For Residents

The Cutis Editorial Board is now accepting applications for the 2023 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 2023.

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 October 28. The residents who are selected to write the column for the upcoming year will be notified by November 4.

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 2023 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 2023.

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 October 28. The residents who are selected to write the column for the upcoming year will be notified by November 4.

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 2023 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 2023.

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 October 28. The residents who are selected to write the column for the upcoming year will be notified by November 4.

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

Community service (CS) or service learning in dermatology (eg, free skin cancer screenings, providing care through free clinics, free teledermatology consultations) is instrumental in mitigating disparities and improving access to equitable dermatologic care. With the rate of underinsured and uninsured patients on the rise, free and federally qualified clinics frequently are the sole means by which patients access specialty care such as dermatology.¹ Contributing to the economic gap in access, the geographic disparity of dermatologists in the United States continues to climb, and many marginalized communities remain without dermatologists.² Nearly 30% of the total US population resides in geographic areas that are underserved by dermatologists, while there appears to be an oversupply of dermatologists in urban areas.³ Dermatologists practicing in rural areas make up only 10% of the dermatology workforce,⁴ whereas 40% of all dermatologists practice in the most densely populated US cities.⁵ Consequently, patients in these underserved communities face longer wait times⁶ and are less likely to utilize dermatology services than patients in dermatologist-dense geographic areas.⁷

Service opportunities have become increasingly integrated into graduate medical education.⁸ These service activities help bridge the health care access gap while fulfilling Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements. Our study assessed the importance of CS to dermatology residency program directors (PDs), dermatology residents, and recent dermatology residency graduates. Herein, we describe the perceptions of CS within dermatology residency training among PDs and residents.

Methods

In this study, CS is defined as participation in activities to increase dermatologic access, education, and resources to underserved communities. Using the approved Association of Professors of Dermatology listserve and direct email communication, we surveyed 142 PDs of ACGME-accredited dermatology residency training programs. The deidentified respondents voluntarily completed a 17-question Qualtrics survey with a 5-point Likert scale (extremely, very, moderately, slightly, or not at all), yes/no/undecided, and qualitative responses.

We also surveyed current dermatology residents and recent graduates of ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs via PDs nationwide. The deidentified respondents voluntarily completed a 19-question Qualtrics survey with a 5-point Likert scale (extremely, very, moderately, slightly, or not at all), yes/no/undecided, and qualitative responses.

Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis for both Qualtrics surveys. The University of Pittsburgh institutional review board deemed this study exempt.

Results

Feedback From PDs—Of the 142 PDs, we received 78 responses (54.9%). For selection of dermatology residents, CS was moderately to extremely important to 64 (82.1%) PDs, and 63 (80.8%) PDs stated CS was moderately to extremely important to their dermatology residency program at large. For dermatology residency training, 66 (84.6%) PDs believed CS is important, whereas 3 (3.8%) believed it is not important, and 9 (11.5%) remained undecided (Figure 1). Notably, 17 (21.8%) programs required CS as part of the dermatology educational curriculum, with most of these programs requiring 10 hours or less during the 3 years of residency training. Of the programs with required CS, 15 (88.2%) had dermatology-specific CS requirements, with 10 (58.8%) programs involved in CS at free and/or underserved clinics and some programs participating in other CS activities, such as advocacy, mentorship, educational outreach, or sports (Figure 2A).

Community service opportunities were offered to dermatology residents by 69 (88.5%) programs, including the 17 programs that required CS as part of the dermatology educational curriculum. Among these programs with optional CS, 43 (82.7%) PDs reported CS opportunities at free and/or underserved clinics, and 30 (57.7%) reported CS opportunities through global health initiatives (Figure 2B). Other CS opportunities offered included partnerships with community outreach organizations and mentoring underprivileged students. Patient populations that benefit from CS offered by these dermatology residency programs included 55 (79.7%) underserved, 33 (47.8%) minority, 31 (44.9%) immigrant, 14 (20.3%) pediatric, 14 (20.3%) elderly, and 10 (14.5%) rural populations (Figure 2C). At dermatology residency programs with optional CS opportunities, 22 (42.3%) PDs endorsed at least 50% of their residents participating in these activities.

Qualitative responses revealed that some PDs view CS as “a way for residents to stay connected to what drew them to medicine” and “essential to improving perceptions by physicians and patients about dermatology.” Program directors perceived lack of available time, initiative, and resources as well as minimal resident interest, malpractice coverage, and lack of educational opportunities as potential barriers to CS involvement by residents (Table). Forty-six (59.0%) PDs believed that CS should not be an ACGME requirement for dermatology training, 23 (29.5%) believed it should be required, and 9 (11.5%) were undecided.

Feedback From Residents—We received responses from 92 current dermatology residents and recent dermatology residency graduates; 86 (93.5%) respondents were trainees or recent graduates from academic dermatology residency training programs, and 6 (6.5%) were from community-based training programs. Community service was perceived to be an important part of dermatology training by 68 (73.9%) respondents, and dermatology-specific CS opportunities were available to 65 (70.7%) respondents (Figure 1). Although CS was required of only 7 (7.6%) respondents, 36 (39.1%) respondents volunteered at a free dermatology clinic during residency training. Among respondents who were not provided CS opportunities through their residency program, 23 (85.2%) stated they would have participated if given the opportunity.

Dermatology residents listed increased access to care for marginalized populations, increased sense of purpose, increased competence, and decreased burnout as perceived benefits of participation in CS. Of the dermatology residents who volunteered at a free dermatology clinic during training, 27 (75.0%) regarded the experience as a “high-yield learning opportunity.” Additionally, 29 (80.6%) residents stated their participation in a free dermatology clinic increased their awareness of health disparities and societal factors affecting dermatologic care in underserved patient populations. These respondents affirmed that their participation motivated them to become more involved in outreach targeting underserved populations throughout the duration of their careers.

Comment

The results of this nationwide survey have several important implications for dermatology residency programs, with a focus on programs in well-resourced and high socioeconomic status areas. Although most PDs believe that CS is important for dermatology resident training, few programs have CS requirements, and the majority are opposed to ACGME-mandated CS. Dermatology residents and recent graduates overwhelmingly conveyed that participation in a free dermatology clinic during residency training increased their knowledge base surrounding socioeconomic determinants of health and practicing in resource-limited settings. Furthermore, most trainees expressed that CS participation as a resident motivated them to continue to partake in CS for the underserved as an attending physician. The discordance between perceived value of CS by residents and the lack of CS requirements and opportunities by residency programs represents a realistic opportunity for residency training programs to integrate CS into the curriculum.

Residency programs that integrate service for the underserved into their program goals are 3 times more successful in graduating dermatology residents who practice in underserved communities.⁹ Patients in marginalized communities and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face many barriers to accessing dermatologic care including longer wait times and higher practice rejection rates than patients with private insurance.⁶ Through increased CS opportunities, dermatology residency programs can strengthen the local health care infrastructure and bridge the gap in access to dermatologic care.

By establishing a formal CS rotation in dermatology residency programs, residents will experience invaluable first-hand educational opportunities, provide comprehensive care for patients in resource-limited settings, and hopefully continue to serve in marginalized communities. Incorporating service for the underserved into the dermatology residency curriculum not only enhances the cultural competency of trainees but also mandates that skin health equity be made a priority. By exposing dermatology residents to the diverse patient populations often served by free clinics, residents will increase their knowledge of skin disease presentation in patients with darker skin tones, which has historically been deficient in medical education.^10,11

The limitations of this survey study included recall bias, the response rate of PDs (54.9%), and the inability to determine response rate of residents, as we were unable to establish the total number of residents who received our survey. Based on geographic location, some dermatology residency programs may treat a high percentage of medically underserved patients, which already improves access to dermatology. For this reason, follow-up studies correlating PD and resident responses with region, program size, and university/community affiliation will increase our understanding of CS participation and perceptions.

Conclusion

Dermatology residency program participation in CS helps reduce barriers to access for patients in marginalized communities. Incorporating CS into the dermatology residency program curriculum creates a rewarding training environment that increases skin health equity, fosters an interest in health disparities, and enhances the cultural competency of its trainees.

Community service (CS) or service learning in dermatology (eg, free skin cancer screenings, providing care through free clinics, free teledermatology consultations) is instrumental in mitigating disparities and improving access to equitable dermatologic care. With the rate of underinsured and uninsured patients on the rise, free and federally qualified clinics frequently are the sole means by which patients access specialty care such as dermatology.¹ Contributing to the economic gap in access, the geographic disparity of dermatologists in the United States continues to climb, and many marginalized communities remain without dermatologists.² Nearly 30% of the total US population resides in geographic areas that are underserved by dermatologists, while there appears to be an oversupply of dermatologists in urban areas.³ Dermatologists practicing in rural areas make up only 10% of the dermatology workforce,⁴ whereas 40% of all dermatologists practice in the most densely populated US cities.⁵ Consequently, patients in these underserved communities face longer wait times⁶ and are less likely to utilize dermatology services than patients in dermatologist-dense geographic areas.⁷

Service opportunities have become increasingly integrated into graduate medical education.⁸ These service activities help bridge the health care access gap while fulfilling Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements. Our study assessed the importance of CS to dermatology residency program directors (PDs), dermatology residents, and recent dermatology residency graduates. Herein, we describe the perceptions of CS within dermatology residency training among PDs and residents.

Methods

In this study, CS is defined as participation in activities to increase dermatologic access, education, and resources to underserved communities. Using the approved Association of Professors of Dermatology listserve and direct email communication, we surveyed 142 PDs of ACGME-accredited dermatology residency training programs. The deidentified respondents voluntarily completed a 17-question Qualtrics survey with a 5-point Likert scale (extremely, very, moderately, slightly, or not at all), yes/no/undecided, and qualitative responses.

We also surveyed current dermatology residents and recent graduates of ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs via PDs nationwide. The deidentified respondents voluntarily completed a 19-question Qualtrics survey with a 5-point Likert scale (extremely, very, moderately, slightly, or not at all), yes/no/undecided, and qualitative responses.

Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis for both Qualtrics surveys. The University of Pittsburgh institutional review board deemed this study exempt.

Results

Feedback From PDs—Of the 142 PDs, we received 78 responses (54.9%). For selection of dermatology residents, CS was moderately to extremely important to 64 (82.1%) PDs, and 63 (80.8%) PDs stated CS was moderately to extremely important to their dermatology residency program at large. For dermatology residency training, 66 (84.6%) PDs believed CS is important, whereas 3 (3.8%) believed it is not important, and 9 (11.5%) remained undecided (Figure 1). Notably, 17 (21.8%) programs required CS as part of the dermatology educational curriculum, with most of these programs requiring 10 hours or less during the 3 years of residency training. Of the programs with required CS, 15 (88.2%) had dermatology-specific CS requirements, with 10 (58.8%) programs involved in CS at free and/or underserved clinics and some programs participating in other CS activities, such as advocacy, mentorship, educational outreach, or sports (Figure 2A).

Community service opportunities were offered to dermatology residents by 69 (88.5%) programs, including the 17 programs that required CS as part of the dermatology educational curriculum. Among these programs with optional CS, 43 (82.7%) PDs reported CS opportunities at free and/or underserved clinics, and 30 (57.7%) reported CS opportunities through global health initiatives (Figure 2B). Other CS opportunities offered included partnerships with community outreach organizations and mentoring underprivileged students. Patient populations that benefit from CS offered by these dermatology residency programs included 55 (79.7%) underserved, 33 (47.8%) minority, 31 (44.9%) immigrant, 14 (20.3%) pediatric, 14 (20.3%) elderly, and 10 (14.5%) rural populations (Figure 2C). At dermatology residency programs with optional CS opportunities, 22 (42.3%) PDs endorsed at least 50% of their residents participating in these activities.

Qualitative responses revealed that some PDs view CS as “a way for residents to stay connected to what drew them to medicine” and “essential to improving perceptions by physicians and patients about dermatology.” Program directors perceived lack of available time, initiative, and resources as well as minimal resident interest, malpractice coverage, and lack of educational opportunities as potential barriers to CS involvement by residents (Table). Forty-six (59.0%) PDs believed that CS should not be an ACGME requirement for dermatology training, 23 (29.5%) believed it should be required, and 9 (11.5%) were undecided.

Feedback From Residents—We received responses from 92 current dermatology residents and recent dermatology residency graduates; 86 (93.5%) respondents were trainees or recent graduates from academic dermatology residency training programs, and 6 (6.5%) were from community-based training programs. Community service was perceived to be an important part of dermatology training by 68 (73.9%) respondents, and dermatology-specific CS opportunities were available to 65 (70.7%) respondents (Figure 1). Although CS was required of only 7 (7.6%) respondents, 36 (39.1%) respondents volunteered at a free dermatology clinic during residency training. Among respondents who were not provided CS opportunities through their residency program, 23 (85.2%) stated they would have participated if given the opportunity.

Dermatology residents listed increased access to care for marginalized populations, increased sense of purpose, increased competence, and decreased burnout as perceived benefits of participation in CS. Of the dermatology residents who volunteered at a free dermatology clinic during training, 27 (75.0%) regarded the experience as a “high-yield learning opportunity.” Additionally, 29 (80.6%) residents stated their participation in a free dermatology clinic increased their awareness of health disparities and societal factors affecting dermatologic care in underserved patient populations. These respondents affirmed that their participation motivated them to become more involved in outreach targeting underserved populations throughout the duration of their careers.

Comment

The results of this nationwide survey have several important implications for dermatology residency programs, with a focus on programs in well-resourced and high socioeconomic status areas. Although most PDs believe that CS is important for dermatology resident training, few programs have CS requirements, and the majority are opposed to ACGME-mandated CS. Dermatology residents and recent graduates overwhelmingly conveyed that participation in a free dermatology clinic during residency training increased their knowledge base surrounding socioeconomic determinants of health and practicing in resource-limited settings. Furthermore, most trainees expressed that CS participation as a resident motivated them to continue to partake in CS for the underserved as an attending physician. The discordance between perceived value of CS by residents and the lack of CS requirements and opportunities by residency programs represents a realistic opportunity for residency training programs to integrate CS into the curriculum.

Residency programs that integrate service for the underserved into their program goals are 3 times more successful in graduating dermatology residents who practice in underserved communities.⁹ Patients in marginalized communities and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face many barriers to accessing dermatologic care including longer wait times and higher practice rejection rates than patients with private insurance.⁶ Through increased CS opportunities, dermatology residency programs can strengthen the local health care infrastructure and bridge the gap in access to dermatologic care.

By establishing a formal CS rotation in dermatology residency programs, residents will experience invaluable first-hand educational opportunities, provide comprehensive care for patients in resource-limited settings, and hopefully continue to serve in marginalized communities. Incorporating service for the underserved into the dermatology residency curriculum not only enhances the cultural competency of trainees but also mandates that skin health equity be made a priority. By exposing dermatology residents to the diverse patient populations often served by free clinics, residents will increase their knowledge of skin disease presentation in patients with darker skin tones, which has historically been deficient in medical education.^10,11

The limitations of this survey study included recall bias, the response rate of PDs (54.9%), and the inability to determine response rate of residents, as we were unable to establish the total number of residents who received our survey. Based on geographic location, some dermatology residency programs may treat a high percentage of medically underserved patients, which already improves access to dermatology. For this reason, follow-up studies correlating PD and resident responses with region, program size, and university/community affiliation will increase our understanding of CS participation and perceptions.

Conclusion

Dermatology residency program participation in CS helps reduce barriers to access for patients in marginalized communities. Incorporating CS into the dermatology residency program curriculum creates a rewarding training environment that increases skin health equity, fosters an interest in health disparities, and enhances the cultural competency of its trainees.

