For Residents

Throughout my training, a common refrain from more senior colleagues was that training “goes by quickly.” At the risk of sounding cliché, and even after a 7-year journey spanning psychiatry and preventive medicine residencies as well as a consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship, I agree without reservations that it does indeed go quickly. In the waning days of my training, reflection and nostalgia have become commonplace, as one might expect after such a meaningful pursuit. In sharing my reflections, I hope others progressing through training will also reflect on elements that added meaning to their experience and how they might improve the journey for future trainees.

Residency is a team sport

One realization that quickly struck me was that residency is a team sport, and finding supportive communities is essential to survival. Other residents, colleagues, and mentors played integral roles in making my experience rewarding. Training might be considered a shared traumatic experience, but having peers to commiserate with at each step has been among its greatest rewards. Residency automatically provided a cohort of colleagues who shared and validated my experiences. Additionally, having mentors who have been through it themselves and find ways to improve the training experience made mine superlative. Mentors assisted me in tailoring my training and developing interests that I could integrate into my future practice. The interpersonal connections I made were critical in helping me survive and thrive during training.

See one, do one, teach one

Residency and fellowship programs might be considered “see one, do one, teach one”¹ at large scale. Since their inception, these programs—designed to develop junior physicians—have been inherently educational in nature. The structure is elegant, allowing trainees to continue learning while incrementally gaining more autonomy and teaching responsibility.² Naively, I did not understand that implicit within my education was an expectation to become an educator and hone my teaching skills. Initially, being a newly minted resident receiving brand-new 3rd-year medical students charged me with apprehension. Thoughts I internalized, such as “these students probably know more than me” or “how can I be responsible for patients and students simultaneously,” may have resulted from a paucity of instruction about teaching available during medical school.^3,4 I quickly found, though, that teaching was among the most rewarding facets of training. Helping other learners grow became one of my passions and added to my experience.

Iron sharpens iron

Although my experience was enjoyable, I would be remiss without also considering accompanying trials and tribulations. Seemingly interminable night shifts, sleep deprivation, lack of autonomy, and system inefficiencies frustrated me. Eventually, these frustrations seemed less bothersome. These challenges likely had not vanished with time, but perhaps my capacity to tolerate distress improved—likely corresponding with increasing skill and confidence. These challenges allowed me to hone my clinical decision-making abilities while under duress. My struggles and frustrations were not unique but perhaps lessons themselves.

Residency is not meant to be easy. The crucible of residency taught me that I had resilience to draw upon during challenging times. “Iron sharpens iron,” as the adage goes, and I believe adversity ultimately helped me become a better psychiatrist.

Self-reflection is part of completing training

Reminders that my journey is at an end are everywhere. Seeing notes written by past residents or fellows reminds me that soon I too will merely be a name in the chart to future trainees. Perhaps this line of thought is unfair, reducing my training experience to notes I signed—whereas my training experience was defined by connections made with colleagues and mentors, opportunities to teach junior learners, and confidence gained by overcoming adversity.

While becoming an attending psychiatrist fills me with trepidation, fear need not be an inherent aspect of new beginnings. Reflection has been a powerful practice, allowing me to realize what made my experience so meaningful, and that training is meant to be process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented. My reflection has underscored the realization that challenges are inherent in training, although not without purpose. I believe these struggles were meant to allow me to build meaningful relationships with colleagues, discover joy in teaching, and build resiliency.

The purpose of residencies and fellowships should be to produce clinically excellent psychiatrists, but I feel the journey was as important as the destination. Psychiatrists likely understand this better than most, as we were trained to thoughtfully approach the process of termination with patients.⁵ While the conclusion of our training journeys may seem unceremonious or anticlimactic, the termination process should include self-reflection on meaningful facets of training. For me, this reflection has itself been invaluable, while also making me hopeful to contribute value to the training journeys of future psychiatrists.

