For Residents

I had the opportunity to experience first-hand acute postoperative pain management in both the United States and Saudi Arabia. In this article, I discuss some of the differences in how postop pain is managed in each location, potential reasons for these differences, how they may impact patients over time, and the psychiatrist’s role in raising awareness about the hazards of overprescribing analgesic medications.

Vast differences in postop opioid prescribing

From personal observation and literature review, I was appalled by the amount of oxycodone tablets patients are typically discharged home with after a surgical procedure in the United States. Depending on the extent of the surgical procedure, opioid-naïve patients were routinely discharged with 40 to 120 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg. A ventral hernia repair or laparotomy was on the high end of how much oxycodone was provided, and a laparoscopic cholecystectomy or inguinal hernia repair was on the low end. At least one study has supported this observation, finding a wide variation and excessive doses of opioids prescribed postop.¹ Notably, among opioids obtained by postsurgical patients, 42% to 71% of all tablets went unused.² Nevertheless, prescribing in this manner became the standard for postop pain management—possibly in an effort to maximize patient satisfaction on surveys. Additionally, marketing and promotion by the pharmaceutical industry appears to have considerably amplified the prescription, sales, and availability of opioids.³

Signing those prescriptions always left a bad taste in my mouth out of concern for the potential for initiating chronic opioid use.⁴ Personally, I would prescribe the lowest reasonable number of narcotic tablets for my patients, along with acetaminophen and ibuprofen, knowing that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are sufficient for treating postop pain and will decrease opioid requirements, therefore minimizing opiate-induced adverse events.⁵ Overtreatment of pain with narcotics as first-line therapy is particularly problematic when treating postop pain in children after minor procedures, such as an umbilical hernia repair.Allowing children to resort to a narcotic analgesic agent as a first-line therapy had the potential to develop into an opioid use disorder (OUD) later in life if environmental factors tipped the scales.⁶

In the hospital in Saudi Arabia where I initially trained, surgery residents were not permitted to prescribe narcotics. The standard of care was to discharge patients with acetaminophen and ibuprofen. In cases where there was an indication for pain treatment with narcotics, stringent regulations were in place. For example, in my experience, which is corroborated by one study,⁶ special “narcotic forms” are required in the Middle East. In most of these countries, access to these forms is restricted.⁷ Moreover, pharmacists would only accept this special form when attested to by the surgery consultant (the equivalent of an attending physician in the United States). These consultants would typically write a prescription for 9 to 15 oxycodone 5 mg tablets. Patients receiving such medications were closely watched and followed up in the surgery clinic 3 to 5 days after discharge. Patients were also required to fill out a form detailing their contact information, including their home address and national ID number, to be able to pick up their prescription. Furthermore, apart from 2 Middle East countries, opioids were only available from hospital pharmacies, which were independent of the general hospital pharmacy in location and staff training.⁸

The psychiatrist’s role

Adapting similar stringent practices for prescribing narcotics in the United States might reduce 1 risk factor for OUD in postop patients. Surgeons attempt to provide the best care by maximizing analgesia, but psychiatrists see firsthand the consequences of overprescribing, and play a direct role in managing patients’ OUDs. As psychiatrists, we have a duty to continue to raise awareness and alert other clinicians about the hazards of overprescribing narcotic analgesic agents.

I had the opportunity to experience first-hand acute postoperative pain management in both the United States and Saudi Arabia. In this article, I discuss some of the differences in how postop pain is managed in each location, potential reasons for these differences, how they may impact patients over time, and the psychiatrist’s role in raising awareness about the hazards of overprescribing analgesic medications.

Vast differences in postop opioid prescribing

From personal observation and literature review, I was appalled by the amount of oxycodone tablets patients are typically discharged home with after a surgical procedure in the United States. Depending on the extent of the surgical procedure, opioid-naïve patients were routinely discharged with 40 to 120 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg. A ventral hernia repair or laparotomy was on the high end of how much oxycodone was provided, and a laparoscopic cholecystectomy or inguinal hernia repair was on the low end. At least one study has supported this observation, finding a wide variation and excessive doses of opioids prescribed postop.¹ Notably, among opioids obtained by postsurgical patients, 42% to 71% of all tablets went unused.² Nevertheless, prescribing in this manner became the standard for postop pain management—possibly in an effort to maximize patient satisfaction on surveys. Additionally, marketing and promotion by the pharmaceutical industry appears to have considerably amplified the prescription, sales, and availability of opioids.³

Signing those prescriptions always left a bad taste in my mouth out of concern for the potential for initiating chronic opioid use.⁴ Personally, I would prescribe the lowest reasonable number of narcotic tablets for my patients, along with acetaminophen and ibuprofen, knowing that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are sufficient for treating postop pain and will decrease opioid requirements, therefore minimizing opiate-induced adverse events.⁵ Overtreatment of pain with narcotics as first-line therapy is particularly problematic when treating postop pain in children after minor procedures, such as an umbilical hernia repair.Allowing children to resort to a narcotic analgesic agent as a first-line therapy had the potential to develop into an opioid use disorder (OUD) later in life if environmental factors tipped the scales.⁶

In the hospital in Saudi Arabia where I initially trained, surgery residents were not permitted to prescribe narcotics. The standard of care was to discharge patients with acetaminophen and ibuprofen. In cases where there was an indication for pain treatment with narcotics, stringent regulations were in place. For example, in my experience, which is corroborated by one study,⁶ special “narcotic forms” are required in the Middle East. In most of these countries, access to these forms is restricted.⁷ Moreover, pharmacists would only accept this special form when attested to by the surgery consultant (the equivalent of an attending physician in the United States). These consultants would typically write a prescription for 9 to 15 oxycodone 5 mg tablets. Patients receiving such medications were closely watched and followed up in the surgery clinic 3 to 5 days after discharge. Patients were also required to fill out a form detailing their contact information, including their home address and national ID number, to be able to pick up their prescription. Furthermore, apart from 2 Middle East countries, opioids were only available from hospital pharmacies, which were independent of the general hospital pharmacy in location and staff training.⁸

The psychiatrist’s role

Adapting similar stringent practices for prescribing narcotics in the United States might reduce 1 risk factor for OUD in postop patients. Surgeons attempt to provide the best care by maximizing analgesia, but psychiatrists see firsthand the consequences of overprescribing, and play a direct role in managing patients’ OUDs. As psychiatrists, we have a duty to continue to raise awareness and alert other clinicians about the hazards of overprescribing narcotic analgesic agents.