Community service (CS) or service learning in dermatology (eg, free skin cancer screenings, providing care through free clinics, free teledermatology consultations) is instrumental in mitigating disparities and improving access to equitable dermatologic care. With the rate of underinsured and uninsured patients on the rise, free and federally qualified clinics frequently are the sole means by which patients access specialty care such as dermatology.¹ Contributing to the economic gap in access, the geographic disparity of dermatologists in the United States continues to climb, and many marginalized communities remain without dermatologists.² Nearly 30% of the total US population resides in geographic areas that are underserved by dermatologists, while there appears to be an oversupply of dermatologists in urban areas.³ Dermatologists practicing in rural areas make up only 10% of the dermatology workforce,⁴ whereas 40% of all dermatologists practice in the most densely populated US cities.⁵ Consequently, patients in these underserved communities face longer wait times⁶ and are less likely to utilize dermatology services than patients in dermatologist-dense geographic areas.⁷

Service opportunities have become increasingly integrated into graduate medical education.⁸ These service activities help bridge the health care access gap while fulfilling Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements. Our study assessed the importance of CS to dermatology residency program directors (PDs), dermatology residents, and recent dermatology residency graduates. Herein, we describe the perceptions of CS within dermatology residency training among PDs and residents.

Methods

In this study, CS is defined as participation in activities to increase dermatologic access, education, and resources to underserved communities. Using the approved Association of Professors of Dermatology listserve and direct email communication, we surveyed 142 PDs of ACGME-accredited dermatology residency training programs. The deidentified respondents voluntarily completed a 17-question Qualtrics survey with a 5-point Likert scale (extremely, very, moderately, slightly, or not at all), yes/no/undecided, and qualitative responses.

We also surveyed current dermatology residents and recent graduates of ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs via PDs nationwide. The deidentified respondents voluntarily completed a 19-question Qualtrics survey with a 5-point Likert scale (extremely, very, moderately, slightly, or not at all), yes/no/undecided, and qualitative responses.

Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis for both Qualtrics surveys. The University of Pittsburgh institutional review board deemed this study exempt.

Results

Feedback From PDs—Of the 142 PDs, we received 78 responses (54.9%). For selection of dermatology residents, CS was moderately to extremely important to 64 (82.1%) PDs, and 63 (80.8%) PDs stated CS was moderately to extremely important to their dermatology residency program at large. For dermatology residency training, 66 (84.6%) PDs believed CS is important, whereas 3 (3.8%) believed it is not important, and 9 (11.5%) remained undecided (Figure 1). Notably, 17 (21.8%) programs required CS as part of the dermatology educational curriculum, with most of these programs requiring 10 hours or less during the 3 years of residency training. Of the programs with required CS, 15 (88.2%) had dermatology-specific CS requirements, with 10 (58.8%) programs involved in CS at free and/or underserved clinics and some programs participating in other CS activities, such as advocacy, mentorship, educational outreach, or sports (Figure 2A).

Community service opportunities were offered to dermatology residents by 69 (88.5%) programs, including the 17 programs that required CS as part of the dermatology educational curriculum. Among these programs with optional CS, 43 (82.7%) PDs reported CS opportunities at free and/or underserved clinics, and 30 (57.7%) reported CS opportunities through global health initiatives (Figure 2B). Other CS opportunities offered included partnerships with community outreach organizations and mentoring underprivileged students. Patient populations that benefit from CS offered by these dermatology residency programs included 55 (79.7%) underserved, 33 (47.8%) minority, 31 (44.9%) immigrant, 14 (20.3%) pediatric, 14 (20.3%) elderly, and 10 (14.5%) rural populations (Figure 2C). At dermatology residency programs with optional CS opportunities, 22 (42.3%) PDs endorsed at least 50% of their residents participating in these activities.

Qualitative responses revealed that some PDs view CS as “a way for residents to stay connected to what drew them to medicine” and “essential to improving perceptions by physicians and patients about dermatology.” Program directors perceived lack of available time, initiative, and resources as well as minimal resident interest, malpractice coverage, and lack of educational opportunities as potential barriers to CS involvement by residents (Table). Forty-six (59.0%) PDs believed that CS should not be an ACGME requirement for dermatology training, 23 (29.5%) believed it should be required, and 9 (11.5%) were undecided.

Feedback From Residents—We received responses from 92 current dermatology residents and recent dermatology residency graduates; 86 (93.5%) respondents were trainees or recent graduates from academic dermatology residency training programs, and 6 (6.5%) were from community-based training programs. Community service was perceived to be an important part of dermatology training by 68 (73.9%) respondents, and dermatology-specific CS opportunities were available to 65 (70.7%) respondents (Figure 1). Although CS was required of only 7 (7.6%) respondents, 36 (39.1%) respondents volunteered at a free dermatology clinic during residency training. Among respondents who were not provided CS opportunities through their residency program, 23 (85.2%) stated they would have participated if given the opportunity.

Dermatology residents listed increased access to care for marginalized populations, increased sense of purpose, increased competence, and decreased burnout as perceived benefits of participation in CS. Of the dermatology residents who volunteered at a free dermatology clinic during training, 27 (75.0%) regarded the experience as a “high-yield learning opportunity.” Additionally, 29 (80.6%) residents stated their participation in a free dermatology clinic increased their awareness of health disparities and societal factors affecting dermatologic care in underserved patient populations. These respondents affirmed that their participation motivated them to become more involved in outreach targeting underserved populations throughout the duration of their careers.

Comment

The results of this nationwide survey have several important implications for dermatology residency programs, with a focus on programs in well-resourced and high socioeconomic status areas. Although most PDs believe that CS is important for dermatology resident training, few programs have CS requirements, and the majority are opposed to ACGME-mandated CS. Dermatology residents and recent graduates overwhelmingly conveyed that participation in a free dermatology clinic during residency training increased their knowledge base surrounding socioeconomic determinants of health and practicing in resource-limited settings. Furthermore, most trainees expressed that CS participation as a resident motivated them to continue to partake in CS for the underserved as an attending physician. The discordance between perceived value of CS by residents and the lack of CS requirements and opportunities by residency programs represents a realistic opportunity for residency training programs to integrate CS into the curriculum.

Residency programs that integrate service for the underserved into their program goals are 3 times more successful in graduating dermatology residents who practice in underserved communities.⁹ Patients in marginalized communities and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face many barriers to accessing dermatologic care including longer wait times and higher practice rejection rates than patients with private insurance.⁶ Through increased CS opportunities, dermatology residency programs can strengthen the local health care infrastructure and bridge the gap in access to dermatologic care.

By establishing a formal CS rotation in dermatology residency programs, residents will experience invaluable first-hand educational opportunities, provide comprehensive care for patients in resource-limited settings, and hopefully continue to serve in marginalized communities. Incorporating service for the underserved into the dermatology residency curriculum not only enhances the cultural competency of trainees but also mandates that skin health equity be made a priority. By exposing dermatology residents to the diverse patient populations often served by free clinics, residents will increase their knowledge of skin disease presentation in patients with darker skin tones, which has historically been deficient in medical education.^10,11

The limitations of this survey study included recall bias, the response rate of PDs (54.9%), and the inability to determine response rate of residents, as we were unable to establish the total number of residents who received our survey. Based on geographic location, some dermatology residency programs may treat a high percentage of medically underserved patients, which already improves access to dermatology. For this reason, follow-up studies correlating PD and resident responses with region, program size, and university/community affiliation will increase our understanding of CS participation and perceptions.

Conclusion

Dermatology residency program participation in CS helps reduce barriers to access for patients in marginalized communities. Incorporating CS into the dermatology residency program curriculum creates a rewarding training environment that increases skin health equity, fosters an interest in health disparities, and enhances the cultural competency of its trainees.

As residents, it is important to understand the steps of the manicuring process and be able to inform patients on how to maintain optimal nail health while continuing to go to nail salons. Most patients are not aware of the possible allergic, traumatic, and/or infectious complications of manicuring their nails. There are practical steps that can be taken to prevent nail issues, such as avoiding cutting one’s cuticles or using allergen-free nail polishes. These simple fixes can make a big difference in long-term nail health in our patients.

Nail Polish Application Process

The nails are first soaked in a warm soapy solution to soften the nail plate and cuticles.¹ Then the nail tips and plates are filed and occasionally are smoothed with a drill. The cuticles are cut with a cuticle cutter. Nail polish—base coat, color enamel, and top coat—is then applied to the nail. Acrylic or sculptured nails and gel and dip manicures are composed of chemical monomers and polymers that harden either at room temperature or through UV or light-emitting diode (LED) exposure. The chemicals in these products can damage nails and cause allergic reactions.

Contact Dermatitis

Approximately 2% of individuals have been found to have allergic or irritant contact dermatitis to nail care products. The top 5 allergens implicated in nail products are (1) 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, (2) methyl methacrylate, (3) ethyl acrylate, (4) ethyl-2-cyanoacrylate, and (5) tosylamide.² Methyl methacrylate was banned in 1974 by the US Food and Drug Administration due to reports of severe contact dermatitis, paronychia, and nail dystrophy.³ Due to their potent sensitizing effects, acrylates were named the contact allergen of the year in 2012 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.³

Acrylates are plastic products formed by polymerization of acrylic or methacrylic acid.⁴ Artificial sculptured nails are created by mixing powdered polymethyl methacrylate polymers and liquid ethyl or isobutyl methacrylate monomers and then applying this mixture to the nail plate.⁵ Gel and powder nails employ a mixture that is similar to acrylic powders, which require UV or LED radiation to polymerize and harden on the nail plate.

Tosylamide, or tosylamide formaldehyde resin, is another potent allergen that promotes adhesion of the enamel to the nail.⁶ It is important to note that sensitization may develop months to years after using artificial nails.

Clinical features of contact allergy secondary to nail polish can vary. Some patients experience severe periungual dermatitis. Others can present with facial or eyelid dermatitis due to exposure to airborne particles of acrylates or from contact with fingertips bearing acrylic nails.^6,7 If inhaled, acrylates also can cause wheezing asthma or allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Common Onychodystrophies

Damage to the natural nail plate is inevitable with continued wear of sculptured nails. With 2 to 4 months of consecutive wear, the natural nails turn yellow, brittle, and weak.⁵ One study noted that the thickness of an individual’s left thumb nail plate thinned from 0.059 cm to 0.03 cm after a gel manicure was removed from the nail.⁸ Nail injuries due to manicuring include keratin granulations, onycholysis, pincer nail deformities, pseudopsoriatic nails, lamellar onychoschizia, transverse leukonychia, and ingrown nails.⁶ One interesting nail dystrophy reported secondary to gel manicures is pterygium inversum unguis or a ventral pterygium that causes an abnormal painful adherence of the hyponychium to the ventral surface of the nail plate. Patients prone to developing pterygium inversum unguis can experience sensitivity, pain, or burning sensations during LED or UVA light exposure.⁹

Infections

In addition to contact allergies and nail dystrophies, each step of the manicuring process, such as cutting cuticles, presents opportunities for infectious agents to enter the nail fold. Acute or chronic paronychia, or inflammation of the nail fold, most commonly is caused by bacterial infections with Staphylococcus aureus. Green nail syndrome caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa also is common.¹ Onychomycosis due to Trichophyton rubrum is one of the most frequent fungal infections contracted at nail salons. Mycobacteria such as Mycobacterium fortuitum also have been implicated in infections from salons, as they can be found in the jets of pedicure spas, which are not sanitized regularly.¹⁰

Final Thoughts

Nail cosmetics are an integral part of many patients’ lives. Being able to educate yourself and your patients on the hazards of nail salons can help them avoid painful infections, contact allergies, and acute to chronic nail deformities. It is important for residents to be aware of the different dermatoses that can arise in men and women who frequent nail salons as the popularity of the nail beauty industry continues to rise.

As residents, it is important to understand the steps of the manicuring process and be able to inform patients on how to maintain optimal nail health while continuing to go to nail salons. Most patients are not aware of the possible allergic, traumatic, and/or infectious complications of manicuring their nails. There are practical steps that can be taken to prevent nail issues, such as avoiding cutting one’s cuticles or using allergen-free nail polishes. These simple fixes can make a big difference in long-term nail health in our patients.

Nail Polish Application Process

The nails are first soaked in a warm soapy solution to soften the nail plate and cuticles.¹ Then the nail tips and plates are filed and occasionally are smoothed with a drill. The cuticles are cut with a cuticle cutter. Nail polish—base coat, color enamel, and top coat—is then applied to the nail. Acrylic or sculptured nails and gel and dip manicures are composed of chemical monomers and polymers that harden either at room temperature or through UV or light-emitting diode (LED) exposure. The chemicals in these products can damage nails and cause allergic reactions.

Contact Dermatitis

Approximately 2% of individuals have been found to have allergic or irritant contact dermatitis to nail care products. The top 5 allergens implicated in nail products are (1) 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, (2) methyl methacrylate, (3) ethyl acrylate, (4) ethyl-2-cyanoacrylate, and (5) tosylamide.² Methyl methacrylate was banned in 1974 by the US Food and Drug Administration due to reports of severe contact dermatitis, paronychia, and nail dystrophy.³ Due to their potent sensitizing effects, acrylates were named the contact allergen of the year in 2012 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.³

Acrylates are plastic products formed by polymerization of acrylic or methacrylic acid.⁴ Artificial sculptured nails are created by mixing powdered polymethyl methacrylate polymers and liquid ethyl or isobutyl methacrylate monomers and then applying this mixture to the nail plate.⁵ Gel and powder nails employ a mixture that is similar to acrylic powders, which require UV or LED radiation to polymerize and harden on the nail plate.

Tosylamide, or tosylamide formaldehyde resin, is another potent allergen that promotes adhesion of the enamel to the nail.⁶ It is important to note that sensitization may develop months to years after using artificial nails.

Clinical features of contact allergy secondary to nail polish can vary. Some patients experience severe periungual dermatitis. Others can present with facial or eyelid dermatitis due to exposure to airborne particles of acrylates or from contact with fingertips bearing acrylic nails.^6,7 If inhaled, acrylates also can cause wheezing asthma or allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Common Onychodystrophies

Damage to the natural nail plate is inevitable with continued wear of sculptured nails. With 2 to 4 months of consecutive wear, the natural nails turn yellow, brittle, and weak.⁵ One study noted that the thickness of an individual’s left thumb nail plate thinned from 0.059 cm to 0.03 cm after a gel manicure was removed from the nail.⁸ Nail injuries due to manicuring include keratin granulations, onycholysis, pincer nail deformities, pseudopsoriatic nails, lamellar onychoschizia, transverse leukonychia, and ingrown nails.⁶ One interesting nail dystrophy reported secondary to gel manicures is pterygium inversum unguis or a ventral pterygium that causes an abnormal painful adherence of the hyponychium to the ventral surface of the nail plate. Patients prone to developing pterygium inversum unguis can experience sensitivity, pain, or burning sensations during LED or UVA light exposure.⁹

Infections

In addition to contact allergies and nail dystrophies, each step of the manicuring process, such as cutting cuticles, presents opportunities for infectious agents to enter the nail fold. Acute or chronic paronychia, or inflammation of the nail fold, most commonly is caused by bacterial infections with Staphylococcus aureus. Green nail syndrome caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa also is common.¹ Onychomycosis due to Trichophyton rubrum is one of the most frequent fungal infections contracted at nail salons. Mycobacteria such as Mycobacterium fortuitum also have been implicated in infections from salons, as they can be found in the jets of pedicure spas, which are not sanitized regularly.¹⁰

Final Thoughts

Nail cosmetics are an integral part of many patients’ lives. Being able to educate yourself and your patients on the hazards of nail salons can help them avoid painful infections, contact allergies, and acute to chronic nail deformities. It is important for residents to be aware of the different dermatoses that can arise in men and women who frequent nail salons as the popularity of the nail beauty industry continues to rise.

