poor or members of marginalized or vulnerable populations,” Dr. Shupe said. She estimated that about 80% of the people who die in poverty in her region, the Dallas–Fort Worth area, are Black or Hispanic individuals.

“It is alarming that we are going in the wrong direction when it comes to the increasing utility of unclaimed bodies,” said Joy Balta, PhD, associate professor of anatomy and founding director of Anatomy Learning Institute at Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, when asked to comment on the study. The hope is to rely solely on donated human bodies to ensure that donors have provided informed consent for their use in education, research, and clinical training. 

“These unclaimed bodies did not provide any consent, [which] raises ethical questions,” Dr. Balta said.
 

Key findings

In Texas in 2021, 43% of the cadavers in 14 medical schools studied came from unclaimed bodies. A total 14% of schools reported that they accepted unclaimed bodies, 28% possibly accepted them because they were transferred from institutions that use them, and the remaining 57% do not accept unclaimed bodies.

The total number and proportion of unclaimed bodies going to medical education in the study increased during the study. The 14% in 2021 was a jump from 2% in 2017, for example. 

The 14 medical schools studied included both public and private institutions. The investigators also looked at data from the Texas State Anatomical Board, which tracks how cadavers are attained and distributed in the state, including how many began as unclaimed bodies. 
 

Legal in most jurisdictions

Dr. Shupe first learned about what can happen to unclaimed bodies as a hospice volunteer. She was accompanying the hospice chaplain one day who said: “Poor Mr. Smith [not his real name] doesn’t have long, and then he’s off to the medical school.” Dr. Shupe asked what the chaplain meant because she was unaware of the practice. 

“I stumbled on this by chance, and it ended up being a really fruitful research area,” she added.
 

The bigger picture

Greater awareness is needed and there is not a lot of research out there, Dr. Shupe said. One exception is a 2018 study of medical schools nationwide that found 12.4% reported possible use of unclaimed bodies. 

Dr. DeCamp, an author of that previous research, said: “Knowing this practice continues is the most important thing for doctors and medical students to know.”

It remains unclear whether the COVID pandemic or the opioid epidemic contributed to the rise of unclaimed bodies going to medical training. That is a question for future study, Dr. Shupe said. 
 

Most bodies willingly donated

The majority of cadavers that go to medical training in the United States are ‘full body donors,’ people or relatives who agree to voluntarily send a body to medical schools. “We are fortunate to have a lot of people who are willing to become whole body donors,” she said.

Greater awareness about how donated cadavers could make a difference to further increase willful donations, Dr. Shupe said. “Honoring those gifts by allowing them to help train the next generation of doctors is a wonderful thing.”

A May 2023 study from Dr. Balta and colleagues on body donation programs in the United States “found that the number of whole-body donations have decreased in some states and the numbers are not enough to meet the needs for education, research and clinical training,” Dr. Balta said. This could explain the increasing use of unclaimed bodies. 

“Some medical schools have explicit educational interventions on this topic, and formally recognize the unclaimed at anatomical gift ceremonies,” Dr. DeCamp said. “More should.”

Research support was provided by the UTA. Dr. Shupe, Dr. Balta, and Dr. DeCamp reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An increasing number of unclaimed dead bodies went to help train medical students in Texas between 2017 and 2021, new research reveals.

Investigators did not expect to see such an increase, said lead author Eli Shupe, PhD, assistant professor in the department of philosophy and humanities at the University of Texas at Arlington. 

The numbers jumped from 64 unclaimed bodies to 446 bodies annually over those 5 years. “People are usually under the impression that this is something that either doesn’t happen anymore or it’s on the decline as more people step up to be willed body donors,” said Dr. Shupe, who is also codirector of the medical humanities and bioethics program at UTA. 

The study findings were published in JAMA as a research letter. Researchers said that the number of unclaimed bodies – those not claimed by next of kin for burial or cremation – has dropped significantly across the United States since the middle of the 20th century. 

Some people don’t want to discuss the practice because it is controversial, said Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, associate professor at the Center for Bioethics and Humanities and Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora. “But ‘sweeping it under the rug’ means we miss the opportunity for dialogues about respect, consent, social justice, and so on – as well as the opportunity to change policy.”

The study included all medical schools in Texas, and researchers say it’s likely happening elsewhere in the United States and abroad. The practice is legal in most counties and states. One exception is New York, which passed a law in 2016 that does not allow unclaimed bodies to go to medical schools without prior written consent from the deceased.

“Although limited to one state, these findings suggest that use of unclaimed bodies may be both more common than we thought and increasing,” added Dr. DeCamp, who was not affiliated with the current study.

Even doctors can be split on the value to medical training versus the rights of the dead. “I know that medical professionals are divided on the role of dissection and anatomy learning and its necessity,” Dr. Shupe said. She predicted working with cadavers in medical schools will probably continue for the foreseeable future.
 

The marginalized and the vulnerable

So who are the unclaimed? They can include those who are unhoused and those who do not leave enough money to cover cost of burial or cremation. In some cases, they don’t have a next of kin or their next of kin is unwilling or unable to pay for their burial or cremation. 

“Predominantly, these are going to be people who are poor or members of marginalized or vulnerable populations,” Dr. Shupe said. She estimated that about 80% of the people who die in poverty in her region, the Dallas–Fort Worth area, are Black or Hispanic individuals.

“It is alarming that we are going in the wrong direction when it comes to the increasing utility of unclaimed bodies,” said Joy Balta, PhD, associate professor of anatomy and founding director of Anatomy Learning Institute at Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, when asked to comment on the study. The hope is to rely solely on donated human bodies to ensure that donors have provided informed consent for their use in education, research, and clinical training. 

“These unclaimed bodies did not provide any consent, [which] raises ethical questions,” Dr. Balta said.
 

Key findings

In Texas in 2021, 43% of the cadavers in 14 medical schools studied came from unclaimed bodies. A total 14% of schools reported that they accepted unclaimed bodies, 28% possibly accepted them because they were transferred from institutions that use them, and the remaining 57% do not accept unclaimed bodies.

The total number and proportion of unclaimed bodies going to medical education in the study increased during the study. The 14% in 2021 was a jump from 2% in 2017, for example. 

The 14 medical schools studied included both public and private institutions. The investigators also looked at data from the Texas State Anatomical Board, which tracks how cadavers are attained and distributed in the state, including how many began as unclaimed bodies. 
 

Legal in most jurisdictions

Dr. Shupe first learned about what can happen to unclaimed bodies as a hospice volunteer. She was accompanying the hospice chaplain one day who said: “Poor Mr. Smith [not his real name] doesn’t have long, and then he’s off to the medical school.” Dr. Shupe asked what the chaplain meant because she was unaware of the practice. 

“I stumbled on this by chance, and it ended up being a really fruitful research area,” she added.
 

The bigger picture

Greater awareness is needed and there is not a lot of research out there, Dr. Shupe said. One exception is a 2018 study of medical schools nationwide that found 12.4% reported possible use of unclaimed bodies. 

Dr. DeCamp, an author of that previous research, said: “Knowing this practice continues is the most important thing for doctors and medical students to know.”

It remains unclear whether the COVID pandemic or the opioid epidemic contributed to the rise of unclaimed bodies going to medical training. That is a question for future study, Dr. Shupe said. 
 

Most bodies willingly donated

The majority of cadavers that go to medical training in the United States are ‘full body donors,’ people or relatives who agree to voluntarily send a body to medical schools. “We are fortunate to have a lot of people who are willing to become whole body donors,” she said.

Greater awareness about how donated cadavers could make a difference to further increase willful donations, Dr. Shupe said. “Honoring those gifts by allowing them to help train the next generation of doctors is a wonderful thing.”

A May 2023 study from Dr. Balta and colleagues on body donation programs in the United States “found that the number of whole-body donations have decreased in some states and the numbers are not enough to meet the needs for education, research and clinical training,” Dr. Balta said. This could explain the increasing use of unclaimed bodies. 

“Some medical schools have explicit educational interventions on this topic, and formally recognize the unclaimed at anatomical gift ceremonies,” Dr. DeCamp said. “More should.”

Research support was provided by the UTA. Dr. Shupe, Dr. Balta, and Dr. DeCamp reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An increasing number of unclaimed dead bodies went to help train medical students in Texas between 2017 and 2021, new research reveals.

Investigators did not expect to see such an increase, said lead author Eli Shupe, PhD, assistant professor in the department of philosophy and humanities at the University of Texas at Arlington. 

The numbers jumped from 64 unclaimed bodies to 446 bodies annually over those 5 years. “People are usually under the impression that this is something that either doesn’t happen anymore or it’s on the decline as more people step up to be willed body donors,” said Dr. Shupe, who is also codirector of the medical humanities and bioethics program at UTA. 

The study findings were published in JAMA as a research letter. Researchers said that the number of unclaimed bodies – those not claimed by next of kin for burial or cremation – has dropped significantly across the United States since the middle of the 20th century. 