Throughout my training, a common refrain from more senior colleagues was that training “goes by quickly.” At the risk of sounding cliché, and even after a 7-year journey spanning psychiatry and preventive medicine residencies as well as a consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship, I agree without reservations that it does indeed go quickly. In the waning days of my training, reflection and nostalgia have become commonplace, as one might expect after such a meaningful pursuit. In sharing my reflections, I hope others progressing through training will also reflect on elements that added meaning to their experience and how they might improve the journey for future trainees.

Residency is a team sport

One realization that quickly struck me was that residency is a team sport, and finding supportive communities is essential to survival. Other residents, colleagues, and mentors played integral roles in making my experience rewarding. Training might be considered a shared traumatic experience, but having peers to commiserate with at each step has been among its greatest rewards. Residency automatically provided a cohort of colleagues who shared and validated my experiences. Additionally, having mentors who have been through it themselves and find ways to improve the training experience made mine superlative. Mentors assisted me in tailoring my training and developing interests that I could integrate into my future practice. The interpersonal connections I made were critical in helping me survive and thrive during training.

See one, do one, teach one

Residency and fellowship programs might be considered “see one, do one, teach one”¹ at large scale. Since their inception, these programs—designed to develop junior physicians—have been inherently educational in nature. The structure is elegant, allowing trainees to continue learning while incrementally gaining more autonomy and teaching responsibility.² Naively, I did not understand that implicit within my education was an expectation to become an educator and hone my teaching skills. Initially, being a newly minted resident receiving brand-new 3rd-year medical students charged me with apprehension. Thoughts I internalized, such as “these students probably know more than me” or “how can I be responsible for patients and students simultaneously,” may have resulted from a paucity of instruction about teaching available during medical school.^3,4 I quickly found, though, that teaching was among the most rewarding facets of training. Helping other learners grow became one of my passions and added to my experience.

Iron sharpens iron

Although my experience was enjoyable, I would be remiss without also considering accompanying trials and tribulations. Seemingly interminable night shifts, sleep deprivation, lack of autonomy, and system inefficiencies frustrated me. Eventually, these frustrations seemed less bothersome. These challenges likely had not vanished with time, but perhaps my capacity to tolerate distress improved—likely corresponding with increasing skill and confidence. These challenges allowed me to hone my clinical decision-making abilities while under duress. My struggles and frustrations were not unique but perhaps lessons themselves.

Residency is not meant to be easy. The crucible of residency taught me that I had resilience to draw upon during challenging times. “Iron sharpens iron,” as the adage goes, and I believe adversity ultimately helped me become a better psychiatrist.

Self-reflection is part of completing training

Reminders that my journey is at an end are everywhere. Seeing notes written by past residents or fellows reminds me that soon I too will merely be a name in the chart to future trainees. Perhaps this line of thought is unfair, reducing my training experience to notes I signed—whereas my training experience was defined by connections made with colleagues and mentors, opportunities to teach junior learners, and confidence gained by overcoming adversity.

While becoming an attending psychiatrist fills me with trepidation, fear need not be an inherent aspect of new beginnings. Reflection has been a powerful practice, allowing me to realize what made my experience so meaningful, and that training is meant to be process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented. My reflection has underscored the realization that challenges are inherent in training, although not without purpose. I believe these struggles were meant to allow me to build meaningful relationships with colleagues, discover joy in teaching, and build resiliency.

The purpose of residencies and fellowships should be to produce clinically excellent psychiatrists, but I feel the journey was as important as the destination. Psychiatrists likely understand this better than most, as we were trained to thoughtfully approach the process of termination with patients.⁵ While the conclusion of our training journeys may seem unceremonious or anticlimactic, the termination process should include self-reflection on meaningful facets of training. For me, this reflection has itself been invaluable, while also making me hopeful to contribute value to the training journeys of future psychiatrists.