As residents, it is important to understand the steps of the manicuring process and be able to inform patients on how to maintain optimal nail health while continuing to go to nail salons. Most patients are not aware of the possible allergic, traumatic, and/or infectious complications of manicuring their nails. There are practical steps that can be taken to prevent nail issues, such as avoiding cutting one’s cuticles or using allergen-free nail polishes. These simple fixes can make a big difference in long-term nail health in our patients.

Nail Polish Application Process

The nails are first soaked in a warm soapy solution to soften the nail plate and cuticles.¹ Then the nail tips and plates are filed and occasionally are smoothed with a drill. The cuticles are cut with a cuticle cutter. Nail polish—base coat, color enamel, and top coat—is then applied to the nail. Acrylic or sculptured nails and gel and dip manicures are composed of chemical monomers and polymers that harden either at room temperature or through UV or light-emitting diode (LED) exposure. The chemicals in these products can damage nails and cause allergic reactions.

Contact Dermatitis

Approximately 2% of individuals have been found to have allergic or irritant contact dermatitis to nail care products. The top 5 allergens implicated in nail products are (1) 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, (2) methyl methacrylate, (3) ethyl acrylate, (4) ethyl-2-cyanoacrylate, and (5) tosylamide.² Methyl methacrylate was banned in 1974 by the US Food and Drug Administration due to reports of severe contact dermatitis, paronychia, and nail dystrophy.³ Due to their potent sensitizing effects, acrylates were named the contact allergen of the year in 2012 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.³

Acrylates are plastic products formed by polymerization of acrylic or methacrylic acid.⁴ Artificial sculptured nails are created by mixing powdered polymethyl methacrylate polymers and liquid ethyl or isobutyl methacrylate monomers and then applying this mixture to the nail plate.⁵ Gel and powder nails employ a mixture that is similar to acrylic powders, which require UV or LED radiation to polymerize and harden on the nail plate.

Tosylamide, or tosylamide formaldehyde resin, is another potent allergen that promotes adhesion of the enamel to the nail.⁶ It is important to note that sensitization may develop months to years after using artificial nails.

Clinical features of contact allergy secondary to nail polish can vary. Some patients experience severe periungual dermatitis. Others can present with facial or eyelid dermatitis due to exposure to airborne particles of acrylates or from contact with fingertips bearing acrylic nails.^6,7 If inhaled, acrylates also can cause wheezing asthma or allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Common Onychodystrophies

Damage to the natural nail plate is inevitable with continued wear of sculptured nails. With 2 to 4 months of consecutive wear, the natural nails turn yellow, brittle, and weak.⁵ One study noted that the thickness of an individual’s left thumb nail plate thinned from 0.059 cm to 0.03 cm after a gel manicure was removed from the nail.⁸ Nail injuries due to manicuring include keratin granulations, onycholysis, pincer nail deformities, pseudopsoriatic nails, lamellar onychoschizia, transverse leukonychia, and ingrown nails.⁶ One interesting nail dystrophy reported secondary to gel manicures is pterygium inversum unguis or a ventral pterygium that causes an abnormal painful adherence of the hyponychium to the ventral surface of the nail plate. Patients prone to developing pterygium inversum unguis can experience sensitivity, pain, or burning sensations during LED or UVA light exposure.⁹

Infections

In addition to contact allergies and nail dystrophies, each step of the manicuring process, such as cutting cuticles, presents opportunities for infectious agents to enter the nail fold. Acute or chronic paronychia, or inflammation of the nail fold, most commonly is caused by bacterial infections with Staphylococcus aureus. Green nail syndrome caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa also is common.¹ Onychomycosis due to Trichophyton rubrum is one of the most frequent fungal infections contracted at nail salons. Mycobacteria such as Mycobacterium fortuitum also have been implicated in infections from salons, as they can be found in the jets of pedicure spas, which are not sanitized regularly.¹⁰

Final Thoughts

Nail cosmetics are an integral part of many patients’ lives. Being able to educate yourself and your patients on the hazards of nail salons can help them avoid painful infections, contact allergies, and acute to chronic nail deformities. It is important for residents to be aware of the different dermatoses that can arise in men and women who frequent nail salons as the popularity of the nail beauty industry continues to rise.

While the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the mental health of a wide range of individuals, its adverse effects have been particularly detrimental to adolescents. In this article, I discuss evidence that shows the effects of the pandemic on adolescent patients, potential reasons for this increased distress, and what types of coping mechanisms adolescents have used to counter these effects.

Increases in multiple measures of psychopathology

Multiple online surveys and other studies have documented the pandemic’s impact on younger individuals. In the United States, visits to emergency departments by pediatric patients increased in the months after the first lockdown period.¹ Several studies found increased rates of anxiety and depression among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.^2,3 In an online survey of 359 children and 3,254 adolescents in China, 22% of respondents reported that they experienced depressive symptoms.³ In an online survey of 1,054 Canadian adolescents, 43% said they were “very concerned” about the pandemic.⁴ In an online survey of 7,353 adolescents in the United States, 37% reported suicidal ideation during the pandemic compared to 17% in 2017.⁵ A Chinese study found that smartphone and internet addiction was significantly associated with increased levels of depressive symptoms during the pandemic.³ In a survey in the Philippines, 16.3% of adolescents reported moderate-to-severe psychological impairment during the pandemic; the rates of COVID-19–related anxiety were higher among girls vs boys.⁶ Alcohol and cannabis use increased among Canadian adolescents during the pandemic, according to an online survey.⁷ Adolescents with anorexia nervosa reported a 70% increase in poor eating habits and more thoughts associated with eating disorders during the pandemic.⁸ A Danish study found that children and adolescents newly diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) or who had completed treatment exhibited worsening OCD, anxiety, and depressive symptoms during the pandemic.⁹ An online survey of 6,196 Chinese adolescents found that those with a higher number of pre-pandemic adverse childhood experiences, such as abuse and neglect, had elevated posttraumatic stress symptoms and anxiety during the onset of the pandemic.¹⁰

Underlying causes of pandemic-induced distress

Limited social connectedness during the pandemic is a major reason for distress among adolescents. A review of 80 studies found that social isolation and loneliness as a result of social distancing and quarantining were associated with an increased risk of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and self-harm.¹¹ Parents’ stress about the risks of COVID-19 was correlated with worsening mental health in their adolescent children.¹² A Chinese study found that the amount of time students spent on smartphones and social media doubled during the pandemic.¹³ In an online survey of 7,890 Chinese adolescents, greater social media, internet, and smartphone use was associated with increased anxiety and depression.¹⁴ This may be in part the result of adolescents spending time reading COVID-related news.

Coping mechanisms to increase well-being

Researchers have identified several positive coping mechanisms adolescents employed during the pandemic. Although some data suggest that increased internet use raises the risk of COVID-related distress, for certain adolescents, using social media to stay connected with friends and relatives was a buffer for feelings of loneliness and might have increased mental well-being.¹⁵ Other common coping mechanisms include relying on faith, volunteering, and starting new hobbies.¹⁶ During the pandemic, there were higher rates of playing outside and increased physical activity, which correlated with positive mental health outcomes.¹⁶ An online survey of 1,040 adolescents found that those who looked to the future optimistically and confidently had a higher health-related quality of life.¹⁷

Continuing an emphasis on adolescent well-being

Although data are limited, adolescents can continue to use these coping mechanisms to maintain their well-being, even if COVID-related restrictions are lifted or reimplemented. During these difficult times, it is imperative for adolescents to get the mental health services they need, and for psychiatric clinicians to continue to find avenues to promote resilience and mental wellness among young patients.

While the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the mental health of a wide range of individuals, its adverse effects have been particularly detrimental to adolescents. In this article, I discuss evidence that shows the effects of the pandemic on adolescent patients, potential reasons for this increased distress, and what types of coping mechanisms adolescents have used to counter these effects.

Increases in multiple measures of psychopathology

Multiple online surveys and other studies have documented the pandemic’s impact on younger individuals. In the United States, visits to emergency departments by pediatric patients increased in the months after the first lockdown period.¹ Several studies found increased rates of anxiety and depression among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.^2,3 In an online survey of 359 children and 3,254 adolescents in China, 22% of respondents reported that they experienced depressive symptoms.³ In an online survey of 1,054 Canadian adolescents, 43% said they were “very concerned” about the pandemic.⁴ In an online survey of 7,353 adolescents in the United States, 37% reported suicidal ideation during the pandemic compared to 17% in 2017.⁵ A Chinese study found that smartphone and internet addiction was significantly associated with increased levels of depressive symptoms during the pandemic.³ In a survey in the Philippines, 16.3% of adolescents reported moderate-to-severe psychological impairment during the pandemic; the rates of COVID-19–related anxiety were higher among girls vs boys.⁶ Alcohol and cannabis use increased among Canadian adolescents during the pandemic, according to an online survey.⁷ Adolescents with anorexia nervosa reported a 70% increase in poor eating habits and more thoughts associated with eating disorders during the pandemic.⁸ A Danish study found that children and adolescents newly diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) or who had completed treatment exhibited worsening OCD, anxiety, and depressive symptoms during the pandemic.⁹ An online survey of 6,196 Chinese adolescents found that those with a higher number of pre-pandemic adverse childhood experiences, such as abuse and neglect, had elevated posttraumatic stress symptoms and anxiety during the onset of the pandemic.¹⁰

Underlying causes of pandemic-induced distress

Limited social connectedness during the pandemic is a major reason for distress among adolescents. A review of 80 studies found that social isolation and loneliness as a result of social distancing and quarantining were associated with an increased risk of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and self-harm.¹¹ Parents’ stress about the risks of COVID-19 was correlated with worsening mental health in their adolescent children.¹² A Chinese study found that the amount of time students spent on smartphones and social media doubled during the pandemic.¹³ In an online survey of 7,890 Chinese adolescents, greater social media, internet, and smartphone use was associated with increased anxiety and depression.¹⁴ This may be in part the result of adolescents spending time reading COVID-related news.

Coping mechanisms to increase well-being

Researchers have identified several positive coping mechanisms adolescents employed during the pandemic. Although some data suggest that increased internet use raises the risk of COVID-related distress, for certain adolescents, using social media to stay connected with friends and relatives was a buffer for feelings of loneliness and might have increased mental well-being.¹⁵ Other common coping mechanisms include relying on faith, volunteering, and starting new hobbies.¹⁶ During the pandemic, there were higher rates of playing outside and increased physical activity, which correlated with positive mental health outcomes.¹⁶ An online survey of 1,040 adolescents found that those who looked to the future optimistically and confidently had a higher health-related quality of life.¹⁷

Continuing an emphasis on adolescent well-being

Although data are limited, adolescents can continue to use these coping mechanisms to maintain their well-being, even if COVID-related restrictions are lifted or reimplemented. During these difficult times, it is imperative for adolescents to get the mental health services they need, and for psychiatric clinicians to continue to find avenues to promote resilience and mental wellness among young patients.

While the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the mental health of a wide range of individuals, its adverse effects have been particularly detrimental to adolescents. In this article, I discuss evidence that shows the effects of the pandemic on adolescent patients, potential reasons for this increased distress, and what types of coping mechanisms adolescents have used to counter these effects.

Increases in multiple measures of psychopathology

Multiple online surveys and other studies have documented the pandemic’s impact on younger individuals. In the United States, visits to emergency departments by pediatric patients increased in the months after the first lockdown period.¹ Several studies found increased rates of anxiety and depression among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.^2,3 In an online survey of 359 children and 3,254 adolescents in China, 22% of respondents reported that they experienced depressive symptoms.³ In an online survey of 1,054 Canadian adolescents, 43% said they were “very concerned” about the pandemic.⁴ In an online survey of 7,353 adolescents in the United States, 37% reported suicidal ideation during the pandemic compared to 17% in 2017.⁵ A Chinese study found that smartphone and internet addiction was significantly associated with increased levels of depressive symptoms during the pandemic.³ In a survey in the Philippines, 16.3% of adolescents reported moderate-to-severe psychological impairment during the pandemic; the rates of COVID-19–related anxiety were higher among girls vs boys.⁶ Alcohol and cannabis use increased among Canadian adolescents during the pandemic, according to an online survey.⁷ Adolescents with anorexia nervosa reported a 70% increase in poor eating habits and more thoughts associated with eating disorders during the pandemic.⁸ A Danish study found that children and adolescents newly diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) or who had completed treatment exhibited worsening OCD, anxiety, and depressive symptoms during the pandemic.⁹ An online survey of 6,196 Chinese adolescents found that those with a higher number of pre-pandemic adverse childhood experiences, such as abuse and neglect, had elevated posttraumatic stress symptoms and anxiety during the onset of the pandemic.¹⁰

Underlying causes of pandemic-induced distress

Limited social connectedness during the pandemic is a major reason for distress among adolescents. A review of 80 studies found that social isolation and loneliness as a result of social distancing and quarantining were associated with an increased risk of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and self-harm.¹¹ Parents’ stress about the risks of COVID-19 was correlated with worsening mental health in their adolescent children.¹² A Chinese study found that the amount of time students spent on smartphones and social media doubled during the pandemic.¹³ In an online survey of 7,890 Chinese adolescents, greater social media, internet, and smartphone use was associated with increased anxiety and depression.¹⁴ This may be in part the result of adolescents spending time reading COVID-related news.

Coping mechanisms to increase well-being

Researchers have identified several positive coping mechanisms adolescents employed during the pandemic. Although some data suggest that increased internet use raises the risk of COVID-related distress, for certain adolescents, using social media to stay connected with friends and relatives was a buffer for feelings of loneliness and might have increased mental well-being.¹⁵ Other common coping mechanisms include relying on faith, volunteering, and starting new hobbies.¹⁶ During the pandemic, there were higher rates of playing outside and increased physical activity, which correlated with positive mental health outcomes.¹⁶ An online survey of 1,040 adolescents found that those who looked to the future optimistically and confidently had a higher health-related quality of life.¹⁷

Continuing an emphasis on adolescent well-being

Although data are limited, adolescents can continue to use these coping mechanisms to maintain their well-being, even if COVID-related restrictions are lifted or reimplemented. During these difficult times, it is imperative for adolescents to get the mental health services they need, and for psychiatric clinicians to continue to find avenues to promote resilience and mental wellness among young patients.

To the Editor:

There is increasing demand for medical care in the United States due to expanded health care coverage; an aging population; and advancements in diagnostics, treatment, and technology.¹ It is predicted that by 2050 the number of dermatologists will be 24.4% short of the expected estimate of demand.²

Accordingly, dermatologists are increasingly practicing in team-based care delivery models that incorporate nonphysician clinicians (NPCs), including nurse practitioners and physician assistants.¹ Despite recognition that NPCs are taking a larger role in medical teams, there is, to our knowledge, limited training for dermatologists and dermatologists in-training to optimize this professional alliance.

The objectives of this study included (1) determining whether residency programs adequately prepare residents to work with or supervise NPCs and (2) understanding the relationship between NPCs and dermatology residents across residency programs in the United States.

An anonymous cross-sectional, Internet-based survey designed using Google Forms survey creation and administration software was distributed to 117 dermatology residency program directors through email, with a request for further dissemination to residents through self-maintained listserves. Four email reminders about completing and disseminating the survey were sent to program directors between August and November 2020. The study was approved by the Emory University institutional review board. All respondents consented to participate in this survey prior to completing it.

The survey included questions pertaining to demographic information, residents’ experiences working with NPCs, residency program training specific to working with NPCs, and residents’ and residency program directors’ opinions on NPCs’ impact on education and patient care. Program directors were asked to respond N/A to 6 questions on the survey because data from those questions represented residents’ opinions only. Questions relating to residents’ and residency program directors’ opinions were based on a 5-point scale of impact (1=strongly impact in a negative way; 5=strongly impact in a positive way) or importance (1=not at all important; 5=extremely important). The survey was not previously validated.

Descriptive analysis and a paired t test were conducted when appropriate. Missing data were excluded.