Some people don’t want to discuss the practice because it is controversial, said Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, associate professor at the Center for Bioethics and Humanities and Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora. “But ‘sweeping it under the rug’ means we miss the opportunity for dialogues about respect, consent, social justice, and so on – as well as the opportunity to change policy.”

The study included all medical schools in Texas, and researchers say it’s likely happening elsewhere in the United States and abroad. The practice is legal in most counties and states. One exception is New York, which passed a law in 2016 that does not allow unclaimed bodies to go to medical schools without prior written consent from the deceased.

“Although limited to one state, these findings suggest that use of unclaimed bodies may be both more common than we thought and increasing,” added Dr. DeCamp, who was not affiliated with the current study.

Even doctors can be split on the value to medical training versus the rights of the dead. “I know that medical professionals are divided on the role of dissection and anatomy learning and its necessity,” Dr. Shupe said. She predicted working with cadavers in medical schools will probably continue for the foreseeable future.
 

The marginalized and the vulnerable

So who are the unclaimed? They can include those who are unhoused and those who do not leave enough money to cover cost of burial or cremation. In some cases, they don’t have a next of kin or their next of kin is unwilling or unable to pay for their burial or cremation. 

“Predominantly, these are going to be people who are poor or members of marginalized or vulnerable populations,” Dr. Shupe said. She estimated that about 80% of the people who die in poverty in her region, the Dallas–Fort Worth area, are Black or Hispanic individuals.

“It is alarming that we are going in the wrong direction when it comes to the increasing utility of unclaimed bodies,” said Joy Balta, PhD, associate professor of anatomy and founding director of Anatomy Learning Institute at Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, when asked to comment on the study. The hope is to rely solely on donated human bodies to ensure that donors have provided informed consent for their use in education, research, and clinical training. 

“These unclaimed bodies did not provide any consent, [which] raises ethical questions,” Dr. Balta said.
 

Key findings

In Texas in 2021, 43% of the cadavers in 14 medical schools studied came from unclaimed bodies. A total 14% of schools reported that they accepted unclaimed bodies, 28% possibly accepted them because they were transferred from institutions that use them, and the remaining 57% do not accept unclaimed bodies.

The total number and proportion of unclaimed bodies going to medical education in the study increased during the study. The 14% in 2021 was a jump from 2% in 2017, for example. 

The 14 medical schools studied included both public and private institutions. The investigators also looked at data from the Texas State Anatomical Board, which tracks how cadavers are attained and distributed in the state, including how many began as unclaimed bodies. 
 

Legal in most jurisdictions

Dr. Shupe first learned about what can happen to unclaimed bodies as a hospice volunteer. She was accompanying the hospice chaplain one day who said: “Poor Mr. Smith [not his real name] doesn’t have long, and then he’s off to the medical school.” Dr. Shupe asked what the chaplain meant because she was unaware of the practice. 

“I stumbled on this by chance, and it ended up being a really fruitful research area,” she added.
 

The bigger picture

Greater awareness is needed and there is not a lot of research out there, Dr. Shupe said. One exception is a 2018 study of medical schools nationwide that found 12.4% reported possible use of unclaimed bodies. 

Dr. DeCamp, an author of that previous research, said: “Knowing this practice continues is the most important thing for doctors and medical students to know.”

It remains unclear whether the COVID pandemic or the opioid epidemic contributed to the rise of unclaimed bodies going to medical training. That is a question for future study, Dr. Shupe said. 
 

Most bodies willingly donated

The majority of cadavers that go to medical training in the United States are ‘full body donors,’ people or relatives who agree to voluntarily send a body to medical schools. “We are fortunate to have a lot of people who are willing to become whole body donors,” she said.

Greater awareness about how donated cadavers could make a difference to further increase willful donations, Dr. Shupe said. “Honoring those gifts by allowing them to help train the next generation of doctors is a wonderful thing.”

A May 2023 study from Dr. Balta and colleagues on body donation programs in the United States “found that the number of whole-body donations have decreased in some states and the numbers are not enough to meet the needs for education, research and clinical training,” Dr. Balta said. This could explain the increasing use of unclaimed bodies. 

“Some medical schools have explicit educational interventions on this topic, and formally recognize the unclaimed at anatomical gift ceremonies,” Dr. DeCamp said. “More should.”

Research support was provided by the UTA. Dr. Shupe, Dr. Balta, and Dr. DeCamp reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rheumatology care can save health systems more than $2,700 per patient per year, according to a new report from the American College of Rheumatology.

In a white paper and corresponding position statement, the organization outlined how rheumatology care delivers financial benefits for health systems.

The work also highlighted prior research on the positive outcomes associated with rheumatology care, including a decline in hip and knee replacements for patients with rheumatoid arthritis after the introduction of biologics, while the total number of hip and knee replacements for patients with osteoarthritis increased, as well as lower 30-day readmission rates among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus with access to a rheumatology clinic post discharge.

“Many rheumatologists can attest to the value they bring to the care team at a health care system,” said Christina Downey, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, in a press release. She is the lead author of the white paper and chair of the ACR’s Government Affairs Committee. “Our goal with the paper and position statement is to emphasize what that value looks like from a preventive and financial perspective. A rheumatologist on the care team benefits patients, practices, and the economy.”

The analysis used adjusted claims insurance data to compare markets with a high vs. low supply of rheumatologists. A high supply was defined as at least 1.5 rheumatologists per 100,000 population, whereas a low supply was less than this amount. On average, markets with a high supply of rheumatologists had lower emergency department (ED) and hospitalization costs per patient per year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rheumatology care can save health systems more than $2,700 per patient per year, according to a new report from the American College of Rheumatology.

In a white paper and corresponding position statement, the organization outlined how rheumatology care delivers financial benefits for health systems.

The work also highlighted prior research on the positive outcomes associated with rheumatology care, including a decline in hip and knee replacements for patients with rheumatoid arthritis after the introduction of biologics, while the total number of hip and knee replacements for patients with osteoarthritis increased, as well as lower 30-day readmission rates among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus with access to a rheumatology clinic post discharge.

“Many rheumatologists can attest to the value they bring to the care team at a health care system,” said Christina Downey, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, in a press release. She is the lead author of the white paper and chair of the ACR’s Government Affairs Committee. “Our goal with the paper and position statement is to emphasize what that value looks like from a preventive and financial perspective. A rheumatologist on the care team benefits patients, practices, and the economy.”

The analysis used adjusted claims insurance data to compare markets with a high vs. low supply of rheumatologists. A high supply was defined as at least 1.5 rheumatologists per 100,000 population, whereas a low supply was less than this amount. On average, markets with a high supply of rheumatologists had lower emergency department (ED) and hospitalization costs per patient per year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rheumatology care can save health systems more than $2,700 per patient per year, according to a new report from the American College of Rheumatology.

In a white paper and corresponding position statement, the organization outlined how rheumatology care delivers financial benefits for health systems.

The work also highlighted prior research on the positive outcomes associated with rheumatology care, including a decline in hip and knee replacements for patients with rheumatoid arthritis after the introduction of biologics, while the total number of hip and knee replacements for patients with osteoarthritis increased, as well as lower 30-day readmission rates among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus with access to a rheumatology clinic post discharge.

“Many rheumatologists can attest to the value they bring to the care team at a health care system,” said Christina Downey, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, in a press release. She is the lead author of the white paper and chair of the ACR’s Government Affairs Committee. “Our goal with the paper and position statement is to emphasize what that value looks like from a preventive and financial perspective. A rheumatologist on the care team benefits patients, practices, and the economy.”

The analysis used adjusted claims insurance data to compare markets with a high vs. low supply of rheumatologists. A high supply was defined as at least 1.5 rheumatologists per 100,000 population, whereas a low supply was less than this amount. On average, markets with a high supply of rheumatologists had lower emergency department (ED) and hospitalization costs per patient per year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Cutis Editorial Board is now accepting applications for the 2024 Resident Corner column. The Editorial Board will select 2 to 3 residents to serve as the Resident Corner columnists for 1 year. Articles are posted online only at www.mdedge.com/dermatology but will be referenced in Index Medicus. All applicants must be current residents and will be in residency throughout 2024.

For consideration, send your curriculum vitae along with a brief (not to exceed 500 words) statement of why you enjoy Cutis and what you can offer your fellow residents in contributing a monthly column.

A signed letter of recommendation from the Director of the dermatology residency program also should be supplied.

All materials should be submitted via email to Melissa Sears (msears@mdedge.com) by November 1. The residents who are selected to write the column for the upcoming year will be notified by November 15.

We look forward to continuing to educate dermatology residents on topics that are most important to them!