I had the opportunity to experience first-hand acute postoperative pain management in both the United States and Saudi Arabia. In this article, I discuss some of the differences in how postop pain is managed in each location, potential reasons for these differences, how they may impact patients over time, and the psychiatrist’s role in raising awareness about the hazards of overprescribing analgesic medications.

Vast differences in postop opioid prescribing

From personal observation and literature review, I was appalled by the amount of oxycodone tablets patients are typically discharged home with after a surgical procedure in the United States. Depending on the extent of the surgical procedure, opioid-naïve patients were routinely discharged with 40 to 120 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg. A ventral hernia repair or laparotomy was on the high end of how much oxycodone was provided, and a laparoscopic cholecystectomy or inguinal hernia repair was on the low end. At least one study has supported this observation, finding a wide variation and excessive doses of opioids prescribed postop.¹ Notably, among opioids obtained by postsurgical patients, 42% to 71% of all tablets went unused.² Nevertheless, prescribing in this manner became the standard for postop pain management—possibly in an effort to maximize patient satisfaction on surveys. Additionally, marketing and promotion by the pharmaceutical industry appears to have considerably amplified the prescription, sales, and availability of opioids.³

Signing those prescriptions always left a bad taste in my mouth out of concern for the potential for initiating chronic opioid use.⁴ Personally, I would prescribe the lowest reasonable number of narcotic tablets for my patients, along with acetaminophen and ibuprofen, knowing that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are sufficient for treating postop pain and will decrease opioid requirements, therefore minimizing opiate-induced adverse events.⁵ Overtreatment of pain with narcotics as first-line therapy is particularly problematic when treating postop pain in children after minor procedures, such as an umbilical hernia repair.Allowing children to resort to a narcotic analgesic agent as a first-line therapy had the potential to develop into an opioid use disorder (OUD) later in life if environmental factors tipped the scales.⁶

In the hospital in Saudi Arabia where I initially trained, surgery residents were not permitted to prescribe narcotics. The standard of care was to discharge patients with acetaminophen and ibuprofen. In cases where there was an indication for pain treatment with narcotics, stringent regulations were in place. For example, in my experience, which is corroborated by one study,⁶ special “narcotic forms” are required in the Middle East. In most of these countries, access to these forms is restricted.⁷ Moreover, pharmacists would only accept this special form when attested to by the surgery consultant (the equivalent of an attending physician in the United States). These consultants would typically write a prescription for 9 to 15 oxycodone 5 mg tablets. Patients receiving such medications were closely watched and followed up in the surgery clinic 3 to 5 days after discharge. Patients were also required to fill out a form detailing their contact information, including their home address and national ID number, to be able to pick up their prescription. Furthermore, apart from 2 Middle East countries, opioids were only available from hospital pharmacies, which were independent of the general hospital pharmacy in location and staff training.⁸

The psychiatrist’s role

Adapting similar stringent practices for prescribing narcotics in the United States might reduce 1 risk factor for OUD in postop patients. Surgeons attempt to provide the best care by maximizing analgesia, but psychiatrists see firsthand the consequences of overprescribing, and play a direct role in managing patients’ OUDs. As psychiatrists, we have a duty to continue to raise awareness and alert other clinicians about the hazards of overprescribing narcotic analgesic agents.

Dual-physician marriages are becoming increasingly common. The estimated median age of first marriage has been increasing; the US Census Bureau reported a median age of 30.4 years for men and 28.6 years for women in early 2021.¹ According to the Association of American Medical Colleges 2020 Matriculating Student Questionnaire, the median age at matriculation for medical students was 23 years (N=16,956), and 92.4% (N=15,932) reported their marital status as single and never legally married.² Thus, it is likely that the majority of physicians get married at some point during medical school or residency training. A survey of over 10,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties showed that 24% of female physicians and 15% of male physicians are married to other physicians.³

Challenges

There are common challenges to all dual-career households, including coordinating demanding career schedules that compete with each other, balancing childrearing with career advancement, and harmonizing economic and personal goals. However, there are challenges that can be amplified in and unique to dual-physician marriages.

The Couples Match—Medical students, trainees, and even physicians in later stages of their careers may have less autonomy over their schedules compared to professionals in other fields. An early obstacle that many dual-physician marriages must overcome is navigating the National Resident Matching Program as a couple. The number of individuals participating as a couple in the 2022 Main Residency Match was 2444, and the postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1) match rate for individuals participating as a couple was 93.7%. The overall PGY-1 match rate for MD seniors in the United States was 92.9%.⁴ Thus, entering the match as a couple does not necessarily pose a disadvantage to successfully matching, but these statistics may be misleading. When applicants participate in the Match as a couple, their rank order lists form pairs of program choices that are processed by the matching algorithm to match the couple to the most preferred pair of programs on their rank order lists where each partner has been offered a position. Although many couples coordinate their rank order lists geographically, there is no guarantee that the couple will actually match together in the same city, let alone in the same time zone. Also, the statistics do not take into account if an individual in the couple is only partially matched (eg, if one applicant matches to a preliminary year position but not to an advanced dermatology position). The couples’ Match is only available to partners in the same application cycle, and couples that are not in sync may be more restricted when applying for residency positions.

Lack of Synchronization—Dual-physician couples are challenged to achieve synchronization not only in their day-to-day lives but also over the course of their careers. After matching to residency, the dual-physician couple faces additional scheduling stressors during training. Varied demanding patient schedules and competing call schedules may take a toll on the ability to spend time together. Coordination between both training programs to ensure weekend schedules and vacations are aligned can be helpful to try to maximize time together. If the couple’s education is staggered, their training schedules may not align when proceeding to fellowship or starting off with a new job as an attending. It is not uncommon for couples in medicine to be long-distance for a period of time, and partners may find themselves sacrificing ideal positions or self-restricting application to certain programs or jobs to secure a position near a partner who is already in training in a certain geographic location.

