Article Type
Changed
Wed, 07/27/2022 - 13:36
Display Headline
Nonphysician Clinicians in Dermatology Residencies: Cross-sectional Survey on Residency Education

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.

Characteristics of Survey Respondents and Dermatology Residency Programs

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.

Dermatology Residents’ Interactions With Nonphysician Clinicians and Current Program Training Exposure

 Dermatology Residents’ Interactions With Nonphysician Clinicians and Current Program Training Exposure

 

 

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).

Dermatology Residency Directors’ and Residents’ Perceptions of Working With Nonphysician Clinicians

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.

References
  1. Sargen MR, Shi L, Hooker RS, et al. Future growth of physicians and non-physician providers within the U.S. Dermatology workforce. Dermatol Online J. 2017;23:13030/qt840223q6
  2. The current and projected dermatology workforce in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74(suppl 1):AB122. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2016.02.478
  3. Nurse anesthetists, nurse midwives, and nurse practitioners.Occupational Outlook Handbook. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor. Updated April 18, 2022. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/health care/nurse-anesthetists-nurse-midwives-and-nurse-practitioners.htm
  4. Physician assistants. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor. Updated April 18, 2022. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/physician-assistants.htm
  5. Ehrlich A, Kostecki J, Olkaba H. Trends in dermatology practices and the implications for the workforce. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:746-752. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2017.06.030
  6. Anderson AM, Matsumoto M, Saul MI, et al. Accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis by physician assistants compared with dermatologists in a large health care system. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154:569-573. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.0212s
  7. American Academy of Dermatology Association. Position statement on the practice of dermatology: protecting and preserving patient safety and quality care. Revised May 21, 2016. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://server.aad.org/Forms/Policies/Uploads/PS/PS-Practice of Dermatology-Protecting Preserving Patient Safety Quality Care.pdf?
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Blalock is from the Department of Dermatology. He also is from the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University.

Dr. Barrett reports no conflict of interest. Dr. Blalock is an employee of Emory Healthcare; is a speaker for Physicians’ Education Resource, LLC; and is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences LLC.

Correspondence: Travis W. Blalock, MD, Emory University School of Medicine, 1525 Clifton Rd NE, 3rd Floor, Atlanta, GA 30322 (travis.w.blalock@emory.edu).

Issue
Cutis - 110(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E11-E16
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Blalock is from the Department of Dermatology. He also is from the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University.

Dr. Barrett reports no conflict of interest. Dr. Blalock is an employee of Emory Healthcare; is a speaker for Physicians’ Education Resource, LLC; and is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences LLC.

Correspondence: Travis W. Blalock, MD, Emory University School of Medicine, 1525 Clifton Rd NE, 3rd Floor, Atlanta, GA 30322 (travis.w.blalock@emory.edu).

Author and Disclosure Information

From the Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Blalock is from the Department of Dermatology. He also is from the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University.

Dr. Barrett reports no conflict of interest. Dr. Blalock is an employee of Emory Healthcare; is a speaker for Physicians’ Education Resource, LLC; and is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences LLC.

Correspondence: Travis W. Blalock, MD, Emory University School of Medicine, 1525 Clifton Rd NE, 3rd Floor, Atlanta, GA 30322 (travis.w.blalock@emory.edu).

Article PDF
Article PDF

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.

Characteristics of Survey Respondents and Dermatology Residency Programs

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.

Dermatology Residents’ Interactions With Nonphysician Clinicians and Current Program Training Exposure

 Dermatology Residents’ Interactions With Nonphysician Clinicians and Current Program Training Exposure

 

 

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).

Dermatology Residency Directors’ and Residents’ Perceptions of Working With Nonphysician Clinicians

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.

Characteristics of Survey Respondents and Dermatology Residency Programs

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.

Dermatology Residents’ Interactions With Nonphysician Clinicians and Current Program Training Exposure

 Dermatology Residents’ Interactions With Nonphysician Clinicians and Current Program Training Exposure

 

 

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).

Dermatology Residency Directors’ and Residents’ Perceptions of Working With Nonphysician Clinicians

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.

References
  1. Sargen MR, Shi L, Hooker RS, et al. Future growth of physicians and non-physician providers within the U.S. Dermatology workforce. Dermatol Online J. 2017;23:13030/qt840223q6
  2. The current and projected dermatology workforce in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74(suppl 1):AB122. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2016.02.478
  3. Nurse anesthetists, nurse midwives, and nurse practitioners.Occupational Outlook Handbook. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor. Updated April 18, 2022. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/health care/nurse-anesthetists-nurse-midwives-and-nurse-practitioners.htm
  4. Physician assistants. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor. Updated April 18, 2022. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/physician-assistants.htm
  5. Ehrlich A, Kostecki J, Olkaba H. Trends in dermatology practices and the implications for the workforce. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:746-752. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2017.06.030
  6. Anderson AM, Matsumoto M, Saul MI, et al. Accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis by physician assistants compared with dermatologists in a large health care system. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154:569-573. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.0212s
  7. American Academy of Dermatology Association. Position statement on the practice of dermatology: protecting and preserving patient safety and quality care. Revised May 21, 2016. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://server.aad.org/Forms/Policies/Uploads/PS/PS-Practice of Dermatology-Protecting Preserving Patient Safety Quality Care.pdf?
References
  1. Sargen MR, Shi L, Hooker RS, et al. Future growth of physicians and non-physician providers within the U.S. Dermatology workforce. Dermatol Online J. 2017;23:13030/qt840223q6
  2. The current and projected dermatology workforce in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74(suppl 1):AB122. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2016.02.478
  3. Nurse anesthetists, nurse midwives, and nurse practitioners.Occupational Outlook Handbook. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor. Updated April 18, 2022. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/health care/nurse-anesthetists-nurse-midwives-and-nurse-practitioners.htm
  4. Physician assistants. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor. Updated April 18, 2022. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/physician-assistants.htm
  5. Ehrlich A, Kostecki J, Olkaba H. Trends in dermatology practices and the implications for the workforce. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:746-752. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2017.06.030
  6. Anderson AM, Matsumoto M, Saul MI, et al. Accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis by physician assistants compared with dermatologists in a large health care system. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154:569-573. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.0212s
  7. American Academy of Dermatology Association. Position statement on the practice of dermatology: protecting and preserving patient safety and quality care. Revised May 21, 2016. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://server.aad.org/Forms/Policies/Uploads/PS/PS-Practice of Dermatology-Protecting Preserving Patient Safety Quality Care.pdf?
Issue
Cutis - 110(1)
Issue
Cutis - 110(1)
Page Number
E11-E16
Page Number
E11-E16
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Nonphysician Clinicians in Dermatology Residencies: Cross-sectional Survey on Residency Education
Display Headline
Nonphysician Clinicians in Dermatology Residencies: Cross-sectional Survey on Residency Education
Sections
Inside the Article

Practice Points

  • Most dermatology residency programs do not offer training on working with and supervising nonphysician clinicians.
  • Dermatology residents think that formal training in supervising nonphysician clinicians would be a beneficial addition to the residency curriculum.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media