The Cutis Editorial Board is now accepting applications for the 2024 Resident Corner column. The Editorial Board will select 2 to 3 residents to serve as the Resident Corner columnists for 1 year. Articles are posted online only at www.mdedge.com/dermatology but will be referenced in Index Medicus. All applicants must be current residents and will be in residency throughout 2024.

For consideration, send your curriculum vitae along with a brief (not to exceed 500 words) statement of why you enjoy Cutis and what you can offer your fellow residents in contributing a monthly column.

A signed letter of recommendation from the Director of the dermatology residency program also should be supplied.

All materials should be submitted via email to Melissa Sears (msears@mdedge.com) by November 1. The residents who are selected to write the column for the upcoming year will be notified by November 15.

We look forward to continuing to educate dermatology residents on topics that are most important to them!

The Cutis Editorial Board is now accepting applications for the 2024 Resident Corner column. The Editorial Board will select 2 to 3 residents to serve as the Resident Corner columnists for 1 year. Articles are posted online only at www.mdedge.com/dermatology but will be referenced in Index Medicus. All applicants must be current residents and will be in residency throughout 2024.

For consideration, send your curriculum vitae along with a brief (not to exceed 500 words) statement of why you enjoy Cutis and what you can offer your fellow residents in contributing a monthly column.

A signed letter of recommendation from the Director of the dermatology residency program also should be supplied.

All materials should be submitted via email to Melissa Sears (msears@mdedge.com) by November 1. The residents who are selected to write the column for the upcoming year will be notified by November 15.

We look forward to continuing to educate dermatology residents on topics that are most important to them!

To the Editor:

Micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology (MSDO) is a highly competitive subspecialty fellowship in dermatology. Prospective applicants often depend on the Internet to obtain pertinent information about fellowship programs to navigate the application process. An up-to-date and comprehensive fellowship website has the potential to be advantageous for both applicants and programs—applicants can more readily identify programs that align with their goals and values, and programs can effectively attract compatible applicants. These advantages are increasingly relevant with the virtual application process that has become essential considering the COVID-19 pandemic. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, we sought to evaluate the comprehensiveness of the content of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) MSDO fellowship program websites to identify possible areas for improvement.

We obtained a list of all ACGME MSDO fellowships from the ACGME website (https://www.acgme.org/) and verified it against the list of MSDO programs in FREIDA, the American Medical Association residency and fellowship database (https://freida.ama-assn.org/). All programs without a website were excluded from further analysis. All data collection from currently accessible fellowship websites and evaluation occurred in April 2020.

The remaining MSDO fellowship program websites were evaluated using 25 criteria distributed among 5 domains: education/research, clinical training, program information, application process, and incentives. These criteria were determined based on earlier studies that similarly evaluated the website content of fellowship programs with inclusion of information that was considered valuable in the appraisal of fellowship programs.^1,2 Criteria were further refined by direct consideration of relevance and importance to MSDO fellowship applicants (eg, inclusion of case volume, exclusion of call schedule).

Each criterion was independently assessed by 2 investigators (J.Y.C. and S.J.E.S.). A third investigator (J.R.P.) then independently evaluated those 2 assessments for agreement. Where disagreement was discovered, the third evaluator (J.R.P.) provided a final appraisal. Cohen’s kappa (κ) was conducted to evaluate for concordance between the 2 primary website evaluators. We found there to be substantial agreement between the reviewers within the education/research (κ [SD]=0.772 [0.077]), clinical training (κ [SD]=0.740 [0.051]), application process (κ [SD]=0.726 [0.103]), and incentives domains (κ [SD]=0.730 [0.110]). There was moderate agreement (κ [SD]=0.603 [0.128]) between the reviewers within the program information domain.

We identified 77 active MSDO fellowship programs. Sixty of those 77 programs (77.9%) had a dedicated fellowship website that was readily accessible. Most programs that had a dedicated fellowship website had a core or affiliated residency program (49/60 [81.7%]).

Websites that we evaluated fulfilled a mean (SD) of 9.37 (4.17) of the 25 identified criteria. Only 13 of 60 (21.7%) websites fulfilled more than 50% of evaluated criteria.

There was no statistical difference in the number of criteria fulfilled based on whether the fellowship program had a core or affiliated residency program.

Upon reviewing website accessibility directly from FREIDA, only 5 of 60 programs (8.3%) provided applicants with a link directly to their fellowship page (Table). Most programs (41 [68.3%]) provided a link to the dermatology department website, not to the specific fellowship program page, thus requiring a multistep process to find the fellowship-specific page. The remaining programs had an inaccessible (4 [6.7%]) or absent (10 [16.7%]) link on FREIDA, though a fellowship website could be identified by an Internet search of the program name.

The domain most fulfilled was program information with an average of 51.1% of programs satisfying the criteria, whereas the incentives domain was least fulfilled with an average of only 20.8% of programs satisfying the criteria. Across the various criteria, websites more often included a description of the program (58 [96.6%]), mentioned accreditation (53 [88.3%]), and provided case descriptions (48 [80.0%]). They less often reported information regarding a fellow’s call responsibility (3 [5%]); evaluation criteria (5 [8.3%]); and rotation schedule or options (6 [10.0%]).

The highest number of criteria fulfilled by a single program was 19 (76%). The lowest number of criteria met was 2 (8%). These findings suggest a large variation in comprehensiveness across fellowship websites.

Our research suggests that many current MSDO fellowship programs have room to maximize the information provided to applicants through their websites, which is particularly relevant following the COVID-19 pandemic, as the value of providing comprehensive and transparent information through an online platform is greater than ever. Given the ongoing desire to limit travel, virtual methods for navigating the application process have been readily used, including online videoconferencing for interviews and virtual program visits. This scenario has placed applicants in a challenging situation—their ability to directly evaluate their compatibility with a given program has been limited.³

Earlier studies that analyzed rheumatology fellowship recruitment during the COVID-19 pandemic found that programs may have more difficulty highlighting the strengths of their institution (eg, clinical facilities, professional opportunities, educational environment).⁴ An updated and comprehensive fellowship website was recommended⁴ as a key part in facing these new challenges. On the other hand, given the large number of applicants each year for fellowship positions in any given program, we acknowledge the potential benefit programs may obtain from limiting electronic information that is readily accessible to all applicants, as doing so may encourage applicants to communicate directly with a program and allow programs to identify candidates who are more interested.

In light of the movement to a more virtual-friendly and technology-driven fellowship application process, we identified 25 content areas that fellowships may want to include on their websites so that potential applicants can be well informed about the program before submitting an application and scheduling an interview. Efforts to improve accessibility and maximize the content of these websites may help programs attract compatible candidates, improve transparency, and guide applicants throughout the application process.

To the Editor:

Micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology (MSDO) is a highly competitive subspecialty fellowship in dermatology. Prospective applicants often depend on the Internet to obtain pertinent information about fellowship programs to navigate the application process. An up-to-date and comprehensive fellowship website has the potential to be advantageous for both applicants and programs—applicants can more readily identify programs that align with their goals and values, and programs can effectively attract compatible applicants. These advantages are increasingly relevant with the virtual application process that has become essential considering the COVID-19 pandemic. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, we sought to evaluate the comprehensiveness of the content of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) MSDO fellowship program websites to identify possible areas for improvement.

We obtained a list of all ACGME MSDO fellowships from the ACGME website (https://www.acgme.org/) and verified it against the list of MSDO programs in FREIDA, the American Medical Association residency and fellowship database (https://freida.ama-assn.org/). All programs without a website were excluded from further analysis. All data collection from currently accessible fellowship websites and evaluation occurred in April 2020.

The remaining MSDO fellowship program websites were evaluated using 25 criteria distributed among 5 domains: education/research, clinical training, program information, application process, and incentives. These criteria were determined based on earlier studies that similarly evaluated the website content of fellowship programs with inclusion of information that was considered valuable in the appraisal of fellowship programs.^1,2 Criteria were further refined by direct consideration of relevance and importance to MSDO fellowship applicants (eg, inclusion of case volume, exclusion of call schedule).

Each criterion was independently assessed by 2 investigators (J.Y.C. and S.J.E.S.). A third investigator (J.R.P.) then independently evaluated those 2 assessments for agreement. Where disagreement was discovered, the third evaluator (J.R.P.) provided a final appraisal. Cohen’s kappa (κ) was conducted to evaluate for concordance between the 2 primary website evaluators. We found there to be substantial agreement between the reviewers within the education/research (κ [SD]=0.772 [0.077]), clinical training (κ [SD]=0.740 [0.051]), application process (κ [SD]=0.726 [0.103]), and incentives domains (κ [SD]=0.730 [0.110]). There was moderate agreement (κ [SD]=0.603 [0.128]) between the reviewers within the program information domain.

We identified 77 active MSDO fellowship programs. Sixty of those 77 programs (77.9%) had a dedicated fellowship website that was readily accessible. Most programs that had a dedicated fellowship website had a core or affiliated residency program (49/60 [81.7%]).