There were 81 respondents to the survey. Demographic information is shown Table 1. Thirty-five dermatology residency program directors (29.9% of 117 programs) responded. Of the 45 residents or recent graduates, 29 (64.4%) reported that they foresaw the need to work with or supervise NPCs in the future (Table 2). Currently, 29 (64.4%) residents also reported that (1) they do not feel adequately trained to provide supervision of or to work with NPCs or (2) were uncertain whether they could do so. Sixty-five (80.2%) respondents stated that there was no formalized training in their program for supervising or working with NPCs; 45 (55.6%) respondents noted that they do not think that their program provided adequate training in supervising NPCs.

Regarding NPCs impact on care, residency program directors who completed the survey were more likely to rank NPCs as having a more significant positive impact on patient care than residents (mean score, 3.43 vs 2.78; P=.043; 95% CI, –1.28 to –0.20)(Table 3).

This study demonstrated a lack of dermatology training related to working with NPCs in a professional setting and highlighted residents’ perception that formal education in working with and supervising NPCs could be of benefit to their education. Furthermore, residency directors perceived NPCs as having a greater positive impact on patient care than residents did, underscoring the importance of the continued need to educate residents on working synergistically with NPCs to optimize patient care. Ultimately, these results suggest a potential area for further development of residency curricula.

There are approximately 360,000 NPCs serving as integral members of interdisciplinary medical teams across the United States.^3,4 In a 2014 survey, 46% of 2001 dermatologists noted that they already employed 1 or more NPCs, a number that has increased over time and is likely to continue to do so.⁵ Although the number of NPCs in dermatology has increased, there remain limited formal training and certificate programs for these providers.^1,6

Furthermore, the American Academy of Dermatology recommends that “[w]hen practicing in a dermatological setting, non-dermatologist physicians and non-physician clinicians . . . should be directly supervised by a board-certified dermatologist.”⁷ Therefore, the responsibility for a dermatology-specific education can fall on the dermatologist, necessitating adequate supervision and training of NPCs.

The findings of this study were limited by a small sample size; response bias because distribution of the survey relied on program directors disseminating the instrument to their residents, thereby limiting generalizability; and a lack of predissemination validation of the survey. Additional research in this area should focus on survey validation and distribution directly to dermatology residents, instead of relying on dermatology program directors to disseminate the survey.

To the Editor:

There is increasing demand for medical care in the United States due to expanded health care coverage; an aging population; and advancements in diagnostics, treatment, and technology.¹ It is predicted that by 2050 the number of dermatologists will be 24.4% short of the expected estimate of demand.²

Accordingly, dermatologists are increasingly practicing in team-based care delivery models that incorporate nonphysician clinicians (NPCs), including nurse practitioners and physician assistants.¹ Despite recognition that NPCs are taking a larger role in medical teams, there is, to our knowledge, limited training for dermatologists and dermatologists in-training to optimize this professional alliance.

The objectives of this study included (1) determining whether residency programs adequately prepare residents to work with or supervise NPCs and (2) understanding the relationship between NPCs and dermatology residents across residency programs in the United States.

An anonymous cross-sectional, Internet-based survey designed using Google Forms survey creation and administration software was distributed to 117 dermatology residency program directors through email, with a request for further dissemination to residents through self-maintained listserves. Four email reminders about completing and disseminating the survey were sent to program directors between August and November 2020. The study was approved by the Emory University institutional review board. All respondents consented to participate in this survey prior to completing it.

The survey included questions pertaining to demographic information, residents’ experiences working with NPCs, residency program training specific to working with NPCs, and residents’ and residency program directors’ opinions on NPCs’ impact on education and patient care. Program directors were asked to respond N/A to 6 questions on the survey because data from those questions represented residents’ opinions only. Questions relating to residents’ and residency program directors’ opinions were based on a 5-point scale of impact (1=strongly impact in a negative way; 5=strongly impact in a positive way) or importance (1=not at all important; 5=extremely important). The survey was not previously validated.

Descriptive analysis and a paired t test were conducted when appropriate. Missing data were excluded.

There were 81 respondents to the survey. Demographic information is shown Table 1. Thirty-five dermatology residency program directors (29.9% of 117 programs) responded. Of the 45 residents or recent graduates, 29 (64.4%) reported that they foresaw the need to work with or supervise NPCs in the future (Table 2). Currently, 29 (64.4%) residents also reported that (1) they do not feel adequately trained to provide supervision of or to work with NPCs or (2) were uncertain whether they could do so. Sixty-five (80.2%) respondents stated that there was no formalized training in their program for supervising or working with NPCs; 45 (55.6%) respondents noted that they do not think that their program provided adequate training in supervising NPCs.

Regarding NPCs impact on care, residency program directors who completed the survey were more likely to rank NPCs as having a more significant positive impact on patient care than residents (mean score, 3.43 vs 2.78; P=.043; 95% CI, –1.28 to –0.20)(Table 3).

This study demonstrated a lack of dermatology training related to working with NPCs in a professional setting and highlighted residents’ perception that formal education in working with and supervising NPCs could be of benefit to their education. Furthermore, residency directors perceived NPCs as having a greater positive impact on patient care than residents did, underscoring the importance of the continued need to educate residents on working synergistically with NPCs to optimize patient care. Ultimately, these results suggest a potential area for further development of residency curricula.

There are approximately 360,000 NPCs serving as integral members of interdisciplinary medical teams across the United States.^3,4 In a 2014 survey, 46% of 2001 dermatologists noted that they already employed 1 or more NPCs, a number that has increased over time and is likely to continue to do so.⁵ Although the number of NPCs in dermatology has increased, there remain limited formal training and certificate programs for these providers.^1,6

Furthermore, the American Academy of Dermatology recommends that “[w]hen practicing in a dermatological setting, non-dermatologist physicians and non-physician clinicians . . . should be directly supervised by a board-certified dermatologist.”⁷ Therefore, the responsibility for a dermatology-specific education can fall on the dermatologist, necessitating adequate supervision and training of NPCs.

The findings of this study were limited by a small sample size; response bias because distribution of the survey relied on program directors disseminating the instrument to their residents, thereby limiting generalizability; and a lack of predissemination validation of the survey. Additional research in this area should focus on survey validation and distribution directly to dermatology residents, instead of relying on dermatology program directors to disseminate the survey.

To the Editor:

There is increasing demand for medical care in the United States due to expanded health care coverage; an aging population; and advancements in diagnostics, treatment, and technology.¹ It is predicted that by 2050 the number of dermatologists will be 24.4% short of the expected estimate of demand.²

Accordingly, dermatologists are increasingly practicing in team-based care delivery models that incorporate nonphysician clinicians (NPCs), including nurse practitioners and physician assistants.¹ Despite recognition that NPCs are taking a larger role in medical teams, there is, to our knowledge, limited training for dermatologists and dermatologists in-training to optimize this professional alliance.

The objectives of this study included (1) determining whether residency programs adequately prepare residents to work with or supervise NPCs and (2) understanding the relationship between NPCs and dermatology residents across residency programs in the United States.

An anonymous cross-sectional, Internet-based survey designed using Google Forms survey creation and administration software was distributed to 117 dermatology residency program directors through email, with a request for further dissemination to residents through self-maintained listserves. Four email reminders about completing and disseminating the survey were sent to program directors between August and November 2020. The study was approved by the Emory University institutional review board. All respondents consented to participate in this survey prior to completing it.

The survey included questions pertaining to demographic information, residents’ experiences working with NPCs, residency program training specific to working with NPCs, and residents’ and residency program directors’ opinions on NPCs’ impact on education and patient care. Program directors were asked to respond N/A to 6 questions on the survey because data from those questions represented residents’ opinions only. Questions relating to residents’ and residency program directors’ opinions were based on a 5-point scale of impact (1=strongly impact in a negative way; 5=strongly impact in a positive way) or importance (1=not at all important; 5=extremely important). The survey was not previously validated.

Descriptive analysis and a paired t test were conducted when appropriate. Missing data were excluded.

There were 81 respondents to the survey. Demographic information is shown Table 1. Thirty-five dermatology residency program directors (29.9% of 117 programs) responded. Of the 45 residents or recent graduates, 29 (64.4%) reported that they foresaw the need to work with or supervise NPCs in the future (Table 2). Currently, 29 (64.4%) residents also reported that (1) they do not feel adequately trained to provide supervision of or to work with NPCs or (2) were uncertain whether they could do so. Sixty-five (80.2%) respondents stated that there was no formalized training in their program for supervising or working with NPCs; 45 (55.6%) respondents noted that they do not think that their program provided adequate training in supervising NPCs.

Regarding NPCs impact on care, residency program directors who completed the survey were more likely to rank NPCs as having a more significant positive impact on patient care than residents (mean score, 3.43 vs 2.78; P=.043; 95% CI, –1.28 to –0.20)(Table 3).

This study demonstrated a lack of dermatology training related to working with NPCs in a professional setting and highlighted residents’ perception that formal education in working with and supervising NPCs could be of benefit to their education. Furthermore, residency directors perceived NPCs as having a greater positive impact on patient care than residents did, underscoring the importance of the continued need to educate residents on working synergistically with NPCs to optimize patient care. Ultimately, these results suggest a potential area for further development of residency curricula.

There are approximately 360,000 NPCs serving as integral members of interdisciplinary medical teams across the United States.^3,4 In a 2014 survey, 46% of 2001 dermatologists noted that they already employed 1 or more NPCs, a number that has increased over time and is likely to continue to do so.⁵ Although the number of NPCs in dermatology has increased, there remain limited formal training and certificate programs for these providers.^1,6

Furthermore, the American Academy of Dermatology recommends that “[w]hen practicing in a dermatological setting, non-dermatologist physicians and non-physician clinicians . . . should be directly supervised by a board-certified dermatologist.”⁷ Therefore, the responsibility for a dermatology-specific education can fall on the dermatologist, necessitating adequate supervision and training of NPCs.

The findings of this study were limited by a small sample size; response bias because distribution of the survey relied on program directors disseminating the instrument to their residents, thereby limiting generalizability; and a lack of predissemination validation of the survey. Additional research in this area should focus on survey validation and distribution directly to dermatology residents, instead of relying on dermatology program directors to disseminate the survey.

INDIANAPOLIS – Three factors that may encourage trainees to pursue a career in pediatric dermatology include early exposure to the subspecialty during medical school, mentorship by a board-certified pediatric dermatologist at the trainee’s home institution, and increased salary benefits during and after fellowship.

Those are key findings from a survey of current and prior pediatric dermatology fellows, which sought to investigate what factors influence their career decisions.

According to the study’s principal investigator, Lucia Z. Diaz, MD, pediatric dermatology suffers from workforce shortages and geographic maldistribution as a subspecialty in the United States. She also noted that, from 2016 to 2021, 100% of pediatric dermatology applicants matched, yet about 15 of every 31 positions remained unfilled during each of those years. This suggests that there may be a lack of trainee mentorship secondary to a lack of available pediatric dermatologists.

“Somewhere along the way, we lose trainees to general dermatology, or they may go through a pediatric dermatology fellowship but not actually see children upon completion of their training,” Dr. Diaz, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “We wanted to find out factors influencing this.”

For the study, Dr. Diaz, Courtney N. Haller, MD, a first-year dermatology resident at the University of Texas at Austin, and their colleagues emailed a 37-item survey to 59 current and prior pediatric dermatology fellows who trained in the United States in the past 4 years (classes of 2019-2022). Current fellows were asked to share their future plans, and past fellows were asked to share details about their current practice situation including practice type (such as academics, private practice, and a mix of adult and pediatrics), and the researchers used descriptive statistics and chi-square analyses to evaluate qualitative data.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In all, 41 survey participants gave complete responses, and 3 gave partial responses. Of these, 8 were current fellows, 36 were past fellows, and 38 were female. The researchers found that 67% of survey respondents first became interested in pediatric dermatology in medical school, while the decision to pursue a fellowship occurred then (33%) or during their third year of dermatology residency (33%). Early exposure to pediatric dermatology, from medical school through dermatology PGY-2, was significantly associated with an early decision to pursue a pediatric dermatology career (P = .004).

In addition, respondents at institutions with two or more pediatric dermatology faculty were significantly more likely to cite home institution mentorship as an influencing factor in their career decision (P = .035).

“I thought that the interest in pediatric dermatology would peak early on during dermatology residency, but it primarily happens during medical school,” said Dr. Diaz, who is also associate director of the dermatology residency program at the medical school. “Mentorship and early exposure to pediatric dermatology during medical school are really important.”

The top three factors that discouraged respondents from pursuing a pediatric dermatology fellowship included a lack of salary benefit with additional training (83%), additional time required to complete training (73%), and geographic relocation (20%). After fellowship, 51% of respondents said they plan to or currently work in academic settings, while 88% said they plan to work full time or currently were working full time.

Interestingly, fellows with additional pediatric training such as an internship or residency were not more likely to see a greater percentage of pediatric patients in practice than those without this training (P = .14). The top 3 reasons for not seeing pediatric patients 100% of the clinical time were interest in seeing adult patients (67%), financial factors (56%), and interest in performing more procedures (56%).

In other findings, the top three factors in deciding practice location were proximity to extended family (63%), practice type (59%), and income (51%).

INDIANAPOLIS – Three factors that may encourage trainees to pursue a career in pediatric dermatology include early exposure to the subspecialty during medical school, mentorship by a board-certified pediatric dermatologist at the trainee’s home institution, and increased salary benefits during and after fellowship.

Those are key findings from a survey of current and prior pediatric dermatology fellows, which sought to investigate what factors influence their career decisions.

According to the study’s principal investigator, Lucia Z. Diaz, MD, pediatric dermatology suffers from workforce shortages and geographic maldistribution as a subspecialty in the United States. She also noted that, from 2016 to 2021, 100% of pediatric dermatology applicants matched, yet about 15 of every 31 positions remained unfilled during each of those years. This suggests that there may be a lack of trainee mentorship secondary to a lack of available pediatric dermatologists.

“Somewhere along the way, we lose trainees to general dermatology, or they may go through a pediatric dermatology fellowship but not actually see children upon completion of their training,” Dr. Diaz, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “We wanted to find out factors influencing this.”

For the study, Dr. Diaz, Courtney N. Haller, MD, a first-year dermatology resident at the University of Texas at Austin, and their colleagues emailed a 37-item survey to 59 current and prior pediatric dermatology fellows who trained in the United States in the past 4 years (classes of 2019-2022). Current fellows were asked to share their future plans, and past fellows were asked to share details about their current practice situation including practice type (such as academics, private practice, and a mix of adult and pediatrics), and the researchers used descriptive statistics and chi-square analyses to evaluate qualitative data.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In all, 41 survey participants gave complete responses, and 3 gave partial responses. Of these, 8 were current fellows, 36 were past fellows, and 38 were female. The researchers found that 67% of survey respondents first became interested in pediatric dermatology in medical school, while the decision to pursue a fellowship occurred then (33%) or during their third year of dermatology residency (33%). Early exposure to pediatric dermatology, from medical school through dermatology PGY-2, was significantly associated with an early decision to pursue a pediatric dermatology career (P = .004).

In addition, respondents at institutions with two or more pediatric dermatology faculty were significantly more likely to cite home institution mentorship as an influencing factor in their career decision (P = .035).

“I thought that the interest in pediatric dermatology would peak early on during dermatology residency, but it primarily happens during medical school,” said Dr. Diaz, who is also associate director of the dermatology residency program at the medical school. “Mentorship and early exposure to pediatric dermatology during medical school are really important.”

The top three factors that discouraged respondents from pursuing a pediatric dermatology fellowship included a lack of salary benefit with additional training (83%), additional time required to complete training (73%), and geographic relocation (20%). After fellowship, 51% of respondents said they plan to or currently work in academic settings, while 88% said they plan to work full time or currently were working full time.