Domestic Work-Life Balance—Juxtaposing 2 highly demanding careers in the same household can be associated with certain tensions, as the weight of household and childrearing responsibilities as well as professional productivity and advancement is divided by the couple. In a 2008 survey of the American College of Surgeons on burnout, work-home conflict, and career satisfaction, surgeons in dual-physician relationships experienced a recent career conflict with their domestic partner and a work-home conflict more often than surgeons whose partners were working nonphysicians.⁵ The hours worked between men and women in dual-physician families differed according to a national sample of 9868 physicians in dual-physician relationships. The study showed that weekly hours worked by women with children were lower than among those without children, whereas similar differences were not observed among men.⁶ It is not understood if this suggests that women in dual-physician families work fewer hours due to the pressures of historical gender norms and increased household responsibilities. A 1988 survey of female physicians (N=382) in which 247 respondents indicated that they had domestic partners showed that women physicians whose partners also were physicians (n=91) were more than twice as likely to interrupt their own careers for their partners’ careers compared to female physicians whose partners were not physicians (n=156)(25% vs 11%, respectively). In contrast, the male partners who were not physicians were significantly more likely to interrupt their careers than male partners who were physicians (41% vs 15%, respectively, P<.05).⁷

Divorce—There have been mixed reports on the incidence of divorce in physicians compared to the general population, but studies suggest that physicians’ marriages tend to be more stable than those of other societal groups.⁸ Of 203 respondents of a survey of female physician members of the Minnesota Medical Association who were or had been married to another physician, 11.3% (22/203) were divorced, and medicine was reported to play a role in 69.6% of those separations.⁹ A retrospective analysis of nationally representative surveys by the US Census showed that divorce among physicians is less common than among non–health care workers and several other health professions.¹⁰

Rewards

The benefits of medical marriages are multifold and include increased job satisfaction, stability, financial security, shared passions, and mutual understanding. Common passions and interests form the foundation for many relationships, which is true for the dual-physician marriage. In a 2009 study, Perlman et al¹¹ performed qualitative interviews with 25 physicians and their partners—10 of which were in dual-physician relationships—about the challenges and strengths of their relationships. A key theme that emerged during the interviews was the acknowledgment of the benefits of being a physician to the relationship. Participants discussed both the financial security in a physician marriage and the security that medical knowledge adds to a relationship when caring for ill or injured family members. Other key themes identified were relying on mutual support in the relationship, recognizing the important role of each family member, and having shared values.¹¹

Financial Security—The financial security attributed to being in a medical marriage was highlighted in a series of interviews with physicians and their spouses.¹¹ A cross-sectional survey of a random sample of physicians showed that both men and women in dual-physician families had lower personal incomes than physicians married to nonphysicians. However, men and women in dual-physician families had spouses with higher incomes compared to spouses of physicians married to nonphysicians. Thus, the total family incomes were substantially higher in dual-physician households than the family incomes of physicians married to nonphysicians.¹²

Satisfaction—Dual-physician marriages benefit from a shared camaraderie and understanding of the joys and sacrifices that accompany pursuing a career in medicine. Medical spouses can communicate in mutually understood medical jargon. Compared to physicians married to nonphysicians, a statistically significant difference (P<.001) was found in physicians in dual-physicians families who more frequently reported enjoyment in discussing work with their spouses and more frequently reported satisfaction from shared work interests with their spouses.¹²

Final Thoughts

From the start of medical training, physicians and physicians-in-training experience unique benefits and challenges that are compounded in distinctive ways when 2 physicians get married. In an era where dual-physician marriage is becoming more common, it is important to acknowledge how this can both enrich and challenge the relationship.

Acknowledgment—The author thanks her husband Joshua L. Weinstock, MD (Camden, New Jersey), for his contribution to this article and their marriage.

Dual-physician marriages are becoming increasingly common. The estimated median age of first marriage has been increasing; the US Census Bureau reported a median age of 30.4 years for men and 28.6 years for women in early 2021.¹ According to the Association of American Medical Colleges 2020 Matriculating Student Questionnaire, the median age at matriculation for medical students was 23 years (N=16,956), and 92.4% (N=15,932) reported their marital status as single and never legally married.² Thus, it is likely that the majority of physicians get married at some point during medical school or residency training. A survey of over 10,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties showed that 24% of female physicians and 15% of male physicians are married to other physicians.³

Challenges

There are common challenges to all dual-career households, including coordinating demanding career schedules that compete with each other, balancing childrearing with career advancement, and harmonizing economic and personal goals. However, there are challenges that can be amplified in and unique to dual-physician marriages.

The Couples Match—Medical students, trainees, and even physicians in later stages of their careers may have less autonomy over their schedules compared to professionals in other fields. An early obstacle that many dual-physician marriages must overcome is navigating the National Resident Matching Program as a couple. The number of individuals participating as a couple in the 2022 Main Residency Match was 2444, and the postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1) match rate for individuals participating as a couple was 93.7%. The overall PGY-1 match rate for MD seniors in the United States was 92.9%.⁴ Thus, entering the match as a couple does not necessarily pose a disadvantage to successfully matching, but these statistics may be misleading. When applicants participate in the Match as a couple, their rank order lists form pairs of program choices that are processed by the matching algorithm to match the couple to the most preferred pair of programs on their rank order lists where each partner has been offered a position. Although many couples coordinate their rank order lists geographically, there is no guarantee that the couple will actually match together in the same city, let alone in the same time zone. Also, the statistics do not take into account if an individual in the couple is only partially matched (eg, if one applicant matches to a preliminary year position but not to an advanced dermatology position). The couples’ Match is only available to partners in the same application cycle, and couples that are not in sync may be more restricted when applying for residency positions.

Lack of Synchronization—Dual-physician couples are challenged to achieve synchronization not only in their day-to-day lives but also over the course of their careers. After matching to residency, the dual-physician couple faces additional scheduling stressors during training. Varied demanding patient schedules and competing call schedules may take a toll on the ability to spend time together. Coordination between both training programs to ensure weekend schedules and vacations are aligned can be helpful to try to maximize time together. If the couple’s education is staggered, their training schedules may not align when proceeding to fellowship or starting off with a new job as an attending. It is not uncommon for couples in medicine to be long-distance for a period of time, and partners may find themselves sacrificing ideal positions or self-restricting application to certain programs or jobs to secure a position near a partner who is already in training in a certain geographic location.