Websites that we evaluated fulfilled a mean (SD) of 9.37 (4.17) of the 25 identified criteria. Only 13 of 60 (21.7%) websites fulfilled more than 50% of evaluated criteria.

There was no statistical difference in the number of criteria fulfilled based on whether the fellowship program had a core or affiliated residency program.

Upon reviewing website accessibility directly from FREIDA, only 5 of 60 programs (8.3%) provided applicants with a link directly to their fellowship page (Table). Most programs (41 [68.3%]) provided a link to the dermatology department website, not to the specific fellowship program page, thus requiring a multistep process to find the fellowship-specific page. The remaining programs had an inaccessible (4 [6.7%]) or absent (10 [16.7%]) link on FREIDA, though a fellowship website could be identified by an Internet search of the program name.

The domain most fulfilled was program information with an average of 51.1% of programs satisfying the criteria, whereas the incentives domain was least fulfilled with an average of only 20.8% of programs satisfying the criteria. Across the various criteria, websites more often included a description of the program (58 [96.6%]), mentioned accreditation (53 [88.3%]), and provided case descriptions (48 [80.0%]). They less often reported information regarding a fellow’s call responsibility (3 [5%]); evaluation criteria (5 [8.3%]); and rotation schedule or options (6 [10.0%]).

The highest number of criteria fulfilled by a single program was 19 (76%). The lowest number of criteria met was 2 (8%). These findings suggest a large variation in comprehensiveness across fellowship websites.

Our research suggests that many current MSDO fellowship programs have room to maximize the information provided to applicants through their websites, which is particularly relevant following the COVID-19 pandemic, as the value of providing comprehensive and transparent information through an online platform is greater than ever. Given the ongoing desire to limit travel, virtual methods for navigating the application process have been readily used, including online videoconferencing for interviews and virtual program visits. This scenario has placed applicants in a challenging situation—their ability to directly evaluate their compatibility with a given program has been limited.³

Earlier studies that analyzed rheumatology fellowship recruitment during the COVID-19 pandemic found that programs may have more difficulty highlighting the strengths of their institution (eg, clinical facilities, professional opportunities, educational environment).⁴ An updated and comprehensive fellowship website was recommended⁴ as a key part in facing these new challenges. On the other hand, given the large number of applicants each year for fellowship positions in any given program, we acknowledge the potential benefit programs may obtain from limiting electronic information that is readily accessible to all applicants, as doing so may encourage applicants to communicate directly with a program and allow programs to identify candidates who are more interested.

In light of the movement to a more virtual-friendly and technology-driven fellowship application process, we identified 25 content areas that fellowships may want to include on their websites so that potential applicants can be well informed about the program before submitting an application and scheduling an interview. Efforts to improve accessibility and maximize the content of these websites may help programs attract compatible candidates, improve transparency, and guide applicants throughout the application process.

To the Editor:

Micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology (MSDO) is a highly competitive subspecialty fellowship in dermatology. Prospective applicants often depend on the Internet to obtain pertinent information about fellowship programs to navigate the application process. An up-to-date and comprehensive fellowship website has the potential to be advantageous for both applicants and programs—applicants can more readily identify programs that align with their goals and values, and programs can effectively attract compatible applicants. These advantages are increasingly relevant with the virtual application process that has become essential considering the COVID-19 pandemic. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, we sought to evaluate the comprehensiveness of the content of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) MSDO fellowship program websites to identify possible areas for improvement.

We obtained a list of all ACGME MSDO fellowships from the ACGME website (https://www.acgme.org/) and verified it against the list of MSDO programs in FREIDA, the American Medical Association residency and fellowship database (https://freida.ama-assn.org/). All programs without a website were excluded from further analysis. All data collection from currently accessible fellowship websites and evaluation occurred in April 2020.

The remaining MSDO fellowship program websites were evaluated using 25 criteria distributed among 5 domains: education/research, clinical training, program information, application process, and incentives. These criteria were determined based on earlier studies that similarly evaluated the website content of fellowship programs with inclusion of information that was considered valuable in the appraisal of fellowship programs.^1,2 Criteria were further refined by direct consideration of relevance and importance to MSDO fellowship applicants (eg, inclusion of case volume, exclusion of call schedule).

Each criterion was independently assessed by 2 investigators (J.Y.C. and S.J.E.S.). A third investigator (J.R.P.) then independently evaluated those 2 assessments for agreement. Where disagreement was discovered, the third evaluator (J.R.P.) provided a final appraisal. Cohen’s kappa (κ) was conducted to evaluate for concordance between the 2 primary website evaluators. We found there to be substantial agreement between the reviewers within the education/research (κ [SD]=0.772 [0.077]), clinical training (κ [SD]=0.740 [0.051]), application process (κ [SD]=0.726 [0.103]), and incentives domains (κ [SD]=0.730 [0.110]). There was moderate agreement (κ [SD]=0.603 [0.128]) between the reviewers within the program information domain.

We identified 77 active MSDO fellowship programs. Sixty of those 77 programs (77.9%) had a dedicated fellowship website that was readily accessible. Most programs that had a dedicated fellowship website had a core or affiliated residency program (49/60 [81.7%]).

Websites that we evaluated fulfilled a mean (SD) of 9.37 (4.17) of the 25 identified criteria. Only 13 of 60 (21.7%) websites fulfilled more than 50% of evaluated criteria.

There was no statistical difference in the number of criteria fulfilled based on whether the fellowship program had a core or affiliated residency program.

Upon reviewing website accessibility directly from FREIDA, only 5 of 60 programs (8.3%) provided applicants with a link directly to their fellowship page (Table). Most programs (41 [68.3%]) provided a link to the dermatology department website, not to the specific fellowship program page, thus requiring a multistep process to find the fellowship-specific page. The remaining programs had an inaccessible (4 [6.7%]) or absent (10 [16.7%]) link on FREIDA, though a fellowship website could be identified by an Internet search of the program name.

The domain most fulfilled was program information with an average of 51.1% of programs satisfying the criteria, whereas the incentives domain was least fulfilled with an average of only 20.8% of programs satisfying the criteria. Across the various criteria, websites more often included a description of the program (58 [96.6%]), mentioned accreditation (53 [88.3%]), and provided case descriptions (48 [80.0%]). They less often reported information regarding a fellow’s call responsibility (3 [5%]); evaluation criteria (5 [8.3%]); and rotation schedule or options (6 [10.0%]).

The highest number of criteria fulfilled by a single program was 19 (76%). The lowest number of criteria met was 2 (8%). These findings suggest a large variation in comprehensiveness across fellowship websites.

Our research suggests that many current MSDO fellowship programs have room to maximize the information provided to applicants through their websites, which is particularly relevant following the COVID-19 pandemic, as the value of providing comprehensive and transparent information through an online platform is greater than ever. Given the ongoing desire to limit travel, virtual methods for navigating the application process have been readily used, including online videoconferencing for interviews and virtual program visits. This scenario has placed applicants in a challenging situation—their ability to directly evaluate their compatibility with a given program has been limited.³

Earlier studies that analyzed rheumatology fellowship recruitment during the COVID-19 pandemic found that programs may have more difficulty highlighting the strengths of their institution (eg, clinical facilities, professional opportunities, educational environment).⁴ An updated and comprehensive fellowship website was recommended⁴ as a key part in facing these new challenges. On the other hand, given the large number of applicants each year for fellowship positions in any given program, we acknowledge the potential benefit programs may obtain from limiting electronic information that is readily accessible to all applicants, as doing so may encourage applicants to communicate directly with a program and allow programs to identify candidates who are more interested.

In light of the movement to a more virtual-friendly and technology-driven fellowship application process, we identified 25 content areas that fellowships may want to include on their websites so that potential applicants can be well informed about the program before submitting an application and scheduling an interview. Efforts to improve accessibility and maximize the content of these websites may help programs attract compatible candidates, improve transparency, and guide applicants throughout the application process.

To the Editor:

With health care constituting one of the larger segments of the US economy, medical practice is increasingly subject to business considerations.¹ Patients, providers, and organizations are all required to make decisions that reflect choices beyond clinical needs alone. Given the impact of market forces, clinicians often are asked to navigate operational and business decisions. Accordingly, education about the policy and systems that shape care delivery can improve quality and help patients.²

The ability to understand the ecosystem of health care is of utmost importance for medical providers and can be achieved through resident education. Teaching fundamental business concepts enables residents to deliver care that is responsive to the constraints and opportunities encountered by patients and organizations, which ultimately will better prepare them to serve as advocates in alignment with their principal duties as physicians.