Throughout my training, a common refrain from more senior colleagues was that training “goes by quickly.” At the risk of sounding cliché, and even after a 7-year journey spanning psychiatry and preventive medicine residencies as well as a consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship, I agree without reservations that it does indeed go quickly. In the waning days of my training, reflection and nostalgia have become commonplace, as one might expect after such a meaningful pursuit. In sharing my reflections, I hope others progressing through training will also reflect on elements that added meaning to their experience and how they might improve the journey for future trainees.

Residency is a team sport

One realization that quickly struck me was that residency is a team sport, and finding supportive communities is essential to survival. Other residents, colleagues, and mentors played integral roles in making my experience rewarding. Training might be considered a shared traumatic experience, but having peers to commiserate with at each step has been among its greatest rewards. Residency automatically provided a cohort of colleagues who shared and validated my experiences. Additionally, having mentors who have been through it themselves and find ways to improve the training experience made mine superlative. Mentors assisted me in tailoring my training and developing interests that I could integrate into my future practice. The interpersonal connections I made were critical in helping me survive and thrive during training.

See one, do one, teach one

Residency and fellowship programs might be considered “see one, do one, teach one”¹ at large scale. Since their inception, these programs—designed to develop junior physicians—have been inherently educational in nature. The structure is elegant, allowing trainees to continue learning while incrementally gaining more autonomy and teaching responsibility.² Naively, I did not understand that implicit within my education was an expectation to become an educator and hone my teaching skills. Initially, being a newly minted resident receiving brand-new 3rd-year medical students charged me with apprehension. Thoughts I internalized, such as “these students probably know more than me” or “how can I be responsible for patients and students simultaneously,” may have resulted from a paucity of instruction about teaching available during medical school.^3,4 I quickly found, though, that teaching was among the most rewarding facets of training. Helping other learners grow became one of my passions and added to my experience.

Iron sharpens iron

Although my experience was enjoyable, I would be remiss without also considering accompanying trials and tribulations. Seemingly interminable night shifts, sleep deprivation, lack of autonomy, and system inefficiencies frustrated me. Eventually, these frustrations seemed less bothersome. These challenges likely had not vanished with time, but perhaps my capacity to tolerate distress improved—likely corresponding with increasing skill and confidence. These challenges allowed me to hone my clinical decision-making abilities while under duress. My struggles and frustrations were not unique but perhaps lessons themselves.

Residency is not meant to be easy. The crucible of residency taught me that I had resilience to draw upon during challenging times. “Iron sharpens iron,” as the adage goes, and I believe adversity ultimately helped me become a better psychiatrist.

Self-reflection is part of completing training

Reminders that my journey is at an end are everywhere. Seeing notes written by past residents or fellows reminds me that soon I too will merely be a name in the chart to future trainees. Perhaps this line of thought is unfair, reducing my training experience to notes I signed—whereas my training experience was defined by connections made with colleagues and mentors, opportunities to teach junior learners, and confidence gained by overcoming adversity.

While becoming an attending psychiatrist fills me with trepidation, fear need not be an inherent aspect of new beginnings. Reflection has been a powerful practice, allowing me to realize what made my experience so meaningful, and that training is meant to be process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented. My reflection has underscored the realization that challenges are inherent in training, although not without purpose. I believe these struggles were meant to allow me to build meaningful relationships with colleagues, discover joy in teaching, and build resiliency.

The purpose of residencies and fellowships should be to produce clinically excellent psychiatrists, but I feel the journey was as important as the destination. Psychiatrists likely understand this better than most, as we were trained to thoughtfully approach the process of termination with patients.⁵ While the conclusion of our training journeys may seem unceremonious or anticlimactic, the termination process should include self-reflection on meaningful facets of training. For me, this reflection has itself been invaluable, while also making me hopeful to contribute value to the training journeys of future psychiatrists.

As an undergraduate student at Northeastern University in Boston, Meghan Chin spent her summers working for a day program in Rhode Island. Her charges were adults with various forms of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).

“I was very much a caretaker,” Ms. Chin, now 29, said. “It was everything from helping them get dressed in the morning to getting them to medical appointments.”