Interestingly, fellows with additional pediatric training such as an internship or residency were not more likely to see a greater percentage of pediatric patients in practice than those without this training (P = .14). The top 3 reasons for not seeing pediatric patients 100% of the clinical time were interest in seeing adult patients (67%), financial factors (56%), and interest in performing more procedures (56%).

In other findings, the top three factors in deciding practice location were proximity to extended family (63%), practice type (59%), and income (51%).

INDIANAPOLIS – Three factors that may encourage trainees to pursue a career in pediatric dermatology include early exposure to the subspecialty during medical school, mentorship by a board-certified pediatric dermatologist at the trainee’s home institution, and increased salary benefits during and after fellowship.

Those are key findings from a survey of current and prior pediatric dermatology fellows, which sought to investigate what factors influence their career decisions.

According to the study’s principal investigator, Lucia Z. Diaz, MD, pediatric dermatology suffers from workforce shortages and geographic maldistribution as a subspecialty in the United States. She also noted that, from 2016 to 2021, 100% of pediatric dermatology applicants matched, yet about 15 of every 31 positions remained unfilled during each of those years. This suggests that there may be a lack of trainee mentorship secondary to a lack of available pediatric dermatologists.

“Somewhere along the way, we lose trainees to general dermatology, or they may go through a pediatric dermatology fellowship but not actually see children upon completion of their training,” Dr. Diaz, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “We wanted to find out factors influencing this.”

For the study, Dr. Diaz, Courtney N. Haller, MD, a first-year dermatology resident at the University of Texas at Austin, and their colleagues emailed a 37-item survey to 59 current and prior pediatric dermatology fellows who trained in the United States in the past 4 years (classes of 2019-2022). Current fellows were asked to share their future plans, and past fellows were asked to share details about their current practice situation including practice type (such as academics, private practice, and a mix of adult and pediatrics), and the researchers used descriptive statistics and chi-square analyses to evaluate qualitative data.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In all, 41 survey participants gave complete responses, and 3 gave partial responses. Of these, 8 were current fellows, 36 were past fellows, and 38 were female. The researchers found that 67% of survey respondents first became interested in pediatric dermatology in medical school, while the decision to pursue a fellowship occurred then (33%) or during their third year of dermatology residency (33%). Early exposure to pediatric dermatology, from medical school through dermatology PGY-2, was significantly associated with an early decision to pursue a pediatric dermatology career (P = .004).

In addition, respondents at institutions with two or more pediatric dermatology faculty were significantly more likely to cite home institution mentorship as an influencing factor in their career decision (P = .035).

“I thought that the interest in pediatric dermatology would peak early on during dermatology residency, but it primarily happens during medical school,” said Dr. Diaz, who is also associate director of the dermatology residency program at the medical school. “Mentorship and early exposure to pediatric dermatology during medical school are really important.”

The top three factors that discouraged respondents from pursuing a pediatric dermatology fellowship included a lack of salary benefit with additional training (83%), additional time required to complete training (73%), and geographic relocation (20%). After fellowship, 51% of respondents said they plan to or currently work in academic settings, while 88% said they plan to work full time or currently were working full time.

Interestingly, fellows with additional pediatric training such as an internship or residency were not more likely to see a greater percentage of pediatric patients in practice than those without this training (P = .14). The top 3 reasons for not seeing pediatric patients 100% of the clinical time were interest in seeing adult patients (67%), financial factors (56%), and interest in performing more procedures (56%).

In other findings, the top three factors in deciding practice location were proximity to extended family (63%), practice type (59%), and income (51%).

Practice Gap

Dermatology residents can struggle with surgical closure early in their training years. Although experienced dermatologic surgeons may intuitively be able to align edges for maximal cosmesis, doing so can prove challenging in the context of learning basic surgical techniques for early residents.

Furthermore, local anesthesia can distort cutaneous anatomy and surgical landmarks, requiring the surgeon to reexamine their closure technique. Patients may require position changes or may make involuntary movements, both of which require dynamic thinking and planning on the part of the dermatologic surgeon to achieve optimal outcomes.

The Technique

We propose the use of sutures to intraoperatively guide placement of the dermal needle. This technique can be used for various closure types; here, we demonstrate its use in a standard elliptical excision.

To begin, a standard length to width ellipse ratio of 3:1 is drawn with appropriate margins around a neoplasm.¹ After excision and appropriate undermining of the ellipse, we typically use deep sutures to close the deep space. The first pass of the needle through tissue can be performed in a place of the surgeon’s preference but typically abides by the rule of halves or the zipper method (Figure 1A). To determine optimal placement of the second needle pass through tissue, we recommend applying gentle opposing traction forces to the wound apices to approximate the linear outcome of the wound edges. The surgeon can use a skin hook to guide placement of the needle to the contralateral wound edge in an unassisted method of this technique (Figure 1B). The surgeon’s assistant also can aid in applying cutaneous traction along the length of the excision if the surgeon wishes to free their hands (Figure 1C). Because the risk of needlestick injury at this step is small, it is prudent for the surgeon to advise the assistant to avoid needlestick injury by keeping their hands away from the needle path in the surgical site.

Although traction is being applied to the wound apices, the deep suture should extend across the wound with just enough pressure to leave a serosanguineous notched mark in the contralateral tissue edge (Figure 1D). After releasing traction on the wound edges, the surgeon can effortlessly visualize the target for needle placement and make a throw through the tissue accordingly.

This process can be continued until wound closure is complete (Figure 2). Top sutures or adhesive strips can be placed afterward for completing approximation of the wound edges superficially.

Practice Implications

By using this technique to align wound edges intraoperatively, the surgeon can have a functional guide for needle placement. The technique allows improvement of function and cosmesis of surgical wounds, while also accounting for topographical variations in the patient’s surgical site. Approximation of the wound edges is particularly important at the beginning of closure, as the wound edges align and approximate more with each subsequent stitch, with decreasing tension.²

In addition, when operating on a curvilinear or challenging topographical surface of the body, this technique can provide a clear template for guiding suture placement for approximating wound edges. Furthermore, local biodynamic anatomy might become distorted after excision of the tissue specimen due to release of centripetal tangential forces that were present in the pre-excised skin.¹ Local change in biodynamic forces may be difficult to plan for preoperatively using other techniques.³

Although this technique can be utilized for all suture placements in closure, it is of greatest value when placing the first few sutures and when operating on nonplanar surfaces that might become distorted after excision. To ensure the best outcome, it is important to be certain that the area has been properly cleaned prior to surgery and a sterile technique is used.

Practice Gap

Dermatology residents can struggle with surgical closure early in their training years. Although experienced dermatologic surgeons may intuitively be able to align edges for maximal cosmesis, doing so can prove challenging in the context of learning basic surgical techniques for early residents.

Furthermore, local anesthesia can distort cutaneous anatomy and surgical landmarks, requiring the surgeon to reexamine their closure technique. Patients may require position changes or may make involuntary movements, both of which require dynamic thinking and planning on the part of the dermatologic surgeon to achieve optimal outcomes.

The Technique

We propose the use of sutures to intraoperatively guide placement of the dermal needle. This technique can be used for various closure types; here, we demonstrate its use in a standard elliptical excision.

To begin, a standard length to width ellipse ratio of 3:1 is drawn with appropriate margins around a neoplasm.¹ After excision and appropriate undermining of the ellipse, we typically use deep sutures to close the deep space. The first pass of the needle through tissue can be performed in a place of the surgeon’s preference but typically abides by the rule of halves or the zipper method (Figure 1A). To determine optimal placement of the second needle pass through tissue, we recommend applying gentle opposing traction forces to the wound apices to approximate the linear outcome of the wound edges. The surgeon can use a skin hook to guide placement of the needle to the contralateral wound edge in an unassisted method of this technique (Figure 1B). The surgeon’s assistant also can aid in applying cutaneous traction along the length of the excision if the surgeon wishes to free their hands (Figure 1C). Because the risk of needlestick injury at this step is small, it is prudent for the surgeon to advise the assistant to avoid needlestick injury by keeping their hands away from the needle path in the surgical site.

Although traction is being applied to the wound apices, the deep suture should extend across the wound with just enough pressure to leave a serosanguineous notched mark in the contralateral tissue edge (Figure 1D). After releasing traction on the wound edges, the surgeon can effortlessly visualize the target for needle placement and make a throw through the tissue accordingly.

This process can be continued until wound closure is complete (Figure 2). Top sutures or adhesive strips can be placed afterward for completing approximation of the wound edges superficially.

Practice Implications

By using this technique to align wound edges intraoperatively, the surgeon can have a functional guide for needle placement. The technique allows improvement of function and cosmesis of surgical wounds, while also accounting for topographical variations in the patient’s surgical site. Approximation of the wound edges is particularly important at the beginning of closure, as the wound edges align and approximate more with each subsequent stitch, with decreasing tension.²

In addition, when operating on a curvilinear or challenging topographical surface of the body, this technique can provide a clear template for guiding suture placement for approximating wound edges. Furthermore, local biodynamic anatomy might become distorted after excision of the tissue specimen due to release of centripetal tangential forces that were present in the pre-excised skin.¹ Local change in biodynamic forces may be difficult to plan for preoperatively using other techniques.³

Although this technique can be utilized for all suture placements in closure, it is of greatest value when placing the first few sutures and when operating on nonplanar surfaces that might become distorted after excision. To ensure the best outcome, it is important to be certain that the area has been properly cleaned prior to surgery and a sterile technique is used.

Practice Gap

Dermatology residents can struggle with surgical closure early in their training years. Although experienced dermatologic surgeons may intuitively be able to align edges for maximal cosmesis, doing so can prove challenging in the context of learning basic surgical techniques for early residents.

Furthermore, local anesthesia can distort cutaneous anatomy and surgical landmarks, requiring the surgeon to reexamine their closure technique. Patients may require position changes or may make involuntary movements, both of which require dynamic thinking and planning on the part of the dermatologic surgeon to achieve optimal outcomes.

The Technique

We propose the use of sutures to intraoperatively guide placement of the dermal needle. This technique can be used for various closure types; here, we demonstrate its use in a standard elliptical excision.

To begin, a standard length to width ellipse ratio of 3:1 is drawn with appropriate margins around a neoplasm.¹ After excision and appropriate undermining of the ellipse, we typically use deep sutures to close the deep space. The first pass of the needle through tissue can be performed in a place of the surgeon’s preference but typically abides by the rule of halves or the zipper method (Figure 1A). To determine optimal placement of the second needle pass through tissue, we recommend applying gentle opposing traction forces to the wound apices to approximate the linear outcome of the wound edges. The surgeon can use a skin hook to guide placement of the needle to the contralateral wound edge in an unassisted method of this technique (Figure 1B). The surgeon’s assistant also can aid in applying cutaneous traction along the length of the excision if the surgeon wishes to free their hands (Figure 1C). Because the risk of needlestick injury at this step is small, it is prudent for the surgeon to advise the assistant to avoid needlestick injury by keeping their hands away from the needle path in the surgical site.

Although traction is being applied to the wound apices, the deep suture should extend across the wound with just enough pressure to leave a serosanguineous notched mark in the contralateral tissue edge (Figure 1D). After releasing traction on the wound edges, the surgeon can effortlessly visualize the target for needle placement and make a throw through the tissue accordingly.

This process can be continued until wound closure is complete (Figure 2). Top sutures or adhesive strips can be placed afterward for completing approximation of the wound edges superficially.

Practice Implications

By using this technique to align wound edges intraoperatively, the surgeon can have a functional guide for needle placement. The technique allows improvement of function and cosmesis of surgical wounds, while also accounting for topographical variations in the patient’s surgical site. Approximation of the wound edges is particularly important at the beginning of closure, as the wound edges align and approximate more with each subsequent stitch, with decreasing tension.²

In addition, when operating on a curvilinear or challenging topographical surface of the body, this technique can provide a clear template for guiding suture placement for approximating wound edges. Furthermore, local biodynamic anatomy might become distorted after excision of the tissue specimen due to release of centripetal tangential forces that were present in the pre-excised skin.¹ Local change in biodynamic forces may be difficult to plan for preoperatively using other techniques.³

Although this technique can be utilized for all suture placements in closure, it is of greatest value when placing the first few sutures and when operating on nonplanar surfaces that might become distorted after excision. To ensure the best outcome, it is important to be certain that the area has been properly cleaned prior to surgery and a sterile technique is used.

In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), stimulants reduce impulsivity and improve attention and focus. In individuals who do not have this disorder, stimulants are believed to enhance cognition, attention, and physical performance. In this article, I describe how a patient whose intermittent use of stimulants for motivation and cognitive enhancement shaped my approach to the diagnosis of ADHD.

Instant gratification and quick solutions

When I joined my psychiatry residency program, I expected to primarily treat patients who had depression, bipolar disorder, or psychosis. However, as I transitioned to my second year of residency, most patients I was assigned to had been diagnosed with ADHD. One of them was a 30-year-old in his fourth year of dental school. On his first visit, he requested a refill of dextroamphetamine and amphetamine 10 mg twice a day. He had been diagnosed with ADHD 5 years ago. He explained that he only needed this medication when preparing for his board examinations to motivate him and boost his focus and retention before studying. His study schedule included the exact doses and times he planned to take his stimulant.

I asked him questions to confirm the diagnosis, but he rushed to reassure me that he had already been diagnosed with ADHD and had been doing well on dextroamphetamine and amphetamine for many years. I was inclined to question his diagnosis of ADHD after learning of his “as-needed” use of stimulants as brain enhancers. His medical record reflecting the diagnosis of ADHD dated back to when he was a first-year dental student. The diagnosis was based on the patient’s report of procrastination for as long as he could remember. It also hinged on difficulties learning a second language and math being a challenging subject for him. Despite this, he managed to do well in school and earn an undergraduate degree, well enough to later pursue dentistry at a reputable university.

I thought, “Isn’t it normal to lose motivation and have doubts when preparing for a high-stakes exam like the boards? Aren’t these negative thoughts distracting enough to render sustained focus impossible? Doesn’t everyone struggle with procrastination, especially when they need to study? If learning a new language requires devotion, consistency, and sacrifice, isn’t it inherently challenging? Doesn’t good performance in math depend on multiple factors (ie, a strong foundation, cumulative learning, frequent practice), and thus leaves many students struggling?”

This interaction and many similar ones made me scrutinize the diagnosis of ADHD in patients I encounter in clinical settings. We live in a society where instant gratification is cherished, and quick fixes are pursued with little contemplation of pitfalls. Students use stimulants to cram for exams, high-functioning professionals use them to meet deadlines, and athletes use them to enhance performance and improve reaction times. Psychiatry seems to be drawn into the demands of society and may be fueling the “quick-fix” mentality by prescribing stimulants to healthy individuals who want to improve their focus, and then diagnosing them with ADHD to align the prescription with an appropriate diagnosis. Research on the adverse effects of stimulant use in adults is not convincing nor conclusive enough to sway prescribers from denying the average adult patient a stimulant to enhance cognitive function before a high-stakes exam or a critical, career-shaping project if they present with some ADHD traits, which the patient might even hyperbolize to secure the desired prescription. All of this may contribute to the perceived rising prevalence of ADHD among adults.

As for my 30-year-old dental student, I reasoned that continuing his medication, for now, would help me establish rapport and trust. This would allow me to counsel him on the long-term adverse effects of stimulants, and develop a plan to optimize his sleep, focus, and time management skills, eventually improving his cognition and attention naturally. Unfortunately, he did not show up to future appointments after I sent him the refill.

In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), stimulants reduce impulsivity and improve attention and focus. In individuals who do not have this disorder, stimulants are believed to enhance cognition, attention, and physical performance. In this article, I describe how a patient whose intermittent use of stimulants for motivation and cognitive enhancement shaped my approach to the diagnosis of ADHD.