Despite the recognizable relationship between business and medicine, training has not yet been standardized to include topics in business education, and clinicians in dermatology are remarkably positioned to benefit because of the variety of practice settings and services they can provide. In dermatology, the diversity of services provided gives rise to complex coding and use of modifiers. Proper utilization of coding and billing is critical to create accurate documentation and receive appropriate reimbursement.³ Furthermore, clinicians in dermatology have to contend with the influence of insurance at many points of care, such as with coverage of pharmaceuticals. Formularies often have wide variability in coverage and are changing as new drugs come to market in the dermatologic space.⁴

The landscape of practice structure also has undergone change with increasing consolidation and mergers. The acquisition of practices by private equity firms has induced changes in practice infrastructure. The impact of changing organizational and managerial influences continues to be a topic of debate, with disparate opinions on how these developments shape standards of physician satisfaction and patient care.⁵

The convergence of these factors points to an important question that is gaining popularity: How will young dermatologists work within the context of all these parameters to best advocate and care for their patients? These questions are garnering more attention and were recently investigated through a survey of participants in a pilot program to evaluate the importance of business education in dermatology residency.

A survey of residency program directors was created by Patrinley and Dewan,⁶ which found that business education during residency was important and additional training should be implemented. Despite the perceived importance of business education, only half of the programs represented by survey respondents offered any structured educational opportunities, revealing a discrepancy between believed importance and practical implementation of business training, which suggests the need to develop a standardized, dermatology-specific curriculum that could be accessed by all residents in training.⁶

We performed a search of the medical literature to identify models of business education in residency programs. Only a few programs were identified, in which courses were predominantly instructed to trainees in primary care–based fields. According to course graduates, the programs were beneficial.^7,8 Programs that had descriptive information about curriculum structure and content were chosen for further investigation and included internal medicine programs at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons (New York, New York). UCSF implemented a Program in Residency Investigation Methods and Epidemiology (PRIME program) to deliver seven 90-minute sessions dedicated to introducing residents to medical economics. Sessions were constructed with the intent of being interactive seminars that took on a variety of forms, including reading-based discussions, case-based analysis, and simulation-based learning.⁷ Columbia University developed a pilot program of week-long didactic sessions that were delivered to third-year internal medicine residents. These seminars featured discussions on health policy and economics, health insurance, technology and cost assessment, legal medicine, public health, community-oriented primary care, and local health department initiatives.⁸ We drew on both courses to build a lecture series focused on the business of dermatology that was delivered to dermatology residents at UMass Chan Medical School (Worcester, Massachusetts). Topic selection also was informed by qualitative input collected via email from recent graduates of the UMass dermatology residency program, focusing on the following areas: the US medical economy and health care costs; billing, coding, and claims processing; quality, relative value units (RVUs), reimbursement, and the merit-based incentive payment system; coverage of pharmaceuticals and teledermatology; and management. Residents were not required to prepare for any of the sessions; they were provided with handouts and slideshow presentations for reference to review at their convenience if desired. Five seminars were virtually conducted by an MD/MBA candidate at the institution (E.H.). They were recorded over the course of an academic year at 1- to 2-month intervals. Each 45-minute session was conducted in a lecture-discussion format and included case examples to help illustrate key principles and stimulate conversation. For example, the lecture on reimbursement incorporated a fee schedule calculation for a shave biopsy, using RVU and geographic pricing cost index (GCPI) multipliers. This demonstrated the variation in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement in relation to (1) constituents of the RVU calculation (ie, work, practice expense, and malpractice) and (2) practice in a particular location (ie, the GCPI). Following this example, a conversation ensued among participants regarding the factors that drive valuation, with particular interest in variation based on urban vs suburban locations across the United States. Participants also found it of interest to examine the percentage of the valuation dedicated to each constituent and how features such as lesion size informed the final assessment of the charge. Another stylistic choice in developing the model was to include prompts for further consideration prior to transitioning topics in the lectures. For example: when examining the burden of skin disease, the audience was prompted to consider: “What is driving cost escalations, and how will services of the clinical domain meet these evolving needs?” At another point in the introductory lecture, residents were asked: “How do different types of insurance plans impact the management of patients with dermatologic concerns?” These questions were intended to transition residents to the next topic of discussion and highlight take-home points of consideration for medical practice. The project was reviewed by the UMass institutional review board and met criteria for exemption.

Residents who participated in at least 1 lecture (N=10) were surveyed after attendance; there were 7 responses (70% response rate). Residents were asked to rate a series of statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and to provide commentary via an online form. Respondents indicated that the course was enjoyable (average score, 4.00), provided an appropriate level of detail (average score, 4.00), would be beneficial to integrate into a dermatology residency curriculum (average score, 3.86), and informed how they would practice as a clinician (average score, 3.86)(Figure). The respondents agreed that the course met the main goals of this initiative: it helped them develop knowledge about the interface between business and dermatology (4.14) and exposed residents to topics they had not learned about previously (4.71).

Although the course generally was well received, areas for improvement were identified from respondents’ comments, relating to audience engagement and refining the level of detail in the lectures. Recommendations included “less technical jargon and more focus on ‘big picture’ concepts, given audience’s low baseline knowledge”; “more case examples in each module”; and “more diagrams or interactive activities (polls, quizzes, break-out rooms) because the lectures were a bit dense.” This input was taken into consideration when revising the lectures for future use; they were reconstructed to have more case-based examples and prompts to encourage participation.

Resident commentary also demonstrated appreciation for education in this subject material. Statements such as “this is an important topic for future dermatologists” and “thank you so much for taking the time to implement this course” reflected the perceived value of this material during critical academic time. Another resident remarked: “This was great, thanks for putting it together.”

Given the positive experience of the residents and successful implementation of the series, this course was made available to all dermatology trainees on a network server with accompanying written documents. It is planned to be offered on a 3-year cycle in the future and will be updated to reflect inevitable changes in health care.

Although the relationship between business and medicine is increasingly important, teaching business principles has not become standardized or required in medical training. Despite the perception that this content is of value, implementation of programming has lagged behind that recognition, likely due to challenges in designing the curriculum and diffusing content into an already-saturated schedule. A model course that can be replicated in other residency programs would be valuable. We introduced a dermatology-specific lecture series to help prepare trainees for dermatology practice in a variety of clinical settings and train them with the language of business and operations that will equip them to respond to the needs of their patients, their practice, and the medical environment. Findings of this pilot study may not be generalizable to all dermatology residency programs because the sample size was small; the study was conducted at a single institution; and the content was delivered entirely online.

To the Editor:

With health care constituting one of the larger segments of the US economy, medical practice is increasingly subject to business considerations.¹ Patients, providers, and organizations are all required to make decisions that reflect choices beyond clinical needs alone. Given the impact of market forces, clinicians often are asked to navigate operational and business decisions. Accordingly, education about the policy and systems that shape care delivery can improve quality and help patients.²

The ability to understand the ecosystem of health care is of utmost importance for medical providers and can be achieved through resident education. Teaching fundamental business concepts enables residents to deliver care that is responsive to the constraints and opportunities encountered by patients and organizations, which ultimately will better prepare them to serve as advocates in alignment with their principal duties as physicians.

Despite the recognizable relationship between business and medicine, training has not yet been standardized to include topics in business education, and clinicians in dermatology are remarkably positioned to benefit because of the variety of practice settings and services they can provide. In dermatology, the diversity of services provided gives rise to complex coding and use of modifiers. Proper utilization of coding and billing is critical to create accurate documentation and receive appropriate reimbursement.³ Furthermore, clinicians in dermatology have to contend with the influence of insurance at many points of care, such as with coverage of pharmaceuticals. Formularies often have wide variability in coverage and are changing as new drugs come to market in the dermatologic space.⁴

The landscape of practice structure also has undergone change with increasing consolidation and mergers. The acquisition of practices by private equity firms has induced changes in practice infrastructure. The impact of changing organizational and managerial influences continues to be a topic of debate, with disparate opinions on how these developments shape standards of physician satisfaction and patient care.⁵

The convergence of these factors points to an important question that is gaining popularity: How will young dermatologists work within the context of all these parameters to best advocate and care for their patients? These questions are garnering more attention and were recently investigated through a survey of participants in a pilot program to evaluate the importance of business education in dermatology residency.