During one such visit Ms. Chin got a lesson about how health care looks from the viewpoint of someone with an IDD.

The patient was a woman in her 60s and she was having gastrointestinal issues; symptoms she could have articulated, if asked. “She was perfectly capable of telling a clinician where it hurt, how long she had experienced the problem, and what she had done or not done to alleviate it,” Ms. Chin said.

And of comprehending a response. But she was not given the opportunity.

“She would explain what was going on to the clinician,” Ms. Chin recalled. “And the clinician would turn to me and answer. It was this weird three-way conversation – as if she wasn’t even there in the room with us.”

Ms. Chin was incensed at the rude and disrespectful way the patient had been treated. But her charge didn’t seem upset or surprised. Just resigned. “Sadly, she had become used to this,” Ms. Chin said. 

For the young aide, however, the experience was searing. “It didn’t seem right to me,” Ms. Chin said. “That’s why, when I went to medical school, I knew I wanted to do better for this population.”

Serendipity led her to Georgetown University, Washington, where she met Kim Bullock, MD, one of the country’s leading advocates for improved health care delivery to those with IDDs.

Dr. Bullock, an associate professor of family medicine, seeks to create better training and educational opportunities for medical students who will likely encounter patients with these disabilities in their practices.

When Dr. Bullock heard Ms. Chin’s story about the patient being ignored, she was not surprised.

“This is not an unusual or unique situation,” said Dr. Bullock, who is also director of Georgetown’s community health division and a faculty member of the university’s Center for Excellence for Developmental Disabilities. “In fact, it’s quite common and is part of what spurred my own interest in educating pre-med and medical students about effective communication techniques, particularly when addressing neurodiverse patients.”

More than 13% of Americans, or roughly 44 million people, have some form of disability, according to the National Institute on Disability at the University of New Hampshire, a figure that does not include those who are institutionalized. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 17% of children aged 3-17 years have a developmental disability.

Even so, many physicians feel ill-prepared to care for disabled patients. A survey of physicians, published in the journal Health Affairs, found that some lacked the resources and training to properly care for patients with disabilities, or that they struggled to coordinate care for such individuals. Some said they did not know which types of accessible equipment, like adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them. And some said they actively try to avoid treating patients with disabilities.
 

Don’t assume

The first step at correcting the problem, Dr. Bullock said, is to not assume that all IDD patients are incapable of communicating. By talking not to the patient but to their caregiver or spouse or child, as the clinician did with Ms. Chin years ago, “we are taking away their agency, their autonomy to speak for and about themselves.”

Change involves altering physicians’ attitudes and assumptions toward this population, through education. But how?

“The medical school curriculum is tight as it is,” Dr. Bullock acknowledged. “There’s a lot of things students have to learn. People wonder: where we will add this?”

Her suggestion: Incorporate IDD all along the way, through programs or experiences that will enable medical students to see such patients “not as something separate, but as people that have special needs just as other populations have.”

Case in point: Operation House Call, a program in Massachusetts designed to support young health care professionals, by building “confidence, interest, and sensitivity” toward individuals with IDD.

Eight medical and allied health schools, including those at Harvard Medical School and Yale School of Nursing, participate in the program, the centerpiece of which is time spent by teams of medical students in the homes of families with neurodiverse members. “It’s transformational,” said Susan Feeney, DNP, NP-C, director of adult gerontology and family nurse practitioner programs at the graduate school of nursing at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “They spend a few hours at the homes of these families, have this interaction with them, and journal about their experiences.”

Dr. Feeney described as “transformational” the experience of the students after getting to know these families. “They all come back profoundly changed,” she told this news organization. “As a medical or health care professional, you meet people in an artificial environment of the clinic and hospital. Here, they become human, like you. It takes the stigma away.”

One area of medicine in which this is an exception is pediatrics, where interaction with children with IDD and their families is common – and close. “They’re going to be much more attuned to this,” Dr. Feeney said. “The problem is primary care or internal medicine. Once these children get into their mid and later 20s, and they need a practitioner to talk to about adult concerns.”