Instant gratification and quick solutions

When I joined my psychiatry residency program, I expected to primarily treat patients who had depression, bipolar disorder, or psychosis. However, as I transitioned to my second year of residency, most patients I was assigned to had been diagnosed with ADHD. One of them was a 30-year-old in his fourth year of dental school. On his first visit, he requested a refill of dextroamphetamine and amphetamine 10 mg twice a day. He had been diagnosed with ADHD 5 years ago. He explained that he only needed this medication when preparing for his board examinations to motivate him and boost his focus and retention before studying. His study schedule included the exact doses and times he planned to take his stimulant.

I asked him questions to confirm the diagnosis, but he rushed to reassure me that he had already been diagnosed with ADHD and had been doing well on dextroamphetamine and amphetamine for many years. I was inclined to question his diagnosis of ADHD after learning of his “as-needed” use of stimulants as brain enhancers. His medical record reflecting the diagnosis of ADHD dated back to when he was a first-year dental student. The diagnosis was based on the patient’s report of procrastination for as long as he could remember. It also hinged on difficulties learning a second language and math being a challenging subject for him. Despite this, he managed to do well in school and earn an undergraduate degree, well enough to later pursue dentistry at a reputable university.

I thought, “Isn’t it normal to lose motivation and have doubts when preparing for a high-stakes exam like the boards? Aren’t these negative thoughts distracting enough to render sustained focus impossible? Doesn’t everyone struggle with procrastination, especially when they need to study? If learning a new language requires devotion, consistency, and sacrifice, isn’t it inherently challenging? Doesn’t good performance in math depend on multiple factors (ie, a strong foundation, cumulative learning, frequent practice), and thus leaves many students struggling?”

This interaction and many similar ones made me scrutinize the diagnosis of ADHD in patients I encounter in clinical settings. We live in a society where instant gratification is cherished, and quick fixes are pursued with little contemplation of pitfalls. Students use stimulants to cram for exams, high-functioning professionals use them to meet deadlines, and athletes use them to enhance performance and improve reaction times. Psychiatry seems to be drawn into the demands of society and may be fueling the “quick-fix” mentality by prescribing stimulants to healthy individuals who want to improve their focus, and then diagnosing them with ADHD to align the prescription with an appropriate diagnosis. Research on the adverse effects of stimulant use in adults is not convincing nor conclusive enough to sway prescribers from denying the average adult patient a stimulant to enhance cognitive function before a high-stakes exam or a critical, career-shaping project if they present with some ADHD traits, which the patient might even hyperbolize to secure the desired prescription. All of this may contribute to the perceived rising prevalence of ADHD among adults.

As for my 30-year-old dental student, I reasoned that continuing his medication, for now, would help me establish rapport and trust. This would allow me to counsel him on the long-term adverse effects of stimulants, and develop a plan to optimize his sleep, focus, and time management skills, eventually improving his cognition and attention naturally. Unfortunately, he did not show up to future appointments after I sent him the refill.

In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), stimulants reduce impulsivity and improve attention and focus. In individuals who do not have this disorder, stimulants are believed to enhance cognition, attention, and physical performance. In this article, I describe how a patient whose intermittent use of stimulants for motivation and cognitive enhancement shaped my approach to the diagnosis of ADHD.

Instant gratification and quick solutions

When I joined my psychiatry residency program, I expected to primarily treat patients who had depression, bipolar disorder, or psychosis. However, as I transitioned to my second year of residency, most patients I was assigned to had been diagnosed with ADHD. One of them was a 30-year-old in his fourth year of dental school. On his first visit, he requested a refill of dextroamphetamine and amphetamine 10 mg twice a day. He had been diagnosed with ADHD 5 years ago. He explained that he only needed this medication when preparing for his board examinations to motivate him and boost his focus and retention before studying. His study schedule included the exact doses and times he planned to take his stimulant.

I asked him questions to confirm the diagnosis, but he rushed to reassure me that he had already been diagnosed with ADHD and had been doing well on dextroamphetamine and amphetamine for many years. I was inclined to question his diagnosis of ADHD after learning of his “as-needed” use of stimulants as brain enhancers. His medical record reflecting the diagnosis of ADHD dated back to when he was a first-year dental student. The diagnosis was based on the patient’s report of procrastination for as long as he could remember. It also hinged on difficulties learning a second language and math being a challenging subject for him. Despite this, he managed to do well in school and earn an undergraduate degree, well enough to later pursue dentistry at a reputable university.

I thought, “Isn’t it normal to lose motivation and have doubts when preparing for a high-stakes exam like the boards? Aren’t these negative thoughts distracting enough to render sustained focus impossible? Doesn’t everyone struggle with procrastination, especially when they need to study? If learning a new language requires devotion, consistency, and sacrifice, isn’t it inherently challenging? Doesn’t good performance in math depend on multiple factors (ie, a strong foundation, cumulative learning, frequent practice), and thus leaves many students struggling?”

This interaction and many similar ones made me scrutinize the diagnosis of ADHD in patients I encounter in clinical settings. We live in a society where instant gratification is cherished, and quick fixes are pursued with little contemplation of pitfalls. Students use stimulants to cram for exams, high-functioning professionals use them to meet deadlines, and athletes use them to enhance performance and improve reaction times. Psychiatry seems to be drawn into the demands of society and may be fueling the “quick-fix” mentality by prescribing stimulants to healthy individuals who want to improve their focus, and then diagnosing them with ADHD to align the prescription with an appropriate diagnosis. Research on the adverse effects of stimulant use in adults is not convincing nor conclusive enough to sway prescribers from denying the average adult patient a stimulant to enhance cognitive function before a high-stakes exam or a critical, career-shaping project if they present with some ADHD traits, which the patient might even hyperbolize to secure the desired prescription. All of this may contribute to the perceived rising prevalence of ADHD among adults.

As for my 30-year-old dental student, I reasoned that continuing his medication, for now, would help me establish rapport and trust. This would allow me to counsel him on the long-term adverse effects of stimulants, and develop a plan to optimize his sleep, focus, and time management skills, eventually improving his cognition and attention naturally. Unfortunately, he did not show up to future appointments after I sent him the refill.

The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020, just 4 months before the start of a new residency cycle. Referred to as “COVID interns,” PGY-1 residents transitioning out of medical school in 2020 faced an unprecedented challenge of doctoring within a confused and ill-prepared health care system, while senior residents scrambled to adjust to their rapidly changing training programs. Each subsequent week brought more sobering news of increasing hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths; hospitals across the country resorted to the redeployment of residents across all specialties to buffer the growing need within their internal medicine and critical care units.¹ And while the news and social media blurred into a collage of ventilator shortages, politicization of science, and “#healthcareheroes,” one study showed53.7% of medical interns (N=108) were struggling with mild to extremely severe depression, while 63.9% reported mild to severe anxiety.²

Many shortcomings of our health care system—ill preparedness, racial disparity, health illiteracy—were highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and providers’ mental health was no exception.³ Classic psychosocial risk factors, such as high demands, lack of control, lack of institutional support, and absence of reward defined the workplace, leading Theorell⁴ to call it “a randomized trial for maximal worsening of the work environment.” Stress and burnout during residency are not novel concepts. A 2002 survey including 415 medical residency programs with a response from more than 4000 residents found depressive symptoms in 35% of respondents, paired with feelings of increased cynicism and decreased humanism despite major curricular reforms and duty hour limitations.⁵ Unfortunately, the statistics in the coming years hardly budged and, in the wake of the pandemic, culminated to more than 50% to 76% of physicians worldwide reporting burnout in 2020.^6-8

As a COVID intern at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts), I also experienced the demanding workload and witnessed the struggle of my colleagues firsthand. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, similar to many of its peer institutions, implemented frequent mental health check-ins within its curriculum. Known as the Intern Humanistic Curriculum, these check-ins essentially were an echo chamber to unload the psychological burdens of our workdays, and we eagerly shared what made us angry, sad, hopeful, and hopeless. During one such session, I learned about moral injury, a term originating in the military defined as the psychological stress resulting from actions—or the lack of actions—that violates one’s moral or ethical code.⁹ With the onslaught of patient deaths for which most of us felt unprepared, we had all endured varying degrees of moral injury. Greenberg et al⁹ described 2 potential outcomes after moral injury: (1) the development of mental health disorders such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, or (2) posttraumatic growth, which is the bolstering of psychological resilience. Notably, the outcome is based on the way someone is supported before, during, and after the challenging incident.⁹

With the aim of psychological growth and developing resilience, residents should prioritize mental health throughout their training. To this end, several resources are readily available, many of which I actively use or frequently revisit, which are reviewed here.

Mindfulness Meditation App

Calm (https://www.calm.com/) is one of several popular mobile applications (apps) that delivers mindfulness mediation—the practice of attending to experiences, thoughts, and emotions without bias or judgment. With more than 100 million downloads, Calm includes meditation tutorials, breathing exercises, nature scenes and sounds, and audio programs taught by mindfulness experts for $69.99 a year or $14.99 a month. Systemic reviews have demonstrated reduced sleep disturbance, decreased ruminative thoughts and emotional reactivity, and increased awareness and acceptance in those practicing mindfulness meditation. Calm users have reported these benefits, with many able to forego the time- and cost-intensive cognitive behavioral therapy that requires highly trained therapists.^10-12

Exercise to Relieve Stress

Both aerobic and anaerobic exercises are antidepressive and anxiolytic and also lower one’s overall sensitivity to stress. Whether it is governed by neurotransmitters such as the activation of the opioid systems or the release of endogenous endorphins or time spent focusing on a different task at hand, the benefits of exercise against mental stressors have been extensively studied and established.¹³ Consider obtaining a new gym membership at the start of residency or joining an intramural team. Both have the added benefit of expanding your social circle.

Socialize With Others

Social isolation and perceived loneliness are key stressors linked to neuroendocrine disturbances that underlie depression, anxiety, and even schizophrenia.^14,15 Throughout residency there will be several social events and opportunities to gather with colleagues—inside or outside of the work environment—and residents should attend as time allows. Even virtual social interactions were found to reduce stress and help in the treatment of social anxiety disorder.¹⁴

Open up to your co-residents, friends, and family about any struggles that may be invisible on the outside. Even attendings can empathize with the struggles of residency, and the mentors in place are actively trained to prioritize resident wellness. If verbal communication is not your strength, try journaling. Writing helps to untangle and better define underlying stressors and is itself meditative.^16,17 However, ensure that your journaling is focused on positive emotional responses and aims to determine the positive benefits within any stressful event; those solely expressing negative emotions were found to have higher levels of stress and anxiety afterward than they had before.¹⁷

Seek a Mental Health Specialist

As with all other human ailments, severe mental health disorders require specialists and proper medication. Unfortunately, substantial stigma accompanying mental health continues to permeate medicine, creating considerable barriers for residents in need of care.¹⁸ A 2016 survey of more than 2000 physicians found that those with mental illnesses did not seek treatment due to limited time, fear of being reported to a medical licensing board, concern over obtaining licensure, and shame or embarrassment at the diagnosis.¹⁹ Besides urging residents to seek care, more effort should be invested in addressing the stigma and ensuring confidentiality. In 2021, the internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics residency at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (Aurora, Colorado) developed a confidential opt-out, rather than opt-in, mental health program, and appointments were made for all 80 interns in advance. In doing so, they found increased participation and self-reported wellness at a relatively low cost and simple implementation.²⁰ For trainees without such access, online or mobile therapy platforms offering electronic mental health treatment or telepsychiatry also have been employed.^21,22 The onus ultimately is still on the individual to seek the care they need. Although only an anecdotal piece of evidence, I have found the prevalence of physicians taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as escitalopram, sertraline, or fluoxetine to be strikingly common and quite beneficial.

Final Thoughts

Residency remains rife with financial, emotional, and physical stressors; even as the dust settles on the COVID-19 pandemic, the light shed on the importance of trainee mental health must remain illuminated. For the aforementioned resources to have an impact, residents need to be empowered to openly discuss mental health issues and to seek help if necessary. Finally, in 2018, the Journal of Graduate Medical Education published a 10-year prospective cohort study that found that emotional distress during residency persists in professional practice even 10 years after residency and is associated with future burnout.²³ Trainees should consider prioritizing their mental health to not only improve their quality of life in the present but also as an investment for their future.

The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020, just 4 months before the start of a new residency cycle. Referred to as “COVID interns,” PGY-1 residents transitioning out of medical school in 2020 faced an unprecedented challenge of doctoring within a confused and ill-prepared health care system, while senior residents scrambled to adjust to their rapidly changing training programs. Each subsequent week brought more sobering news of increasing hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths; hospitals across the country resorted to the redeployment of residents across all specialties to buffer the growing need within their internal medicine and critical care units.¹ And while the news and social media blurred into a collage of ventilator shortages, politicization of science, and “#healthcareheroes,” one study showed53.7% of medical interns (N=108) were struggling with mild to extremely severe depression, while 63.9% reported mild to severe anxiety.²

Many shortcomings of our health care system—ill preparedness, racial disparity, health illiteracy—were highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and providers’ mental health was no exception.³ Classic psychosocial risk factors, such as high demands, lack of control, lack of institutional support, and absence of reward defined the workplace, leading Theorell⁴ to call it “a randomized trial for maximal worsening of the work environment.” Stress and burnout during residency are not novel concepts. A 2002 survey including 415 medical residency programs with a response from more than 4000 residents found depressive symptoms in 35% of respondents, paired with feelings of increased cynicism and decreased humanism despite major curricular reforms and duty hour limitations.⁵ Unfortunately, the statistics in the coming years hardly budged and, in the wake of the pandemic, culminated to more than 50% to 76% of physicians worldwide reporting burnout in 2020.^6-8

As a COVID intern at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts), I also experienced the demanding workload and witnessed the struggle of my colleagues firsthand. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, similar to many of its peer institutions, implemented frequent mental health check-ins within its curriculum. Known as the Intern Humanistic Curriculum, these check-ins essentially were an echo chamber to unload the psychological burdens of our workdays, and we eagerly shared what made us angry, sad, hopeful, and hopeless. During one such session, I learned about moral injury, a term originating in the military defined as the psychological stress resulting from actions—or the lack of actions—that violates one’s moral or ethical code.⁹ With the onslaught of patient deaths for which most of us felt unprepared, we had all endured varying degrees of moral injury. Greenberg et al⁹ described 2 potential outcomes after moral injury: (1) the development of mental health disorders such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, or (2) posttraumatic growth, which is the bolstering of psychological resilience. Notably, the outcome is based on the way someone is supported before, during, and after the challenging incident.⁹

With the aim of psychological growth and developing resilience, residents should prioritize mental health throughout their training. To this end, several resources are readily available, many of which I actively use or frequently revisit, which are reviewed here.

Mindfulness Meditation App

Calm (https://www.calm.com/) is one of several popular mobile applications (apps) that delivers mindfulness mediation—the practice of attending to experiences, thoughts, and emotions without bias or judgment. With more than 100 million downloads, Calm includes meditation tutorials, breathing exercises, nature scenes and sounds, and audio programs taught by mindfulness experts for $69.99 a year or $14.99 a month. Systemic reviews have demonstrated reduced sleep disturbance, decreased ruminative thoughts and emotional reactivity, and increased awareness and acceptance in those practicing mindfulness meditation. Calm users have reported these benefits, with many able to forego the time- and cost-intensive cognitive behavioral therapy that requires highly trained therapists.^10-12

Exercise to Relieve Stress

Both aerobic and anaerobic exercises are antidepressive and anxiolytic and also lower one’s overall sensitivity to stress. Whether it is governed by neurotransmitters such as the activation of the opioid systems or the release of endogenous endorphins or time spent focusing on a different task at hand, the benefits of exercise against mental stressors have been extensively studied and established.¹³ Consider obtaining a new gym membership at the start of residency or joining an intramural team. Both have the added benefit of expanding your social circle.