Domestic Work-Life Balance—Juxtaposing 2 highly demanding careers in the same household can be associated with certain tensions, as the weight of household and childrearing responsibilities as well as professional productivity and advancement is divided by the couple. In a 2008 survey of the American College of Surgeons on burnout, work-home conflict, and career satisfaction, surgeons in dual-physician relationships experienced a recent career conflict with their domestic partner and a work-home conflict more often than surgeons whose partners were working nonphysicians.⁵ The hours worked between men and women in dual-physician families differed according to a national sample of 9868 physicians in dual-physician relationships. The study showed that weekly hours worked by women with children were lower than among those without children, whereas similar differences were not observed among men.⁶ It is not understood if this suggests that women in dual-physician families work fewer hours due to the pressures of historical gender norms and increased household responsibilities. A 1988 survey of female physicians (N=382) in which 247 respondents indicated that they had domestic partners showed that women physicians whose partners also were physicians (n=91) were more than twice as likely to interrupt their own careers for their partners’ careers compared to female physicians whose partners were not physicians (n=156)(25% vs 11%, respectively). In contrast, the male partners who were not physicians were significantly more likely to interrupt their careers than male partners who were physicians (41% vs 15%, respectively, P<.05).⁷

Divorce—There have been mixed reports on the incidence of divorce in physicians compared to the general population, but studies suggest that physicians’ marriages tend to be more stable than those of other societal groups.⁸ Of 203 respondents of a survey of female physician members of the Minnesota Medical Association who were or had been married to another physician, 11.3% (22/203) were divorced, and medicine was reported to play a role in 69.6% of those separations.⁹ A retrospective analysis of nationally representative surveys by the US Census showed that divorce among physicians is less common than among non–health care workers and several other health professions.¹⁰

Rewards

The benefits of medical marriages are multifold and include increased job satisfaction, stability, financial security, shared passions, and mutual understanding. Common passions and interests form the foundation for many relationships, which is true for the dual-physician marriage. In a 2009 study, Perlman et al¹¹ performed qualitative interviews with 25 physicians and their partners—10 of which were in dual-physician relationships—about the challenges and strengths of their relationships. A key theme that emerged during the interviews was the acknowledgment of the benefits of being a physician to the relationship. Participants discussed both the financial security in a physician marriage and the security that medical knowledge adds to a relationship when caring for ill or injured family members. Other key themes identified were relying on mutual support in the relationship, recognizing the important role of each family member, and having shared values.¹¹

Financial Security—The financial security attributed to being in a medical marriage was highlighted in a series of interviews with physicians and their spouses.¹¹ A cross-sectional survey of a random sample of physicians showed that both men and women in dual-physician families had lower personal incomes than physicians married to nonphysicians. However, men and women in dual-physician families had spouses with higher incomes compared to spouses of physicians married to nonphysicians. Thus, the total family incomes were substantially higher in dual-physician households than the family incomes of physicians married to nonphysicians.¹²

Satisfaction—Dual-physician marriages benefit from a shared camaraderie and understanding of the joys and sacrifices that accompany pursuing a career in medicine. Medical spouses can communicate in mutually understood medical jargon. Compared to physicians married to nonphysicians, a statistically significant difference (P<.001) was found in physicians in dual-physicians families who more frequently reported enjoyment in discussing work with their spouses and more frequently reported satisfaction from shared work interests with their spouses.¹²

Final Thoughts

From the start of medical training, physicians and physicians-in-training experience unique benefits and challenges that are compounded in distinctive ways when 2 physicians get married. In an era where dual-physician marriage is becoming more common, it is important to acknowledge how this can both enrich and challenge the relationship.

Acknowledgment—The author thanks her husband Joshua L. Weinstock, MD (Camden, New Jersey), for his contribution to this article and their marriage.

Dual-physician marriages are becoming increasingly common. The estimated median age of first marriage has been increasing; the US Census Bureau reported a median age of 30.4 years for men and 28.6 years for women in early 2021.¹ According to the Association of American Medical Colleges 2020 Matriculating Student Questionnaire, the median age at matriculation for medical students was 23 years (N=16,956), and 92.4% (N=15,932) reported their marital status as single and never legally married.² Thus, it is likely that the majority of physicians get married at some point during medical school or residency training. A survey of over 10,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties showed that 24% of female physicians and 15% of male physicians are married to other physicians.³

Challenges

There are common challenges to all dual-career households, including coordinating demanding career schedules that compete with each other, balancing childrearing with career advancement, and harmonizing economic and personal goals. However, there are challenges that can be amplified in and unique to dual-physician marriages.

The Couples Match—Medical students, trainees, and even physicians in later stages of their careers may have less autonomy over their schedules compared to professionals in other fields. An early obstacle that many dual-physician marriages must overcome is navigating the National Resident Matching Program as a couple. The number of individuals participating as a couple in the 2022 Main Residency Match was 2444, and the postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1) match rate for individuals participating as a couple was 93.7%. The overall PGY-1 match rate for MD seniors in the United States was 92.9%.⁴ Thus, entering the match as a couple does not necessarily pose a disadvantage to successfully matching, but these statistics may be misleading. When applicants participate in the Match as a couple, their rank order lists form pairs of program choices that are processed by the matching algorithm to match the couple to the most preferred pair of programs on their rank order lists where each partner has been offered a position. Although many couples coordinate their rank order lists geographically, there is no guarantee that the couple will actually match together in the same city, let alone in the same time zone. Also, the statistics do not take into account if an individual in the couple is only partially matched (eg, if one applicant matches to a preliminary year position but not to an advanced dermatology position). The couples’ Match is only available to partners in the same application cycle, and couples that are not in sync may be more restricted when applying for residency positions.

Lack of Synchronization—Dual-physician couples are challenged to achieve synchronization not only in their day-to-day lives but also over the course of their careers. After matching to residency, the dual-physician couple faces additional scheduling stressors during training. Varied demanding patient schedules and competing call schedules may take a toll on the ability to spend time together. Coordination between both training programs to ensure weekend schedules and vacations are aligned can be helpful to try to maximize time together. If the couple’s education is staggered, their training schedules may not align when proceeding to fellowship or starting off with a new job as an attending. It is not uncommon for couples in medicine to be long-distance for a period of time, and partners may find themselves sacrificing ideal positions or self-restricting application to certain programs or jobs to secure a position near a partner who is already in training in a certain geographic location.