And with adulthood come other medical needs, as the physical demands of age fall no less heavily on individuals with IDDs than those without. For example: “Neurodiverse people get pregnant,” Dr. Bullock said. They also can get heart disease as they age; or require the care of a rheumatologist, a neurologist, an orthopedic surgeon, or any other medical specialty.

Generation gap

Fortunately, the next generation of physicians may be more open to this more inclusionary approach toward a widely misunderstood population.

Like Ms. Chin, Sarah Bdeir had experience with this population prior to beginning her training in medicine. She had volunteered at a school for people with IDD.

“It was one of the best experiences I’ve ever had,” Ms. Bdeir, now 23 and a first-year medical student at Wayne State University, Detroit, said. She found that the neurodiverse individuals she worked with had as many abilities as disabilities. “They are capable of learning, but they do it differently,” she said. “You have to adjust to the way they learn. And you have to step out of your own box.”

Ms. Bdeir also heard about Dr. Bullock’s work and is assisting her in a research project on how to better improve nutritional education for people with IDDs. And although she said it may take time for curriculum boards at medical schools to integrate this kind of training into their programs, she believes they will, in part because the rising cohort of medical students today have an eagerness to engage with and learn more about IDD patients.

As does Ms. Chin.

“When I talk to my peers about this, they’re very receptive,” Ms. Chin said. “They want to learn how to better support the IDD population. And they will learn. I believe in my generation of future doctors.”

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

As an undergraduate student at Northeastern University in Boston, Meghan Chin spent her summers working for a day program in Rhode Island. Her charges were adults with various forms of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).

“I was very much a caretaker,” Ms. Chin, now 29, said. “It was everything from helping them get dressed in the morning to getting them to medical appointments.”

During one such visit Ms. Chin got a lesson about how health care looks from the viewpoint of someone with an IDD.

The patient was a woman in her 60s and she was having gastrointestinal issues; symptoms she could have articulated, if asked. “She was perfectly capable of telling a clinician where it hurt, how long she had experienced the problem, and what she had done or not done to alleviate it,” Ms. Chin said.

And of comprehending a response. But she was not given the opportunity.

“She would explain what was going on to the clinician,” Ms. Chin recalled. “And the clinician would turn to me and answer. It was this weird three-way conversation – as if she wasn’t even there in the room with us.”

Ms. Chin was incensed at the rude and disrespectful way the patient had been treated. But her charge didn’t seem upset or surprised. Just resigned. “Sadly, she had become used to this,” Ms. Chin said. 

For the young aide, however, the experience was searing. “It didn’t seem right to me,” Ms. Chin said. “That’s why, when I went to medical school, I knew I wanted to do better for this population.”

Serendipity led her to Georgetown University, Washington, where she met Kim Bullock, MD, one of the country’s leading advocates for improved health care delivery to those with IDDs.

Dr. Bullock, an associate professor of family medicine, seeks to create better training and educational opportunities for medical students who will likely encounter patients with these disabilities in their practices.

When Dr. Bullock heard Ms. Chin’s story about the patient being ignored, she was not surprised.

“This is not an unusual or unique situation,” said Dr. Bullock, who is also director of Georgetown’s community health division and a faculty member of the university’s Center for Excellence for Developmental Disabilities. “In fact, it’s quite common and is part of what spurred my own interest in educating pre-med and medical students about effective communication techniques, particularly when addressing neurodiverse patients.”

More than 13% of Americans, or roughly 44 million people, have some form of disability, according to the National Institute on Disability at the University of New Hampshire, a figure that does not include those who are institutionalized. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 17% of children aged 3-17 years have a developmental disability.

Even so, many physicians feel ill-prepared to care for disabled patients. A survey of physicians, published in the journal Health Affairs, found that some lacked the resources and training to properly care for patients with disabilities, or that they struggled to coordinate care for such individuals. Some said they did not know which types of accessible equipment, like adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them. And some said they actively try to avoid treating patients with disabilities.
 