Socialize With Others

Social isolation and perceived loneliness are key stressors linked to neuroendocrine disturbances that underlie depression, anxiety, and even schizophrenia.^14,15 Throughout residency there will be several social events and opportunities to gather with colleagues—inside or outside of the work environment—and residents should attend as time allows. Even virtual social interactions were found to reduce stress and help in the treatment of social anxiety disorder.¹⁴

Open up to your co-residents, friends, and family about any struggles that may be invisible on the outside. Even attendings can empathize with the struggles of residency, and the mentors in place are actively trained to prioritize resident wellness. If verbal communication is not your strength, try journaling. Writing helps to untangle and better define underlying stressors and is itself meditative.^16,17 However, ensure that your journaling is focused on positive emotional responses and aims to determine the positive benefits within any stressful event; those solely expressing negative emotions were found to have higher levels of stress and anxiety afterward than they had before.¹⁷

Seek a Mental Health Specialist

As with all other human ailments, severe mental health disorders require specialists and proper medication. Unfortunately, substantial stigma accompanying mental health continues to permeate medicine, creating considerable barriers for residents in need of care.¹⁸ A 2016 survey of more than 2000 physicians found that those with mental illnesses did not seek treatment due to limited time, fear of being reported to a medical licensing board, concern over obtaining licensure, and shame or embarrassment at the diagnosis.¹⁹ Besides urging residents to seek care, more effort should be invested in addressing the stigma and ensuring confidentiality. In 2021, the internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics residency at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (Aurora, Colorado) developed a confidential opt-out, rather than opt-in, mental health program, and appointments were made for all 80 interns in advance. In doing so, they found increased participation and self-reported wellness at a relatively low cost and simple implementation.²⁰ For trainees without such access, online or mobile therapy platforms offering electronic mental health treatment or telepsychiatry also have been employed.^21,22 The onus ultimately is still on the individual to seek the care they need. Although only an anecdotal piece of evidence, I have found the prevalence of physicians taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as escitalopram, sertraline, or fluoxetine to be strikingly common and quite beneficial.

Final Thoughts

Residency remains rife with financial, emotional, and physical stressors; even as the dust settles on the COVID-19 pandemic, the light shed on the importance of trainee mental health must remain illuminated. For the aforementioned resources to have an impact, residents need to be empowered to openly discuss mental health issues and to seek help if necessary. Finally, in 2018, the Journal of Graduate Medical Education published a 10-year prospective cohort study that found that emotional distress during residency persists in professional practice even 10 years after residency and is associated with future burnout.²³ Trainees should consider prioritizing their mental health to not only improve their quality of life in the present but also as an investment for their future.

The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020, just 4 months before the start of a new residency cycle. Referred to as “COVID interns,” PGY-1 residents transitioning out of medical school in 2020 faced an unprecedented challenge of doctoring within a confused and ill-prepared health care system, while senior residents scrambled to adjust to their rapidly changing training programs. Each subsequent week brought more sobering news of increasing hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths; hospitals across the country resorted to the redeployment of residents across all specialties to buffer the growing need within their internal medicine and critical care units.¹ And while the news and social media blurred into a collage of ventilator shortages, politicization of science, and “#healthcareheroes,” one study showed53.7% of medical interns (N=108) were struggling with mild to extremely severe depression, while 63.9% reported mild to severe anxiety.²

Many shortcomings of our health care system—ill preparedness, racial disparity, health illiteracy—were highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and providers’ mental health was no exception.³ Classic psychosocial risk factors, such as high demands, lack of control, lack of institutional support, and absence of reward defined the workplace, leading Theorell⁴ to call it “a randomized trial for maximal worsening of the work environment.” Stress and burnout during residency are not novel concepts. A 2002 survey including 415 medical residency programs with a response from more than 4000 residents found depressive symptoms in 35% of respondents, paired with feelings of increased cynicism and decreased humanism despite major curricular reforms and duty hour limitations.⁵ Unfortunately, the statistics in the coming years hardly budged and, in the wake of the pandemic, culminated to more than 50% to 76% of physicians worldwide reporting burnout in 2020.^6-8

As a COVID intern at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts), I also experienced the demanding workload and witnessed the struggle of my colleagues firsthand. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, similar to many of its peer institutions, implemented frequent mental health check-ins within its curriculum. Known as the Intern Humanistic Curriculum, these check-ins essentially were an echo chamber to unload the psychological burdens of our workdays, and we eagerly shared what made us angry, sad, hopeful, and hopeless. During one such session, I learned about moral injury, a term originating in the military defined as the psychological stress resulting from actions—or the lack of actions—that violates one’s moral or ethical code.⁹ With the onslaught of patient deaths for which most of us felt unprepared, we had all endured varying degrees of moral injury. Greenberg et al⁹ described 2 potential outcomes after moral injury: (1) the development of mental health disorders such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, or (2) posttraumatic growth, which is the bolstering of psychological resilience. Notably, the outcome is based on the way someone is supported before, during, and after the challenging incident.⁹

With the aim of psychological growth and developing resilience, residents should prioritize mental health throughout their training. To this end, several resources are readily available, many of which I actively use or frequently revisit, which are reviewed here.

Mindfulness Meditation App

Calm (https://www.calm.com/) is one of several popular mobile applications (apps) that delivers mindfulness mediation—the practice of attending to experiences, thoughts, and emotions without bias or judgment. With more than 100 million downloads, Calm includes meditation tutorials, breathing exercises, nature scenes and sounds, and audio programs taught by mindfulness experts for $69.99 a year or $14.99 a month. Systemic reviews have demonstrated reduced sleep disturbance, decreased ruminative thoughts and emotional reactivity, and increased awareness and acceptance in those practicing mindfulness meditation. Calm users have reported these benefits, with many able to forego the time- and cost-intensive cognitive behavioral therapy that requires highly trained therapists.^10-12

Exercise to Relieve Stress

Both aerobic and anaerobic exercises are antidepressive and anxiolytic and also lower one’s overall sensitivity to stress. Whether it is governed by neurotransmitters such as the activation of the opioid systems or the release of endogenous endorphins or time spent focusing on a different task at hand, the benefits of exercise against mental stressors have been extensively studied and established.¹³ Consider obtaining a new gym membership at the start of residency or joining an intramural team. Both have the added benefit of expanding your social circle.

Socialize With Others

Social isolation and perceived loneliness are key stressors linked to neuroendocrine disturbances that underlie depression, anxiety, and even schizophrenia.^14,15 Throughout residency there will be several social events and opportunities to gather with colleagues—inside or outside of the work environment—and residents should attend as time allows. Even virtual social interactions were found to reduce stress and help in the treatment of social anxiety disorder.¹⁴

Open up to your co-residents, friends, and family about any struggles that may be invisible on the outside. Even attendings can empathize with the struggles of residency, and the mentors in place are actively trained to prioritize resident wellness. If verbal communication is not your strength, try journaling. Writing helps to untangle and better define underlying stressors and is itself meditative.^16,17 However, ensure that your journaling is focused on positive emotional responses and aims to determine the positive benefits within any stressful event; those solely expressing negative emotions were found to have higher levels of stress and anxiety afterward than they had before.¹⁷

Seek a Mental Health Specialist

As with all other human ailments, severe mental health disorders require specialists and proper medication. Unfortunately, substantial stigma accompanying mental health continues to permeate medicine, creating considerable barriers for residents in need of care.¹⁸ A 2016 survey of more than 2000 physicians found that those with mental illnesses did not seek treatment due to limited time, fear of being reported to a medical licensing board, concern over obtaining licensure, and shame or embarrassment at the diagnosis.¹⁹ Besides urging residents to seek care, more effort should be invested in addressing the stigma and ensuring confidentiality. In 2021, the internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics residency at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (Aurora, Colorado) developed a confidential opt-out, rather than opt-in, mental health program, and appointments were made for all 80 interns in advance. In doing so, they found increased participation and self-reported wellness at a relatively low cost and simple implementation.²⁰ For trainees without such access, online or mobile therapy platforms offering electronic mental health treatment or telepsychiatry also have been employed.^21,22 The onus ultimately is still on the individual to seek the care they need. Although only an anecdotal piece of evidence, I have found the prevalence of physicians taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as escitalopram, sertraline, or fluoxetine to be strikingly common and quite beneficial.

Final Thoughts

Residency remains rife with financial, emotional, and physical stressors; even as the dust settles on the COVID-19 pandemic, the light shed on the importance of trainee mental health must remain illuminated. For the aforementioned resources to have an impact, residents need to be empowered to openly discuss mental health issues and to seek help if necessary. Finally, in 2018, the Journal of Graduate Medical Education published a 10-year prospective cohort study that found that emotional distress during residency persists in professional practice even 10 years after residency and is associated with future burnout.²³ Trainees should consider prioritizing their mental health to not only improve their quality of life in the present but also as an investment for their future.

In the 2021-2022 residency application cycle, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) piloted a supplemental application to accompany the standard residency application submitted via the AAMC’s Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS).¹ Dermatology was 1 of 3 specialties to participate in the pilot alongside internal medicine and general surgery. The goal was to develop a tool that could align applicants with programs that best matched their career goals as well as program and geographic preferences. The Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section was an early advocate for the supplemental application, and members of our leadership were involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the pilot supplemental application.

Participating in the supplemental application was optional for both applicants and programs. The supplemental application included a Past Experiences section, which allowed applicants to highlight their 5 most meaningful research, work, and/or volunteer experiences and to describe a challenging life event that might not otherwise be included with their application. The geographic preferences section permitted applicants to select up to 3 regions of interest as well as to indicate an urban vs rural preference. Lastly, a preference-signaling section allowed dermatology applicants to send signals to up to 3 programs of particular interest.

With the close of another application cycle, applicants and programs will begin preparing for the 2022-2023 recruitment season. In this column, we present dermatology-specific data regarding the supplemental application, highlight tentative changes for the upcoming application cycle, and offer tips for applicants and programs as we approach year 2 of the supplemental application.

Results of Supplemental Application Evaluation Surveys

During the 2021-2022 recruitment season, 93% (950/1019) of dermatology applicants submitted the supplemental application, and 87% (117/135) of dermatology residency programs participated in the pilot.² Surveys conducted by the AAMC between October 2021 and January 2022 showed that a large majority of dermatology programs used supplemental application data during initial application review when deciding who to interview. Eighty-three percent (40/48) of program directors felt that preference signals in particular helped them identify applicants they would have otherwise overlooked. Fifty-seven percent (4288/7516) of applicants across all specialties that participated in the pilot felt that preference signals would help them be noticed by their preferred programs.² Preference signals were not evenly distributed among dermatology programs. Programs received an average of 23 signals, with a range of 2 to 87 (AAMC, unpublished data, February 2022).

Additional questions remain to be answered: How does the number of signals received affect application review? How often do geographic and program signals convert to interview offers and matches? Regardless, enthusiasm among dermatology programs for the supplemental application remains. In a recent survey of Association of Professors of Dermatology program directors, all 43 respondents planned to participate in the supplemental application again in the upcoming year (Ilana Rosman, MD; unpublished data; February 2022). The pilot will be expanded to include at least 12 other specialties.¹As many who reviewed residency applications in 2021-2022 will attest, there was difficulty accessing the supplemental application data because it was not integrated into the Program Directors’ Work Station, the ERAS platform for programs to access applications, which will be remedied for the 2022-2023 iteration. Other tentative changes include modifications to the past experiences sections and timeline of the application.²

Utilizing the Supplemental Application: Recommendations to Applicants

Format of the Application—Applicants should familiarize themselves with the format of the supplemental application in advance and give themselves sufficient time to complete the application. In general, 3 to 4 hours of focused work should be enough time. Applicants should proofread for grammar and spelling before submitting.

Past Experiences—The past experiences section is intended to provide a focused snapshot of an applicant’s most meaningful activities and unique path to residency. Applicants should answer honestly based on their interests. If a student’s focus has been on volunteerism, the bulk of their 5 experiences listed may be related to service. Similarly, a student who has focused on research may preferentially highlight those experiences. In place of the long list of research, volunteer, and work experiences in the traditional ERAS application, applicants can highlight those activities in which they have been most invested. Applicants are encouraged to reflect on all genres of activities at any stage of their careers, even those not medical in nature, including work experience, military service, college athletics, or sustained musical or artistic achievement. Applicants should explain why each experience is meaningful rather than simply describing the activity.

Applicants also have the option to share a notable challenge they have overcome. It is not expected that each applicant will complete this question; in general, applicants who have not faced notable personal or professional obstacles should avoid answering. Additionally, if these challenges have been discussed in other areas of the application—for example, in the personal statement or medical student performance evaluation—it is not necessary to restate them here, though applicants can choose to do so. Examples of topics a student might discuss include being a first-generation college or medical student, growing up in poverty, facing notable personal or family health challenges, or having limited educational opportunities. It is important to share how this experience impacted an applicant’s journey to dermatology residency.

Geographic Preferences—The geographic preferences section can be difficult for applicants to navigate, as it may involve balancing a desire to attend a residency program in a particular region vs a greater desire to simply match in dermatology. In the past, programs may have made assumptions about geographic preferences based on an applicant’s birthplace, hometown, or medical school. In the supplemental application, applicants have the opportunity to directly reveal their preferences. We encourage applicants to be candid. Selecting a geographic region will not necessarily exclude applicants from consideration at other programs. For some applicants, program qualities may be more important than geography, or there may be no regional preferences. Those applicants can choose “no geographic preference.” There is considerable variability in how programs use geographic preferences. For this reason, it is in the best interest of applicants to simply respond honestly.

Preference Signaling—Preference signaling allows applicants to signal up to 3 preferred programs. Dermatology program directors agree that applicants should not signal their home program or programs at which they did in-person away rotations, as those programs would already be aware of the applicant’s interest. Although a signal increases the chances that the application will be reviewed holistically, it does not guarantee an interview offer. Programs may differentially utilize signals depending on multiple factors, including the number of signals received. We encourage applicants to discuss preference signaling strategies with advisors and focus on signaling programs in which they have genuine interest.

Recommendations to Selection Committees and Program Directors

The intent of the supplemental application is to provide a more meaningful picture of applicants and their experiences and preferences, with the goal of optimizing applicant-program fit. Programs should explicitly define for themselves the applicant characteristics and experiences they prioritize as well as their program goals. The supplemental application offers the potential to streamline holistic application review based on these elements. The short essay answers in the past experiences section permit reviewers to quickly scan for important experiences that align with the program’s recruitment goals. Importantly, reviewers should not penalize applicants who have not completed the question regarding other impactful life experiences, as not all applicants will have relevant information to share.

Some programs may find the geographic preferences section more valuable than others. Multiple factors affect how much weight will be given to geographic preferences, including program location and other characteristics that affect the desirability of the program to applicants. The competitiveness of the field, relatively low match rate, and limited number of programs may lead to less emphasis on geographic preferences in dermatology compared to other specialties. The purpose of this section is not to exclude applicants but to give programs more information that may help with alignment.

Anecdotally, many dermatology program directors were most interested in the preference signaling section of the supplemental application. Programs should consider signals to be evidence of strong preliminary interest. Programs may utilize signals differently depending on many factors such as the overall competitiveness of the program, program location, and the total number of signals the program receives. We recommend that programs holistically review all applications accompanied by a signal. Programs that utilize a points system may choose to award a certain number of points for a signal to their program. A signal might have a higher value at a program that receives only a few signals; conversely, a program that receives a large number of signals might not place tremendous value on the signal but may use it as a tiebreaker between similarly qualified applicants. Preference signaling is solely a tool for application review; because applicants’ preferences may change after the interview process, signals should not be utilized during ranking.