A survey of residency program directors was created by Patrinley and Dewan,⁶ which found that business education during residency was important and additional training should be implemented. Despite the perceived importance of business education, only half of the programs represented by survey respondents offered any structured educational opportunities, revealing a discrepancy between believed importance and practical implementation of business training, which suggests the need to develop a standardized, dermatology-specific curriculum that could be accessed by all residents in training.⁶

We performed a search of the medical literature to identify models of business education in residency programs. Only a few programs were identified, in which courses were predominantly instructed to trainees in primary care–based fields. According to course graduates, the programs were beneficial.^7,8 Programs that had descriptive information about curriculum structure and content were chosen for further investigation and included internal medicine programs at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons (New York, New York). UCSF implemented a Program in Residency Investigation Methods and Epidemiology (PRIME program) to deliver seven 90-minute sessions dedicated to introducing residents to medical economics. Sessions were constructed with the intent of being interactive seminars that took on a variety of forms, including reading-based discussions, case-based analysis, and simulation-based learning.⁷ Columbia University developed a pilot program of week-long didactic sessions that were delivered to third-year internal medicine residents. These seminars featured discussions on health policy and economics, health insurance, technology and cost assessment, legal medicine, public health, community-oriented primary care, and local health department initiatives.⁸ We drew on both courses to build a lecture series focused on the business of dermatology that was delivered to dermatology residents at UMass Chan Medical School (Worcester, Massachusetts). Topic selection also was informed by qualitative input collected via email from recent graduates of the UMass dermatology residency program, focusing on the following areas: the US medical economy and health care costs; billing, coding, and claims processing; quality, relative value units (RVUs), reimbursement, and the merit-based incentive payment system; coverage of pharmaceuticals and teledermatology; and management. Residents were not required to prepare for any of the sessions; they were provided with handouts and slideshow presentations for reference to review at their convenience if desired. Five seminars were virtually conducted by an MD/MBA candidate at the institution (E.H.). They were recorded over the course of an academic year at 1- to 2-month intervals. Each 45-minute session was conducted in a lecture-discussion format and included case examples to help illustrate key principles and stimulate conversation. For example, the lecture on reimbursement incorporated a fee schedule calculation for a shave biopsy, using RVU and geographic pricing cost index (GCPI) multipliers. This demonstrated the variation in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement in relation to (1) constituents of the RVU calculation (ie, work, practice expense, and malpractice) and (2) practice in a particular location (ie, the GCPI). Following this example, a conversation ensued among participants regarding the factors that drive valuation, with particular interest in variation based on urban vs suburban locations across the United States. Participants also found it of interest to examine the percentage of the valuation dedicated to each constituent and how features such as lesion size informed the final assessment of the charge. Another stylistic choice in developing the model was to include prompts for further consideration prior to transitioning topics in the lectures. For example: when examining the burden of skin disease, the audience was prompted to consider: “What is driving cost escalations, and how will services of the clinical domain meet these evolving needs?” At another point in the introductory lecture, residents were asked: “How do different types of insurance plans impact the management of patients with dermatologic concerns?” These questions were intended to transition residents to the next topic of discussion and highlight take-home points of consideration for medical practice. The project was reviewed by the UMass institutional review board and met criteria for exemption.

Residents who participated in at least 1 lecture (N=10) were surveyed after attendance; there were 7 responses (70% response rate). Residents were asked to rate a series of statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and to provide commentary via an online form. Respondents indicated that the course was enjoyable (average score, 4.00), provided an appropriate level of detail (average score, 4.00), would be beneficial to integrate into a dermatology residency curriculum (average score, 3.86), and informed how they would practice as a clinician (average score, 3.86)(Figure). The respondents agreed that the course met the main goals of this initiative: it helped them develop knowledge about the interface between business and dermatology (4.14) and exposed residents to topics they had not learned about previously (4.71).

Although the course generally was well received, areas for improvement were identified from respondents’ comments, relating to audience engagement and refining the level of detail in the lectures. Recommendations included “less technical jargon and more focus on ‘big picture’ concepts, given audience’s low baseline knowledge”; “more case examples in each module”; and “more diagrams or interactive activities (polls, quizzes, break-out rooms) because the lectures were a bit dense.” This input was taken into consideration when revising the lectures for future use; they were reconstructed to have more case-based examples and prompts to encourage participation.

Resident commentary also demonstrated appreciation for education in this subject material. Statements such as “this is an important topic for future dermatologists” and “thank you so much for taking the time to implement this course” reflected the perceived value of this material during critical academic time. Another resident remarked: “This was great, thanks for putting it together.”

Given the positive experience of the residents and successful implementation of the series, this course was made available to all dermatology trainees on a network server with accompanying written documents. It is planned to be offered on a 3-year cycle in the future and will be updated to reflect inevitable changes in health care.

Although the relationship between business and medicine is increasingly important, teaching business principles has not become standardized or required in medical training. Despite the perception that this content is of value, implementation of programming has lagged behind that recognition, likely due to challenges in designing the curriculum and diffusing content into an already-saturated schedule. A model course that can be replicated in other residency programs would be valuable. We introduced a dermatology-specific lecture series to help prepare trainees for dermatology practice in a variety of clinical settings and train them with the language of business and operations that will equip them to respond to the needs of their patients, their practice, and the medical environment. Findings of this pilot study may not be generalizable to all dermatology residency programs because the sample size was small; the study was conducted at a single institution; and the content was delivered entirely online.

To the Editor:

With health care constituting one of the larger segments of the US economy, medical practice is increasingly subject to business considerations.¹ Patients, providers, and organizations are all required to make decisions that reflect choices beyond clinical needs alone. Given the impact of market forces, clinicians often are asked to navigate operational and business decisions. Accordingly, education about the policy and systems that shape care delivery can improve quality and help patients.²

The ability to understand the ecosystem of health care is of utmost importance for medical providers and can be achieved through resident education. Teaching fundamental business concepts enables residents to deliver care that is responsive to the constraints and opportunities encountered by patients and organizations, which ultimately will better prepare them to serve as advocates in alignment with their principal duties as physicians.

Despite the recognizable relationship between business and medicine, training has not yet been standardized to include topics in business education, and clinicians in dermatology are remarkably positioned to benefit because of the variety of practice settings and services they can provide. In dermatology, the diversity of services provided gives rise to complex coding and use of modifiers. Proper utilization of coding and billing is critical to create accurate documentation and receive appropriate reimbursement.³ Furthermore, clinicians in dermatology have to contend with the influence of insurance at many points of care, such as with coverage of pharmaceuticals. Formularies often have wide variability in coverage and are changing as new drugs come to market in the dermatologic space.⁴

The landscape of practice structure also has undergone change with increasing consolidation and mergers. The acquisition of practices by private equity firms has induced changes in practice infrastructure. The impact of changing organizational and managerial influences continues to be a topic of debate, with disparate opinions on how these developments shape standards of physician satisfaction and patient care.⁵

The convergence of these factors points to an important question that is gaining popularity: How will young dermatologists work within the context of all these parameters to best advocate and care for their patients? These questions are garnering more attention and were recently investigated through a survey of participants in a pilot program to evaluate the importance of business education in dermatology residency.

A survey of residency program directors was created by Patrinley and Dewan,⁶ which found that business education during residency was important and additional training should be implemented. Despite the perceived importance of business education, only half of the programs represented by survey respondents offered any structured educational opportunities, revealing a discrepancy between believed importance and practical implementation of business training, which suggests the need to develop a standardized, dermatology-specific curriculum that could be accessed by all residents in training.⁶

We performed a search of the medical literature to identify models of business education in residency programs. Only a few programs were identified, in which courses were predominantly instructed to trainees in primary care–based fields. According to course graduates, the programs were beneficial.^7,8 Programs that had descriptive information about curriculum structure and content were chosen for further investigation and included internal medicine programs at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons (New York, New York). UCSF implemented a Program in Residency Investigation Methods and Epidemiology (PRIME program) to deliver seven 90-minute sessions dedicated to introducing residents to medical economics. Sessions were constructed with the intent of being interactive seminars that took on a variety of forms, including reading-based discussions, case-based analysis, and simulation-based learning.⁷ Columbia University developed a pilot program of week-long didactic sessions that were delivered to third-year internal medicine residents. These seminars featured discussions on health policy and economics, health insurance, technology and cost assessment, legal medicine, public health, community-oriented primary care, and local health department initiatives.⁸ We drew on both courses to build a lecture series focused on the business of dermatology that was delivered to dermatology residents at UMass Chan Medical School (Worcester, Massachusetts). Topic selection also was informed by qualitative input collected via email from recent graduates of the UMass dermatology residency program, focusing on the following areas: the US medical economy and health care costs; billing, coding, and claims processing; quality, relative value units (RVUs), reimbursement, and the merit-based incentive payment system; coverage of pharmaceuticals and teledermatology; and management. Residents were not required to prepare for any of the sessions; they were provided with handouts and slideshow presentations for reference to review at their convenience if desired. Five seminars were virtually conducted by an MD/MBA candidate at the institution (E.H.). They were recorded over the course of an academic year at 1- to 2-month intervals. Each 45-minute session was conducted in a lecture-discussion format and included case examples to help illustrate key principles and stimulate conversation. For example, the lecture on reimbursement incorporated a fee schedule calculation for a shave biopsy, using RVU and geographic pricing cost index (GCPI) multipliers. This demonstrated the variation in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement in relation to (1) constituents of the RVU calculation (ie, work, practice expense, and malpractice) and (2) practice in a particular location (ie, the GCPI). Following this example, a conversation ensued among participants regarding the factors that drive valuation, with particular interest in variation based on urban vs suburban locations across the United States. Participants also found it of interest to examine the percentage of the valuation dedicated to each constituent and how features such as lesion size informed the final assessment of the charge. Another stylistic choice in developing the model was to include prompts for further consideration prior to transitioning topics in the lectures. For example: when examining the burden of skin disease, the audience was prompted to consider: “What is driving cost escalations, and how will services of the clinical domain meet these evolving needs?” At another point in the introductory lecture, residents were asked: “How do different types of insurance plans impact the management of patients with dermatologic concerns?” These questions were intended to transition residents to the next topic of discussion and highlight take-home points of consideration for medical practice. The project was reviewed by the UMass institutional review board and met criteria for exemption.