Domestic Work-Life Balance—Juxtaposing 2 highly demanding careers in the same household can be associated with certain tensions, as the weight of household and childrearing responsibilities as well as professional productivity and advancement is divided by the couple. In a 2008 survey of the American College of Surgeons on burnout, work-home conflict, and career satisfaction, surgeons in dual-physician relationships experienced a recent career conflict with their domestic partner and a work-home conflict more often than surgeons whose partners were working nonphysicians.⁵ The hours worked between men and women in dual-physician families differed according to a national sample of 9868 physicians in dual-physician relationships. The study showed that weekly hours worked by women with children were lower than among those without children, whereas similar differences were not observed among men.⁶ It is not understood if this suggests that women in dual-physician families work fewer hours due to the pressures of historical gender norms and increased household responsibilities. A 1988 survey of female physicians (N=382) in which 247 respondents indicated that they had domestic partners showed that women physicians whose partners also were physicians (n=91) were more than twice as likely to interrupt their own careers for their partners’ careers compared to female physicians whose partners were not physicians (n=156)(25% vs 11%, respectively). In contrast, the male partners who were not physicians were significantly more likely to interrupt their careers than male partners who were physicians (41% vs 15%, respectively, P<.05).⁷

Divorce—There have been mixed reports on the incidence of divorce in physicians compared to the general population, but studies suggest that physicians’ marriages tend to be more stable than those of other societal groups.⁸ Of 203 respondents of a survey of female physician members of the Minnesota Medical Association who were or had been married to another physician, 11.3% (22/203) were divorced, and medicine was reported to play a role in 69.6% of those separations.⁹ A retrospective analysis of nationally representative surveys by the US Census showed that divorce among physicians is less common than among non–health care workers and several other health professions.¹⁰

Rewards

The benefits of medical marriages are multifold and include increased job satisfaction, stability, financial security, shared passions, and mutual understanding. Common passions and interests form the foundation for many relationships, which is true for the dual-physician marriage. In a 2009 study, Perlman et al¹¹ performed qualitative interviews with 25 physicians and their partners—10 of which were in dual-physician relationships—about the challenges and strengths of their relationships. A key theme that emerged during the interviews was the acknowledgment of the benefits of being a physician to the relationship. Participants discussed both the financial security in a physician marriage and the security that medical knowledge adds to a relationship when caring for ill or injured family members. Other key themes identified were relying on mutual support in the relationship, recognizing the important role of each family member, and having shared values.¹¹

Financial Security—The financial security attributed to being in a medical marriage was highlighted in a series of interviews with physicians and their spouses.¹¹ A cross-sectional survey of a random sample of physicians showed that both men and women in dual-physician families had lower personal incomes than physicians married to nonphysicians. However, men and women in dual-physician families had spouses with higher incomes compared to spouses of physicians married to nonphysicians. Thus, the total family incomes were substantially higher in dual-physician households than the family incomes of physicians married to nonphysicians.¹²

Satisfaction—Dual-physician marriages benefit from a shared camaraderie and understanding of the joys and sacrifices that accompany pursuing a career in medicine. Medical spouses can communicate in mutually understood medical jargon. Compared to physicians married to nonphysicians, a statistically significant difference (P<.001) was found in physicians in dual-physicians families who more frequently reported enjoyment in discussing work with their spouses and more frequently reported satisfaction from shared work interests with their spouses.¹²

Final Thoughts

From the start of medical training, physicians and physicians-in-training experience unique benefits and challenges that are compounded in distinctive ways when 2 physicians get married. In an era where dual-physician marriage is becoming more common, it is important to acknowledge how this can both enrich and challenge the relationship.

Acknowledgment—The author thanks her husband Joshua L. Weinstock, MD (Camden, New Jersey), for his contribution to this article and their marriage.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is typically a severe, chronic illness in which patients have recurrent, unwanted thoughts, urges, and compulsions.¹ It causes significant morbidity and lost potential over time, and is the world’s 10th-most disabling disorder in terms of lost income and decreased quality of life, and the fifth-most disabling mental health condition.² Patients with OCD (and their clinicians) are often desperate for an efficacious treatment, but we must ensure that those who are not helped by traditional psychotherapeutic and/or pharmacologic treatments are appropriate for safe neurosurgical intervention.

Pros and cons of neurosurgical therapies

Most patients with OCD are effectively treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, clomipramine, or second-generation antipsychotics. However, up to 5% of individuals with OCD will have symptoms refractory to these traditional therapies.³ These cases require more aggressive forms of therapy, including radiofrequency ablation surgeries and deep brain stimulation (DBS). The efficacy of both therapies is similar at 40% to 60%.^4,5 While these treatments can be life-changing for patients fortunate to receive them, they are not without issue.

Only a limited number of institutions offer these neurosurgical techniques, and for many patients, those locations may be inaccessible. Patients may not experience relief simply due to where they live, difficult logistics, and the high cost requisite to receive care. If fortunate enough to live near a participating institution or have the means to travel to one, the patient and clinician must then choose the best option based on the nuances of the patient’s situation.

Ablation techniques, such as gamma knife or magnetic resonance–guided ultrasound, are simpler and more cost-effective. A drawback of this approach, however, is that it is irreversible. Lesioned structures are irreparable, as are the adverse effects of the surgery, which, while rare, may include a persistent minimally conscious state or necrotic cysts.⁴ A benefit of this approach is that there is no need for lengthy follow-up as seen with DBS.

DBS is more complicated. In addition to having to undergo an open neurosurgical procedure, these patients require long-term follow-up and monitoring. A positive aspect is the device can be turned off or removed. However, the amount of follow-up and adjustments is significant. These patients need access to clinicians skilled in DBS device management.

Finally, we must consider the chronically ill patient’s perspective after successful treatment. While the patient’s symptoms may improve, their lives and identities likely developed around their symptoms. Bosanac et al⁶ describe this reality well in a case study in which a patient with OCD was “burdened with normality” after successful DBS treatment. He was finally able to work, build meaningful relationships, and approach previously unattainable social milestones. This was an overwhelming experience for him, and he and his family needed guidance into the world in which most of us find comfort.

As ablation techniques, DBS, and other cutting-edge therapies for OCD come to the forefront of modern care, clinicians must remember to keep patient safety first. Verify follow-up care before committing patients to invasive and irreversible treatments. While general access is currently poor, participating institutions should consider advertising and communicating that there is an accessible network available for these chronically ill individuals.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is typically a severe, chronic illness in which patients have recurrent, unwanted thoughts, urges, and compulsions.¹ It causes significant morbidity and lost potential over time, and is the world’s 10th-most disabling disorder in terms of lost income and decreased quality of life, and the fifth-most disabling mental health condition.² Patients with OCD (and their clinicians) are often desperate for an efficacious treatment, but we must ensure that those who are not helped by traditional psychotherapeutic and/or pharmacologic treatments are appropriate for safe neurosurgical intervention.

Pros and cons of neurosurgical therapies

Most patients with OCD are effectively treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, clomipramine, or second-generation antipsychotics. However, up to 5% of individuals with OCD will have symptoms refractory to these traditional therapies.³ These cases require more aggressive forms of therapy, including radiofrequency ablation surgeries and deep brain stimulation (DBS). The efficacy of both therapies is similar at 40% to 60%.^4,5 While these treatments can be life-changing for patients fortunate to receive them, they are not without issue.