Next Steps

For program directors who have excitedly awaited residency application reform, the supplemental ERAS application is an important first step. Ultimately, we hope the supplemental application supplants much of the current residency application, serving as an efficient high-yield tool for holistically evaluating applicants’ academic and service records, accomplishments, and training preferences. Arriving at a new application will undoubtedly take time and discussion among the various stakeholders. Please continue to complete surveys from the AAMC, as feedback is the best method for refining the tool to serve its intended purpose.

Optimization of the application content is only one component of the reforms needed to improve the application process. Even with a revamped application tool, holistic review is challenging when programs are inundated with an ever-increasing number of applications. As such, we encourage stakeholders to simultaneously consider other potential reforms, such as caps on the number of applications, to allow programs and applicants the best opportunity for a mutually successful match.

In the 2021-2022 residency application cycle, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) piloted a supplemental application to accompany the standard residency application submitted via the AAMC’s Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS).¹ Dermatology was 1 of 3 specialties to participate in the pilot alongside internal medicine and general surgery. The goal was to develop a tool that could align applicants with programs that best matched their career goals as well as program and geographic preferences. The Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section was an early advocate for the supplemental application, and members of our leadership were involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the pilot supplemental application.

Participating in the supplemental application was optional for both applicants and programs. The supplemental application included a Past Experiences section, which allowed applicants to highlight their 5 most meaningful research, work, and/or volunteer experiences and to describe a challenging life event that might not otherwise be included with their application. The geographic preferences section permitted applicants to select up to 3 regions of interest as well as to indicate an urban vs rural preference. Lastly, a preference-signaling section allowed dermatology applicants to send signals to up to 3 programs of particular interest.

With the close of another application cycle, applicants and programs will begin preparing for the 2022-2023 recruitment season. In this column, we present dermatology-specific data regarding the supplemental application, highlight tentative changes for the upcoming application cycle, and offer tips for applicants and programs as we approach year 2 of the supplemental application.

Results of Supplemental Application Evaluation Surveys

During the 2021-2022 recruitment season, 93% (950/1019) of dermatology applicants submitted the supplemental application, and 87% (117/135) of dermatology residency programs participated in the pilot.² Surveys conducted by the AAMC between October 2021 and January 2022 showed that a large majority of dermatology programs used supplemental application data during initial application review when deciding who to interview. Eighty-three percent (40/48) of program directors felt that preference signals in particular helped them identify applicants they would have otherwise overlooked. Fifty-seven percent (4288/7516) of applicants across all specialties that participated in the pilot felt that preference signals would help them be noticed by their preferred programs.² Preference signals were not evenly distributed among dermatology programs. Programs received an average of 23 signals, with a range of 2 to 87 (AAMC, unpublished data, February 2022).

Additional questions remain to be answered: How does the number of signals received affect application review? How often do geographic and program signals convert to interview offers and matches? Regardless, enthusiasm among dermatology programs for the supplemental application remains. In a recent survey of Association of Professors of Dermatology program directors, all 43 respondents planned to participate in the supplemental application again in the upcoming year (Ilana Rosman, MD; unpublished data; February 2022). The pilot will be expanded to include at least 12 other specialties.¹As many who reviewed residency applications in 2021-2022 will attest, there was difficulty accessing the supplemental application data because it was not integrated into the Program Directors’ Work Station, the ERAS platform for programs to access applications, which will be remedied for the 2022-2023 iteration. Other tentative changes include modifications to the past experiences sections and timeline of the application.²

Utilizing the Supplemental Application: Recommendations to Applicants

Format of the Application—Applicants should familiarize themselves with the format of the supplemental application in advance and give themselves sufficient time to complete the application. In general, 3 to 4 hours of focused work should be enough time. Applicants should proofread for grammar and spelling before submitting.

Past Experiences—The past experiences section is intended to provide a focused snapshot of an applicant’s most meaningful activities and unique path to residency. Applicants should answer honestly based on their interests. If a student’s focus has been on volunteerism, the bulk of their 5 experiences listed may be related to service. Similarly, a student who has focused on research may preferentially highlight those experiences. In place of the long list of research, volunteer, and work experiences in the traditional ERAS application, applicants can highlight those activities in which they have been most invested. Applicants are encouraged to reflect on all genres of activities at any stage of their careers, even those not medical in nature, including work experience, military service, college athletics, or sustained musical or artistic achievement. Applicants should explain why each experience is meaningful rather than simply describing the activity.

Applicants also have the option to share a notable challenge they have overcome. It is not expected that each applicant will complete this question; in general, applicants who have not faced notable personal or professional obstacles should avoid answering. Additionally, if these challenges have been discussed in other areas of the application—for example, in the personal statement or medical student performance evaluation—it is not necessary to restate them here, though applicants can choose to do so. Examples of topics a student might discuss include being a first-generation college or medical student, growing up in poverty, facing notable personal or family health challenges, or having limited educational opportunities. It is important to share how this experience impacted an applicant’s journey to dermatology residency.

Geographic Preferences—The geographic preferences section can be difficult for applicants to navigate, as it may involve balancing a desire to attend a residency program in a particular region vs a greater desire to simply match in dermatology. In the past, programs may have made assumptions about geographic preferences based on an applicant’s birthplace, hometown, or medical school. In the supplemental application, applicants have the opportunity to directly reveal their preferences. We encourage applicants to be candid. Selecting a geographic region will not necessarily exclude applicants from consideration at other programs. For some applicants, program qualities may be more important than geography, or there may be no regional preferences. Those applicants can choose “no geographic preference.” There is considerable variability in how programs use geographic preferences. For this reason, it is in the best interest of applicants to simply respond honestly.

Preference Signaling—Preference signaling allows applicants to signal up to 3 preferred programs. Dermatology program directors agree that applicants should not signal their home program or programs at which they did in-person away rotations, as those programs would already be aware of the applicant’s interest. Although a signal increases the chances that the application will be reviewed holistically, it does not guarantee an interview offer. Programs may differentially utilize signals depending on multiple factors, including the number of signals received. We encourage applicants to discuss preference signaling strategies with advisors and focus on signaling programs in which they have genuine interest.

Recommendations to Selection Committees and Program Directors

The intent of the supplemental application is to provide a more meaningful picture of applicants and their experiences and preferences, with the goal of optimizing applicant-program fit. Programs should explicitly define for themselves the applicant characteristics and experiences they prioritize as well as their program goals. The supplemental application offers the potential to streamline holistic application review based on these elements. The short essay answers in the past experiences section permit reviewers to quickly scan for important experiences that align with the program’s recruitment goals. Importantly, reviewers should not penalize applicants who have not completed the question regarding other impactful life experiences, as not all applicants will have relevant information to share.

Some programs may find the geographic preferences section more valuable than others. Multiple factors affect how much weight will be given to geographic preferences, including program location and other characteristics that affect the desirability of the program to applicants. The competitiveness of the field, relatively low match rate, and limited number of programs may lead to less emphasis on geographic preferences in dermatology compared to other specialties. The purpose of this section is not to exclude applicants but to give programs more information that may help with alignment.

Anecdotally, many dermatology program directors were most interested in the preference signaling section of the supplemental application. Programs should consider signals to be evidence of strong preliminary interest. Programs may utilize signals differently depending on many factors such as the overall competitiveness of the program, program location, and the total number of signals the program receives. We recommend that programs holistically review all applications accompanied by a signal. Programs that utilize a points system may choose to award a certain number of points for a signal to their program. A signal might have a higher value at a program that receives only a few signals; conversely, a program that receives a large number of signals might not place tremendous value on the signal but may use it as a tiebreaker between similarly qualified applicants. Preference signaling is solely a tool for application review; because applicants’ preferences may change after the interview process, signals should not be utilized during ranking.

Next Steps

For program directors who have excitedly awaited residency application reform, the supplemental ERAS application is an important first step. Ultimately, we hope the supplemental application supplants much of the current residency application, serving as an efficient high-yield tool for holistically evaluating applicants’ academic and service records, accomplishments, and training preferences. Arriving at a new application will undoubtedly take time and discussion among the various stakeholders. Please continue to complete surveys from the AAMC, as feedback is the best method for refining the tool to serve its intended purpose.

Optimization of the application content is only one component of the reforms needed to improve the application process. Even with a revamped application tool, holistic review is challenging when programs are inundated with an ever-increasing number of applications. As such, we encourage stakeholders to simultaneously consider other potential reforms, such as caps on the number of applications, to allow programs and applicants the best opportunity for a mutually successful match.

In the 2021-2022 residency application cycle, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) piloted a supplemental application to accompany the standard residency application submitted via the AAMC’s Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS).¹ Dermatology was 1 of 3 specialties to participate in the pilot alongside internal medicine and general surgery. The goal was to develop a tool that could align applicants with programs that best matched their career goals as well as program and geographic preferences. The Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section was an early advocate for the supplemental application, and members of our leadership were involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the pilot supplemental application.

Participating in the supplemental application was optional for both applicants and programs. The supplemental application included a Past Experiences section, which allowed applicants to highlight their 5 most meaningful research, work, and/or volunteer experiences and to describe a challenging life event that might not otherwise be included with their application. The geographic preferences section permitted applicants to select up to 3 regions of interest as well as to indicate an urban vs rural preference. Lastly, a preference-signaling section allowed dermatology applicants to send signals to up to 3 programs of particular interest.

With the close of another application cycle, applicants and programs will begin preparing for the 2022-2023 recruitment season. In this column, we present dermatology-specific data regarding the supplemental application, highlight tentative changes for the upcoming application cycle, and offer tips for applicants and programs as we approach year 2 of the supplemental application.

Results of Supplemental Application Evaluation Surveys

During the 2021-2022 recruitment season, 93% (950/1019) of dermatology applicants submitted the supplemental application, and 87% (117/135) of dermatology residency programs participated in the pilot.² Surveys conducted by the AAMC between October 2021 and January 2022 showed that a large majority of dermatology programs used supplemental application data during initial application review when deciding who to interview. Eighty-three percent (40/48) of program directors felt that preference signals in particular helped them identify applicants they would have otherwise overlooked. Fifty-seven percent (4288/7516) of applicants across all specialties that participated in the pilot felt that preference signals would help them be noticed by their preferred programs.² Preference signals were not evenly distributed among dermatology programs. Programs received an average of 23 signals, with a range of 2 to 87 (AAMC, unpublished data, February 2022).

Additional questions remain to be answered: How does the number of signals received affect application review? How often do geographic and program signals convert to interview offers and matches? Regardless, enthusiasm among dermatology programs for the supplemental application remains. In a recent survey of Association of Professors of Dermatology program directors, all 43 respondents planned to participate in the supplemental application again in the upcoming year (Ilana Rosman, MD; unpublished data; February 2022). The pilot will be expanded to include at least 12 other specialties.¹As many who reviewed residency applications in 2021-2022 will attest, there was difficulty accessing the supplemental application data because it was not integrated into the Program Directors’ Work Station, the ERAS platform for programs to access applications, which will be remedied for the 2022-2023 iteration. Other tentative changes include modifications to the past experiences sections and timeline of the application.²

Utilizing the Supplemental Application: Recommendations to Applicants

Format of the Application—Applicants should familiarize themselves with the format of the supplemental application in advance and give themselves sufficient time to complete the application. In general, 3 to 4 hours of focused work should be enough time. Applicants should proofread for grammar and spelling before submitting.

Past Experiences—The past experiences section is intended to provide a focused snapshot of an applicant’s most meaningful activities and unique path to residency. Applicants should answer honestly based on their interests. If a student’s focus has been on volunteerism, the bulk of their 5 experiences listed may be related to service. Similarly, a student who has focused on research may preferentially highlight those experiences. In place of the long list of research, volunteer, and work experiences in the traditional ERAS application, applicants can highlight those activities in which they have been most invested. Applicants are encouraged to reflect on all genres of activities at any stage of their careers, even those not medical in nature, including work experience, military service, college athletics, or sustained musical or artistic achievement. Applicants should explain why each experience is meaningful rather than simply describing the activity.

Applicants also have the option to share a notable challenge they have overcome. It is not expected that each applicant will complete this question; in general, applicants who have not faced notable personal or professional obstacles should avoid answering. Additionally, if these challenges have been discussed in other areas of the application—for example, in the personal statement or medical student performance evaluation—it is not necessary to restate them here, though applicants can choose to do so. Examples of topics a student might discuss include being a first-generation college or medical student, growing up in poverty, facing notable personal or family health challenges, or having limited educational opportunities. It is important to share how this experience impacted an applicant’s journey to dermatology residency.

Geographic Preferences—The geographic preferences section can be difficult for applicants to navigate, as it may involve balancing a desire to attend a residency program in a particular region vs a greater desire to simply match in dermatology. In the past, programs may have made assumptions about geographic preferences based on an applicant’s birthplace, hometown, or medical school. In the supplemental application, applicants have the opportunity to directly reveal their preferences. We encourage applicants to be candid. Selecting a geographic region will not necessarily exclude applicants from consideration at other programs. For some applicants, program qualities may be more important than geography, or there may be no regional preferences. Those applicants can choose “no geographic preference.” There is considerable variability in how programs use geographic preferences. For this reason, it is in the best interest of applicants to simply respond honestly.

Preference Signaling—Preference signaling allows applicants to signal up to 3 preferred programs. Dermatology program directors agree that applicants should not signal their home program or programs at which they did in-person away rotations, as those programs would already be aware of the applicant’s interest. Although a signal increases the chances that the application will be reviewed holistically, it does not guarantee an interview offer. Programs may differentially utilize signals depending on multiple factors, including the number of signals received. We encourage applicants to discuss preference signaling strategies with advisors and focus on signaling programs in which they have genuine interest.

Recommendations to Selection Committees and Program Directors

The intent of the supplemental application is to provide a more meaningful picture of applicants and their experiences and preferences, with the goal of optimizing applicant-program fit. Programs should explicitly define for themselves the applicant characteristics and experiences they prioritize as well as their program goals. The supplemental application offers the potential to streamline holistic application review based on these elements. The short essay answers in the past experiences section permit reviewers to quickly scan for important experiences that align with the program’s recruitment goals. Importantly, reviewers should not penalize applicants who have not completed the question regarding other impactful life experiences, as not all applicants will have relevant information to share.

Some programs may find the geographic preferences section more valuable than others. Multiple factors affect how much weight will be given to geographic preferences, including program location and other characteristics that affect the desirability of the program to applicants. The competitiveness of the field, relatively low match rate, and limited number of programs may lead to less emphasis on geographic preferences in dermatology compared to other specialties. The purpose of this section is not to exclude applicants but to give programs more information that may help with alignment.

Anecdotally, many dermatology program directors were most interested in the preference signaling section of the supplemental application. Programs should consider signals to be evidence of strong preliminary interest. Programs may utilize signals differently depending on many factors such as the overall competitiveness of the program, program location, and the total number of signals the program receives. We recommend that programs holistically review all applications accompanied by a signal. Programs that utilize a points system may choose to award a certain number of points for a signal to their program. A signal might have a higher value at a program that receives only a few signals; conversely, a program that receives a large number of signals might not place tremendous value on the signal but may use it as a tiebreaker between similarly qualified applicants. Preference signaling is solely a tool for application review; because applicants’ preferences may change after the interview process, signals should not be utilized during ranking.

Next Steps

For program directors who have excitedly awaited residency application reform, the supplemental ERAS application is an important first step. Ultimately, we hope the supplemental application supplants much of the current residency application, serving as an efficient high-yield tool for holistically evaluating applicants’ academic and service records, accomplishments, and training preferences. Arriving at a new application will undoubtedly take time and discussion among the various stakeholders. Please continue to complete surveys from the AAMC, as feedback is the best method for refining the tool to serve its intended purpose.

Optimization of the application content is only one component of the reforms needed to improve the application process. Even with a revamped application tool, holistic review is challenging when programs are inundated with an ever-increasing number of applications. As such, we encourage stakeholders to simultaneously consider other potential reforms, such as caps on the number of applications, to allow programs and applicants the best opportunity for a mutually successful match.