Residents who participated in at least 1 lecture (N=10) were surveyed after attendance; there were 7 responses (70% response rate). Residents were asked to rate a series of statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and to provide commentary via an online form. Respondents indicated that the course was enjoyable (average score, 4.00), provided an appropriate level of detail (average score, 4.00), would be beneficial to integrate into a dermatology residency curriculum (average score, 3.86), and informed how they would practice as a clinician (average score, 3.86)(Figure). The respondents agreed that the course met the main goals of this initiative: it helped them develop knowledge about the interface between business and dermatology (4.14) and exposed residents to topics they had not learned about previously (4.71).

Although the course generally was well received, areas for improvement were identified from respondents’ comments, relating to audience engagement and refining the level of detail in the lectures. Recommendations included “less technical jargon and more focus on ‘big picture’ concepts, given audience’s low baseline knowledge”; “more case examples in each module”; and “more diagrams or interactive activities (polls, quizzes, break-out rooms) because the lectures were a bit dense.” This input was taken into consideration when revising the lectures for future use; they were reconstructed to have more case-based examples and prompts to encourage participation.

Resident commentary also demonstrated appreciation for education in this subject material. Statements such as “this is an important topic for future dermatologists” and “thank you so much for taking the time to implement this course” reflected the perceived value of this material during critical academic time. Another resident remarked: “This was great, thanks for putting it together.”

Given the positive experience of the residents and successful implementation of the series, this course was made available to all dermatology trainees on a network server with accompanying written documents. It is planned to be offered on a 3-year cycle in the future and will be updated to reflect inevitable changes in health care.

Although the relationship between business and medicine is increasingly important, teaching business principles has not become standardized or required in medical training. Despite the perception that this content is of value, implementation of programming has lagged behind that recognition, likely due to challenges in designing the curriculum and diffusing content into an already-saturated schedule. A model course that can be replicated in other residency programs would be valuable. We introduced a dermatology-specific lecture series to help prepare trainees for dermatology practice in a variety of clinical settings and train them with the language of business and operations that will equip them to respond to the needs of their patients, their practice, and the medical environment. Findings of this pilot study may not be generalizable to all dermatology residency programs because the sample size was small; the study was conducted at a single institution; and the content was delivered entirely online.

Similar to medical school, residency is a time to drink out of the proverbial firehose of knowledge. Along with clinical duties, there is a plethora of information ranging from clinical management decisions to boards fodder that dermatology residents are expected to know, leaving residents to adopt study habits from medical school. Flash cards remain a popular study tool in the medical education community. The use of Anki, a web-based and mobile flash card application (app) that features custom and premade flash card decks made and shared by users, has become increasingly popular. In a 2021 study, Lu et al¹ found that Anki flash card usage was associated with higher US Medical Licensing Examination scores. Herein, I provide an updated review of the top 3 most comprehensive premade Anki decks for dermatology residents, per my assessment.

COMPREHENSIVE DERMATOLOGY DECKS

Dolphin Dermatology

• Creator: Reddit user, Unknown²
• Date created: December 2020
• Last updated: April 2022
• Number of cards: 13,833
• Resources covered: Photographs of common dermatologic diagnoses from online sources such as VisualDx (https://www.visualdx.com/) and DermNet (https://dermnetnz.org/).
• Format of cards: One image or factoid per card.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Each general dermatology card is tagged by the diagnosis name. Pediatric dermatology cards are tagged by affected body location.
• Advantages: As you may glean by the sheer number of flash cards, this deck is a comprehensive review of clinical dermatology. Most cards feature clinical vignettes with clinical photographs of a dermatologic condition or histologic slide and ask what the diagnosis may be. It features photographs of pathology on a range of skin tones and many different images of each diagnosis. This is a great deck for residents who need to study clinical photographs of dermatologic diagnoses.
• Disadvantages: This deck does not cover dermatopathology, basic science, treatment options, or pharmacology in depth. Additionally, is difficult to find a link to download this resource.
• At the time of publication of this article, users are unable to download this deck.

vismo_djib’s Review of Dermatology Anki

• Creator: Reddit user vismo_djib³
• Date created: June 2020
• Last updated: February 2022
• Number of cards: 8454
• Resources covered: Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ is the main resource with supplemental images from VisualDx, Bolognia et al’s Dermatology,⁵ Patterson’s Weedon’s Skin Pathology Essentials,⁶ Elston et al’s Dermatopathology,⁷ Soyer et al’s Dermoscopy: The Essentials,⁸ and Robinson et al’s Surgery of the Skin: Procedural Dermatology.⁹
• Format of cards: Cards mostly feature a diagnosis with color-coded categories including epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical features, histopathology, and treatment.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Cards are tagged with chapter numbers from Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology.⁴
• Advantages: This impressive comprehensive review of dermatology is a great option for residents studying for the American Board of Dermatology CORE examinations and users looking to solidify the information in Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology,⁴ a frequently used resource among dermatology residents. It currently is my favorite deck because it features holistic information on diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, histopathology, and treatment with excellent clinical photographs.
• Disadvantages: For some purposes, this deck may be too lofty. For maximum benefit, it may require user customization including separating cards by tag and other add-ons that allow only 1 card per note, which will separate the information on each card into smaller increments. The mostly free-response format and lengthy slides may make it difficult to practice recall.

AnKingMed Dermki

• Creator: Reddit user AnKingMed^10,11
• Date created: April 2023
• Last updated: This deck features a dynamic add-on and collaboration application called AnkiHub, which allows for real-time updates. At the time this article was written, the deck was last updated on June 19, 2023.
• Number of cards: 7889
• Resources covered: Currently 75% of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ with supplemental images from DermNet and Eleryan and Friedman’s The Full Spectrum of Dermatology: A Diverse and Inclusive Atlas.¹²
• Format of cards: Cards are in a fill-in-the-blank format.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Cards are tagged by chapter number and subsection of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology.⁴
• Advantages: As the newest contribution to the dermatology Anki card compendium, this deck is up to date, innovative, and dynamic. It features an optional add-on application—AnkiHub—which allows users to keep up with live updates and collaborations. The deck features a fill-in-the-blank format that may be preferred to a free-response format for information recall. It features Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology,⁴ which is a high-yield review of clinical dermatology, dermatopathology, surgical dermatology, pharmacology, and histopathology for dermatology residents.
• Disadvantages: The deck is still currently in a development phase, covering 75% of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ with plans to add the remaining 25%. The add-on to access the most up-to-date version of the flashcards requires a paid monthly or annual subscription; however, the creator announced they will release periodic free updates of the deck.

Final Thoughts

As a collaborative platform, new flash card decks are always being added to Anki. This article is not comprehensive of all dermatologic flash card decks available. There are decks better suited for medical students covering topics such as the American Academy of Dermatology Basic Dermatology Curriculum, UWorld United States Medical Licensing Examination dermatology, and dermatology in internal medicine. Furthermore, specific study tools in dermatology may have their own accompanying Anki decks (ie, The Grenz Zone podcast, Dermnemonics). Flash cards can be a valuable study tool to trainees in medicine, and residents are immensely grateful to our peers who make them for our use.

Similar to medical school, residency is a time to drink out of the proverbial firehose of knowledge. Along with clinical duties, there is a plethora of information ranging from clinical management decisions to boards fodder that dermatology residents are expected to know, leaving residents to adopt study habits from medical school. Flash cards remain a popular study tool in the medical education community. The use of Anki, a web-based and mobile flash card application (app) that features custom and premade flash card decks made and shared by users, has become increasingly popular. In a 2021 study, Lu et al¹ found that Anki flash card usage was associated with higher US Medical Licensing Examination scores. Herein, I provide an updated review of the top 3 most comprehensive premade Anki decks for dermatology residents, per my assessment.