Only a limited number of institutions offer these neurosurgical techniques, and for many patients, those locations may be inaccessible. Patients may not experience relief simply due to where they live, difficult logistics, and the high cost requisite to receive care. If fortunate enough to live near a participating institution or have the means to travel to one, the patient and clinician must then choose the best option based on the nuances of the patient’s situation.

Ablation techniques, such as gamma knife or magnetic resonance–guided ultrasound, are simpler and more cost-effective. A drawback of this approach, however, is that it is irreversible. Lesioned structures are irreparable, as are the adverse effects of the surgery, which, while rare, may include a persistent minimally conscious state or necrotic cysts.⁴ A benefit of this approach is that there is no need for lengthy follow-up as seen with DBS.

DBS is more complicated. In addition to having to undergo an open neurosurgical procedure, these patients require long-term follow-up and monitoring. A positive aspect is the device can be turned off or removed. However, the amount of follow-up and adjustments is significant. These patients need access to clinicians skilled in DBS device management.

Finally, we must consider the chronically ill patient’s perspective after successful treatment. While the patient’s symptoms may improve, their lives and identities likely developed around their symptoms. Bosanac et al⁶ describe this reality well in a case study in which a patient with OCD was “burdened with normality” after successful DBS treatment. He was finally able to work, build meaningful relationships, and approach previously unattainable social milestones. This was an overwhelming experience for him, and he and his family needed guidance into the world in which most of us find comfort.

As ablation techniques, DBS, and other cutting-edge therapies for OCD come to the forefront of modern care, clinicians must remember to keep patient safety first. Verify follow-up care before committing patients to invasive and irreversible treatments. While general access is currently poor, participating institutions should consider advertising and communicating that there is an accessible network available for these chronically ill individuals.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is typically a severe, chronic illness in which patients have recurrent, unwanted thoughts, urges, and compulsions.¹ It causes significant morbidity and lost potential over time, and is the world’s 10th-most disabling disorder in terms of lost income and decreased quality of life, and the fifth-most disabling mental health condition.² Patients with OCD (and their clinicians) are often desperate for an efficacious treatment, but we must ensure that those who are not helped by traditional psychotherapeutic and/or pharmacologic treatments are appropriate for safe neurosurgical intervention.

Pros and cons of neurosurgical therapies

Most patients with OCD are effectively treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, clomipramine, or second-generation antipsychotics. However, up to 5% of individuals with OCD will have symptoms refractory to these traditional therapies.³ These cases require more aggressive forms of therapy, including radiofrequency ablation surgeries and deep brain stimulation (DBS). The efficacy of both therapies is similar at 40% to 60%.^4,5 While these treatments can be life-changing for patients fortunate to receive them, they are not without issue.

Only a limited number of institutions offer these neurosurgical techniques, and for many patients, those locations may be inaccessible. Patients may not experience relief simply due to where they live, difficult logistics, and the high cost requisite to receive care. If fortunate enough to live near a participating institution or have the means to travel to one, the patient and clinician must then choose the best option based on the nuances of the patient’s situation.

Ablation techniques, such as gamma knife or magnetic resonance–guided ultrasound, are simpler and more cost-effective. A drawback of this approach, however, is that it is irreversible. Lesioned structures are irreparable, as are the adverse effects of the surgery, which, while rare, may include a persistent minimally conscious state or necrotic cysts.⁴ A benefit of this approach is that there is no need for lengthy follow-up as seen with DBS.

DBS is more complicated. In addition to having to undergo an open neurosurgical procedure, these patients require long-term follow-up and monitoring. A positive aspect is the device can be turned off or removed. However, the amount of follow-up and adjustments is significant. These patients need access to clinicians skilled in DBS device management.

Finally, we must consider the chronically ill patient’s perspective after successful treatment. While the patient’s symptoms may improve, their lives and identities likely developed around their symptoms. Bosanac et al⁶ describe this reality well in a case study in which a patient with OCD was “burdened with normality” after successful DBS treatment. He was finally able to work, build meaningful relationships, and approach previously unattainable social milestones. This was an overwhelming experience for him, and he and his family needed guidance into the world in which most of us find comfort.

As ablation techniques, DBS, and other cutting-edge therapies for OCD come to the forefront of modern care, clinicians must remember to keep patient safety first. Verify follow-up care before committing patients to invasive and irreversible treatments. While general access is currently poor, participating institutions should consider advertising and communicating that there is an accessible network available for these chronically ill individuals.

Residents are confronted daily with situations in clinic that require a foundation in medical ethics to assist in decision-making. Attending physicians require health care services and at times may seek care from resident physicians. If the attending physician has direct oversight over the resident, however, the ethics of the resident treating them need to be addressed. Although patients have autonomy to choose whoever they want as a physician, nonmaleficence dictates that the resident may forego treatment due to concerns for providing suboptimal care; however, this same attending may be treated under specific circumstances. This column explores the ethical implications of both situations.

The Ethical Dilemma of Treating an Attending

Imagine this scenario: You are in your resident general dermatology clinic seeing patients with an attending overseeing your clinical decisions following each encounter. You look on your schedule and see that the next patient is one of your pediatric dermatology attendings for a total-body skin examination (TBSE). You have never treated a physician that oversees you, and you ponder whether you should perform the examination or fetch your attending to perform the encounter alone.

This conundrum then brings other questions to mind: Would changing the reason for the appointment (ie, an acute problem vs a TBSE) alter your decision as to whether or not you would treat this attending? Would the situation be different if this was an attending in a different department?

Ethics Curriculum for Residents

Medical providers face ethical dilemmas daily, and dermatologists and dermatology residents are not excluded. Dermatoethics can provide a framework for the best approach to this hypothetical situation. To equip residents with resources on ethics and a cognitive framework to approach similar situations, the American Board of Dermatology has created an ethics curriculum for residents to learn over their 3 years of training.¹

One study that analyzed the ethical themes portrayed in essays by fourth-year medical students showed that the most common themes included autonomy, social justice, nonmaleficence, beneficence, honesty, and respect.² These themes must be considered in different permutations throughout ethical conundrums.

In the situation of an attending physician who supervises a resident in another clinic voluntarily attending the resident clinic, the physician is aware of the resident’s skills and qualifications and knows that supervision is being provided by an attending physician, which allows informed consent to be made, as a study by Unruh et al³ shows. The patient’s autonomy allows them to choose their treating provider.

However, there are several reasons why the resident may be hesitant to enter the room. One concern may be that during a TBSE the provider usually examines the patient’s genitals, rectum, and breasts.⁴ Because the resident knows the individual personally, the patient and/or the provider may be uncomfortable checking these areas, leaving a portion of the examination unperformed. This neglect may harm the patient (eg, a genital melanoma is missed), violating the tenant of nonmaleficence.

The effect of the medical hierarchy also should be considered. The de facto hierarchy of attendings supervising residents, interns, and medical students, with each group having some oversight over the next, can have positive effects on education and appropriate patient management but also can prove to be detrimental to the patient and provider in some circumstances. Studies have shown that residents may be less willing to disagree with their superior’s opinions for fear of negative reactions and harmful effects on their future careers.^5-7 The hierarchy of medicine also can affect a resident’s moral judgement by intimidating the practitioner to perform tasks or make diagnoses they may not wish to make.^5,6,8,9 For example, the resident may send a prescription for a medication that the attending requested despite no clear indication of need. This mingling of patient and supervisor roles can result in a resident treating their attending physician inconsistently with their standard of care.

Navigating the Ethics of Treating Family Members

The American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics Opinions on Patient-Physician Relationships highlights treating family members as an important ethical topic. Although most residents and attendings are not biologically related, a familial-style relationship exists in many dermatology programs between attendings and residents due to the close-knit nature of dermatology programs. Diagnostic and treatment accuracy may be diminished by the discomfort or disbelief that a condition could affect someone the resident cares about.¹⁰

The American Medical Association also states that a physician can treat family members in an emergency situation or for short-term minor problems. If these 2 exceptions were to be extrapolated to apply to situations involving residents and attendings in addition to family, there would be situations where a dermatology resident could ethically treat their attending physician.¹⁰ If the attending physician was worried about a problem that was deemed potentially life-threatening, such as a rapidly progressive bullous eruption concerning for Stevens-Johnson syndrome following the initiation of a new medication, and they wanted an urgent evaluation and biopsy, an ethicist could argue that urgent treatment is medically indicated as deferring treatment could have negative consequences on the patient’s health. In addition, if the attending found a splinter in their finger following yardwork and needed assistance in removal, this also could be treated by their resident, as it is minimally invasive and has a finite conclusion.

Treating Nonsupervisory Attendings

In the case of performing a TBSE on an attending from another specialty, it would be acceptable and less ethically ambiguous if no close personal relationship existed between the two practitioners, as this patient would have no direct oversight over the resident physician.

Final Thoughts

Each situation that residents face may carry ethical implications with perspectives from the patient, provider, and bystanders. The above scenarios highlight specific instances that a dermatology resident may face and provide insight into how they may approach the situations. At the same time, it is important to remember that every situation is different and requires a unique approach. Fortunately,physicians—specifically dermatologists—are provided many resources to help navigate challenging scenarios.

Acknowledgments—The author thanks Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD (Farmington, Connecticut), for reviewing this paper and providing feedback to improve its content, as well as Warren R. Heymann, MD (Camden, New Jersey), for assisting in the creation of this topic and article.

Residents are confronted daily with situations in clinic that require a foundation in medical ethics to assist in decision-making. Attending physicians require health care services and at times may seek care from resident physicians. If the attending physician has direct oversight over the resident, however, the ethics of the resident treating them need to be addressed. Although patients have autonomy to choose whoever they want as a physician, nonmaleficence dictates that the resident may forego treatment due to concerns for providing suboptimal care; however, this same attending may be treated under specific circumstances. This column explores the ethical implications of both situations.

The Ethical Dilemma of Treating an Attending

Imagine this scenario: You are in your resident general dermatology clinic seeing patients with an attending overseeing your clinical decisions following each encounter. You look on your schedule and see that the next patient is one of your pediatric dermatology attendings for a total-body skin examination (TBSE). You have never treated a physician that oversees you, and you ponder whether you should perform the examination or fetch your attending to perform the encounter alone.

This conundrum then brings other questions to mind: Would changing the reason for the appointment (ie, an acute problem vs a TBSE) alter your decision as to whether or not you would treat this attending? Would the situation be different if this was an attending in a different department?

Ethics Curriculum for Residents

Medical providers face ethical dilemmas daily, and dermatologists and dermatology residents are not excluded. Dermatoethics can provide a framework for the best approach to this hypothetical situation. To equip residents with resources on ethics and a cognitive framework to approach similar situations, the American Board of Dermatology has created an ethics curriculum for residents to learn over their 3 years of training.¹

One study that analyzed the ethical themes portrayed in essays by fourth-year medical students showed that the most common themes included autonomy, social justice, nonmaleficence, beneficence, honesty, and respect.² These themes must be considered in different permutations throughout ethical conundrums.

In the situation of an attending physician who supervises a resident in another clinic voluntarily attending the resident clinic, the physician is aware of the resident’s skills and qualifications and knows that supervision is being provided by an attending physician, which allows informed consent to be made, as a study by Unruh et al³ shows. The patient’s autonomy allows them to choose their treating provider.

However, there are several reasons why the resident may be hesitant to enter the room. One concern may be that during a TBSE the provider usually examines the patient’s genitals, rectum, and breasts.⁴ Because the resident knows the individual personally, the patient and/or the provider may be uncomfortable checking these areas, leaving a portion of the examination unperformed. This neglect may harm the patient (eg, a genital melanoma is missed), violating the tenant of nonmaleficence.

The effect of the medical hierarchy also should be considered. The de facto hierarchy of attendings supervising residents, interns, and medical students, with each group having some oversight over the next, can have positive effects on education and appropriate patient management but also can prove to be detrimental to the patient and provider in some circumstances. Studies have shown that residents may be less willing to disagree with their superior’s opinions for fear of negative reactions and harmful effects on their future careers.^5-7 The hierarchy of medicine also can affect a resident’s moral judgement by intimidating the practitioner to perform tasks or make diagnoses they may not wish to make.^5,6,8,9 For example, the resident may send a prescription for a medication that the attending requested despite no clear indication of need. This mingling of patient and supervisor roles can result in a resident treating their attending physician inconsistently with their standard of care.

Navigating the Ethics of Treating Family Members

The American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics Opinions on Patient-Physician Relationships highlights treating family members as an important ethical topic. Although most residents and attendings are not biologically related, a familial-style relationship exists in many dermatology programs between attendings and residents due to the close-knit nature of dermatology programs. Diagnostic and treatment accuracy may be diminished by the discomfort or disbelief that a condition could affect someone the resident cares about.¹⁰

The American Medical Association also states that a physician can treat family members in an emergency situation or for short-term minor problems. If these 2 exceptions were to be extrapolated to apply to situations involving residents and attendings in addition to family, there would be situations where a dermatology resident could ethically treat their attending physician.¹⁰ If the attending physician was worried about a problem that was deemed potentially life-threatening, such as a rapidly progressive bullous eruption concerning for Stevens-Johnson syndrome following the initiation of a new medication, and they wanted an urgent evaluation and biopsy, an ethicist could argue that urgent treatment is medically indicated as deferring treatment could have negative consequences on the patient’s health. In addition, if the attending found a splinter in their finger following yardwork and needed assistance in removal, this also could be treated by their resident, as it is minimally invasive and has a finite conclusion.