COMPREHENSIVE DERMATOLOGY DECKS

Dolphin Dermatology

• Creator: Reddit user, Unknown²
• Date created: December 2020
• Last updated: April 2022
• Number of cards: 13,833
• Resources covered: Photographs of common dermatologic diagnoses from online sources such as VisualDx (https://www.visualdx.com/) and DermNet (https://dermnetnz.org/).
• Format of cards: One image or factoid per card.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Each general dermatology card is tagged by the diagnosis name. Pediatric dermatology cards are tagged by affected body location.
• Advantages: As you may glean by the sheer number of flash cards, this deck is a comprehensive review of clinical dermatology. Most cards feature clinical vignettes with clinical photographs of a dermatologic condition or histologic slide and ask what the diagnosis may be. It features photographs of pathology on a range of skin tones and many different images of each diagnosis. This is a great deck for residents who need to study clinical photographs of dermatologic diagnoses.
• Disadvantages: This deck does not cover dermatopathology, basic science, treatment options, or pharmacology in depth. Additionally, is difficult to find a link to download this resource.
• At the time of publication of this article, users are unable to download this deck.

vismo_djib’s Review of Dermatology Anki

• Creator: Reddit user vismo_djib³
• Date created: June 2020
• Last updated: February 2022
• Number of cards: 8454
• Resources covered: Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ is the main resource with supplemental images from VisualDx, Bolognia et al’s Dermatology,⁵ Patterson’s Weedon’s Skin Pathology Essentials,⁶ Elston et al’s Dermatopathology,⁷ Soyer et al’s Dermoscopy: The Essentials,⁸ and Robinson et al’s Surgery of the Skin: Procedural Dermatology.⁹
• Format of cards: Cards mostly feature a diagnosis with color-coded categories including epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical features, histopathology, and treatment.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Cards are tagged with chapter numbers from Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology.⁴
• Advantages: This impressive comprehensive review of dermatology is a great option for residents studying for the American Board of Dermatology CORE examinations and users looking to solidify the information in Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology,⁴ a frequently used resource among dermatology residents. It currently is my favorite deck because it features holistic information on diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, histopathology, and treatment with excellent clinical photographs.
• Disadvantages: For some purposes, this deck may be too lofty. For maximum benefit, it may require user customization including separating cards by tag and other add-ons that allow only 1 card per note, which will separate the information on each card into smaller increments. The mostly free-response format and lengthy slides may make it difficult to practice recall.

AnKingMed Dermki

• Creator: Reddit user AnKingMed^10,11
• Date created: April 2023
• Last updated: This deck features a dynamic add-on and collaboration application called AnkiHub, which allows for real-time updates. At the time this article was written, the deck was last updated on June 19, 2023.
• Number of cards: 7889
• Resources covered: Currently 75% of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ with supplemental images from DermNet and Eleryan and Friedman’s The Full Spectrum of Dermatology: A Diverse and Inclusive Atlas.¹²
• Format of cards: Cards are in a fill-in-the-blank format.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Cards are tagged by chapter number and subsection of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology.⁴
• Advantages: As the newest contribution to the dermatology Anki card compendium, this deck is up to date, innovative, and dynamic. It features an optional add-on application—AnkiHub—which allows users to keep up with live updates and collaborations. The deck features a fill-in-the-blank format that may be preferred to a free-response format for information recall. It features Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology,⁴ which is a high-yield review of clinical dermatology, dermatopathology, surgical dermatology, pharmacology, and histopathology for dermatology residents.
• Disadvantages: The deck is still currently in a development phase, covering 75% of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ with plans to add the remaining 25%. The add-on to access the most up-to-date version of the flashcards requires a paid monthly or annual subscription; however, the creator announced they will release periodic free updates of the deck.

Final Thoughts

As a collaborative platform, new flash card decks are always being added to Anki. This article is not comprehensive of all dermatologic flash card decks available. There are decks better suited for medical students covering topics such as the American Academy of Dermatology Basic Dermatology Curriculum, UWorld United States Medical Licensing Examination dermatology, and dermatology in internal medicine. Furthermore, specific study tools in dermatology may have their own accompanying Anki decks (ie, The Grenz Zone podcast, Dermnemonics). Flash cards can be a valuable study tool to trainees in medicine, and residents are immensely grateful to our peers who make them for our use.

Similar to medical school, residency is a time to drink out of the proverbial firehose of knowledge. Along with clinical duties, there is a plethora of information ranging from clinical management decisions to boards fodder that dermatology residents are expected to know, leaving residents to adopt study habits from medical school. Flash cards remain a popular study tool in the medical education community. The use of Anki, a web-based and mobile flash card application (app) that features custom and premade flash card decks made and shared by users, has become increasingly popular. In a 2021 study, Lu et al¹ found that Anki flash card usage was associated with higher US Medical Licensing Examination scores. Herein, I provide an updated review of the top 3 most comprehensive premade Anki decks for dermatology residents, per my assessment.

COMPREHENSIVE DERMATOLOGY DECKS

Dolphin Dermatology

• Creator: Reddit user, Unknown²
• Date created: December 2020
• Last updated: April 2022
• Number of cards: 13,833
• Resources covered: Photographs of common dermatologic diagnoses from online sources such as VisualDx (https://www.visualdx.com/) and DermNet (https://dermnetnz.org/).
• Format of cards: One image or factoid per card.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Each general dermatology card is tagged by the diagnosis name. Pediatric dermatology cards are tagged by affected body location.
• Advantages: As you may glean by the sheer number of flash cards, this deck is a comprehensive review of clinical dermatology. Most cards feature clinical vignettes with clinical photographs of a dermatologic condition or histologic slide and ask what the diagnosis may be. It features photographs of pathology on a range of skin tones and many different images of each diagnosis. This is a great deck for residents who need to study clinical photographs of dermatologic diagnoses.
• Disadvantages: This deck does not cover dermatopathology, basic science, treatment options, or pharmacology in depth. Additionally, is difficult to find a link to download this resource.
• At the time of publication of this article, users are unable to download this deck.

vismo_djib’s Review of Dermatology Anki

• Creator: Reddit user vismo_djib³
• Date created: June 2020
• Last updated: February 2022
• Number of cards: 8454
• Resources covered: Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ is the main resource with supplemental images from VisualDx, Bolognia et al’s Dermatology,⁵ Patterson’s Weedon’s Skin Pathology Essentials,⁶ Elston et al’s Dermatopathology,⁷ Soyer et al’s Dermoscopy: The Essentials,⁸ and Robinson et al’s Surgery of the Skin: Procedural Dermatology.⁹
• Format of cards: Cards mostly feature a diagnosis with color-coded categories including epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical features, histopathology, and treatment.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Cards are tagged with chapter numbers from Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology.⁴
• Advantages: This impressive comprehensive review of dermatology is a great option for residents studying for the American Board of Dermatology CORE examinations and users looking to solidify the information in Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology,⁴ a frequently used resource among dermatology residents. It currently is my favorite deck because it features holistic information on diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, histopathology, and treatment with excellent clinical photographs.
• Disadvantages: For some purposes, this deck may be too lofty. For maximum benefit, it may require user customization including separating cards by tag and other add-ons that allow only 1 card per note, which will separate the information on each card into smaller increments. The mostly free-response format and lengthy slides may make it difficult to practice recall.

AnKingMed Dermki

• Creator: Reddit user AnKingMed^10,11
• Date created: April 2023
• Last updated: This deck features a dynamic add-on and collaboration application called AnkiHub, which allows for real-time updates. At the time this article was written, the deck was last updated on June 19, 2023.
• Number of cards: 7889
• Resources covered: Currently 75% of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ with supplemental images from DermNet and Eleryan and Friedman’s The Full Spectrum of Dermatology: A Diverse and Inclusive Atlas.¹²
• Format of cards: Cards are in a fill-in-the-blank format.
• Card tags (allow separation of Anki decks into subcategories): Cards are tagged by chapter number and subsection of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology.⁴
• Advantages: As the newest contribution to the dermatology Anki card compendium, this deck is up to date, innovative, and dynamic. It features an optional add-on application—AnkiHub—which allows users to keep up with live updates and collaborations. The deck features a fill-in-the-blank format that may be preferred to a free-response format for information recall. It features Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology,⁴ which is a high-yield review of clinical dermatology, dermatopathology, surgical dermatology, pharmacology, and histopathology for dermatology residents.
• Disadvantages: The deck is still currently in a development phase, covering 75% of Alikhan and Hocker’s Review of Dermatology⁴ with plans to add the remaining 25%. The add-on to access the most up-to-date version of the flashcards requires a paid monthly or annual subscription; however, the creator announced they will release periodic free updates of the deck.

Final Thoughts

As a collaborative platform, new flash card decks are always being added to Anki. This article is not comprehensive of all dermatologic flash card decks available. There are decks better suited for medical students covering topics such as the American Academy of Dermatology Basic Dermatology Curriculum, UWorld United States Medical Licensing Examination dermatology, and dermatology in internal medicine. Furthermore, specific study tools in dermatology may have their own accompanying Anki decks (ie, The Grenz Zone podcast, Dermnemonics). Flash cards can be a valuable study tool to trainees in medicine, and residents are immensely grateful to our peers who make them for our use.