Treating Nonsupervisory Attendings

In the case of performing a TBSE on an attending from another specialty, it would be acceptable and less ethically ambiguous if no close personal relationship existed between the two practitioners, as this patient would have no direct oversight over the resident physician.

Final Thoughts

Each situation that residents face may carry ethical implications with perspectives from the patient, provider, and bystanders. The above scenarios highlight specific instances that a dermatology resident may face and provide insight into how they may approach the situations. At the same time, it is important to remember that every situation is different and requires a unique approach. Fortunately,physicians—specifically dermatologists—are provided many resources to help navigate challenging scenarios.

Acknowledgments—The author thanks Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD (Farmington, Connecticut), for reviewing this paper and providing feedback to improve its content, as well as Warren R. Heymann, MD (Camden, New Jersey), for assisting in the creation of this topic and article.

Residents are confronted daily with situations in clinic that require a foundation in medical ethics to assist in decision-making. Attending physicians require health care services and at times may seek care from resident physicians. If the attending physician has direct oversight over the resident, however, the ethics of the resident treating them need to be addressed. Although patients have autonomy to choose whoever they want as a physician, nonmaleficence dictates that the resident may forego treatment due to concerns for providing suboptimal care; however, this same attending may be treated under specific circumstances. This column explores the ethical implications of both situations.

The Ethical Dilemma of Treating an Attending

Imagine this scenario: You are in your resident general dermatology clinic seeing patients with an attending overseeing your clinical decisions following each encounter. You look on your schedule and see that the next patient is one of your pediatric dermatology attendings for a total-body skin examination (TBSE). You have never treated a physician that oversees you, and you ponder whether you should perform the examination or fetch your attending to perform the encounter alone.

This conundrum then brings other questions to mind: Would changing the reason for the appointment (ie, an acute problem vs a TBSE) alter your decision as to whether or not you would treat this attending? Would the situation be different if this was an attending in a different department?

Ethics Curriculum for Residents

Medical providers face ethical dilemmas daily, and dermatologists and dermatology residents are not excluded. Dermatoethics can provide a framework for the best approach to this hypothetical situation. To equip residents with resources on ethics and a cognitive framework to approach similar situations, the American Board of Dermatology has created an ethics curriculum for residents to learn over their 3 years of training.¹

One study that analyzed the ethical themes portrayed in essays by fourth-year medical students showed that the most common themes included autonomy, social justice, nonmaleficence, beneficence, honesty, and respect.² These themes must be considered in different permutations throughout ethical conundrums.

In the situation of an attending physician who supervises a resident in another clinic voluntarily attending the resident clinic, the physician is aware of the resident’s skills and qualifications and knows that supervision is being provided by an attending physician, which allows informed consent to be made, as a study by Unruh et al³ shows. The patient’s autonomy allows them to choose their treating provider.

However, there are several reasons why the resident may be hesitant to enter the room. One concern may be that during a TBSE the provider usually examines the patient’s genitals, rectum, and breasts.⁴ Because the resident knows the individual personally, the patient and/or the provider may be uncomfortable checking these areas, leaving a portion of the examination unperformed. This neglect may harm the patient (eg, a genital melanoma is missed), violating the tenant of nonmaleficence.

The effect of the medical hierarchy also should be considered. The de facto hierarchy of attendings supervising residents, interns, and medical students, with each group having some oversight over the next, can have positive effects on education and appropriate patient management but also can prove to be detrimental to the patient and provider in some circumstances. Studies have shown that residents may be less willing to disagree with their superior’s opinions for fear of negative reactions and harmful effects on their future careers.^5-7 The hierarchy of medicine also can affect a resident’s moral judgement by intimidating the practitioner to perform tasks or make diagnoses they may not wish to make.^5,6,8,9 For example, the resident may send a prescription for a medication that the attending requested despite no clear indication of need. This mingling of patient and supervisor roles can result in a resident treating their attending physician inconsistently with their standard of care.

Navigating the Ethics of Treating Family Members

The American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics Opinions on Patient-Physician Relationships highlights treating family members as an important ethical topic. Although most residents and attendings are not biologically related, a familial-style relationship exists in many dermatology programs between attendings and residents due to the close-knit nature of dermatology programs. Diagnostic and treatment accuracy may be diminished by the discomfort or disbelief that a condition could affect someone the resident cares about.¹⁰

The American Medical Association also states that a physician can treat family members in an emergency situation or for short-term minor problems. If these 2 exceptions were to be extrapolated to apply to situations involving residents and attendings in addition to family, there would be situations where a dermatology resident could ethically treat their attending physician.¹⁰ If the attending physician was worried about a problem that was deemed potentially life-threatening, such as a rapidly progressive bullous eruption concerning for Stevens-Johnson syndrome following the initiation of a new medication, and they wanted an urgent evaluation and biopsy, an ethicist could argue that urgent treatment is medically indicated as deferring treatment could have negative consequences on the patient’s health. In addition, if the attending found a splinter in their finger following yardwork and needed assistance in removal, this also could be treated by their resident, as it is minimally invasive and has a finite conclusion.

Treating Nonsupervisory Attendings

In the case of performing a TBSE on an attending from another specialty, it would be acceptable and less ethically ambiguous if no close personal relationship existed between the two practitioners, as this patient would have no direct oversight over the resident physician.

Final Thoughts

Each situation that residents face may carry ethical implications with perspectives from the patient, provider, and bystanders. The above scenarios highlight specific instances that a dermatology resident may face and provide insight into how they may approach the situations. At the same time, it is important to remember that every situation is different and requires a unique approach. Fortunately,physicians—specifically dermatologists—are provided many resources to help navigate challenging scenarios.

Acknowledgments—The author thanks Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD (Farmington, Connecticut), for reviewing this paper and providing feedback to improve its content, as well as Warren R. Heymann, MD (Camden, New Jersey), for assisting in the creation of this topic and article.

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 ([email protected]) 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 ([email protected]) 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 ([email protected]) 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%).