Don’t assume

The first step at correcting the problem, Dr. Bullock said, is to not assume that all IDD patients are incapable of communicating. By talking not to the patient but to their caregiver or spouse or child, as the clinician did with Ms. Chin years ago, “we are taking away their agency, their autonomy to speak for and about themselves.”

Change involves altering physicians’ attitudes and assumptions toward this population, through education. But how?

“The medical school curriculum is tight as it is,” Dr. Bullock acknowledged. “There’s a lot of things students have to learn. People wonder: where we will add this?”

Her suggestion: Incorporate IDD all along the way, through programs or experiences that will enable medical students to see such patients “not as something separate, but as people that have special needs just as other populations have.”

Case in point: Operation House Call, a program in Massachusetts designed to support young health care professionals, by building “confidence, interest, and sensitivity” toward individuals with IDD.

Eight medical and allied health schools, including those at Harvard Medical School and Yale School of Nursing, participate in the program, the centerpiece of which is time spent by teams of medical students in the homes of families with neurodiverse members. “It’s transformational,” said Susan Feeney, DNP, NP-C, director of adult gerontology and family nurse practitioner programs at the graduate school of nursing at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “They spend a few hours at the homes of these families, have this interaction with them, and journal about their experiences.”

Dr. Feeney described as “transformational” the experience of the students after getting to know these families. “They all come back profoundly changed,” she told this news organization. “As a medical or health care professional, you meet people in an artificial environment of the clinic and hospital. Here, they become human, like you. It takes the stigma away.”

One area of medicine in which this is an exception is pediatrics, where interaction with children with IDD and their families is common – and close. “They’re going to be much more attuned to this,” Dr. Feeney said. “The problem is primary care or internal medicine. Once these children get into their mid and later 20s, and they need a practitioner to talk to about adult concerns.”

And with adulthood come other medical needs, as the physical demands of age fall no less heavily on individuals with IDDs than those without. For example: “Neurodiverse people get pregnant,” Dr. Bullock said. They also can get heart disease as they age; or require the care of a rheumatologist, a neurologist, an orthopedic surgeon, or any other medical specialty.

Generation gap

Fortunately, the next generation of physicians may be more open to this more inclusionary approach toward a widely misunderstood population.

Like Ms. Chin, Sarah Bdeir had experience with this population prior to beginning her training in medicine. She had volunteered at a school for people with IDD.

“It was one of the best experiences I’ve ever had,” Ms. Bdeir, now 23 and a first-year medical student at Wayne State University, Detroit, said. She found that the neurodiverse individuals she worked with had as many abilities as disabilities. “They are capable of learning, but they do it differently,” she said. “You have to adjust to the way they learn. And you have to step out of your own box.”

Ms. Bdeir also heard about Dr. Bullock’s work and is assisting her in a research project on how to better improve nutritional education for people with IDDs. And although she said it may take time for curriculum boards at medical schools to integrate this kind of training into their programs, she believes they will, in part because the rising cohort of medical students today have an eagerness to engage with and learn more about IDD patients.

As does Ms. Chin.

“When I talk to my peers about this, they’re very receptive,” Ms. Chin said. “They want to learn how to better support the IDD population. And they will learn. I believe in my generation of future doctors.”

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

As an undergraduate student at Northeastern University in Boston, Meghan Chin spent her summers working for a day program in Rhode Island. Her charges were adults with various forms of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).

“I was very much a caretaker,” Ms. Chin, now 29, said. “It was everything from helping them get dressed in the morning to getting them to medical appointments.”

During one such visit Ms. Chin got a lesson about how health care looks from the viewpoint of someone with an IDD.

The patient was a woman in her 60s and she was having gastrointestinal issues; symptoms she could have articulated, if asked. “She was perfectly capable of telling a clinician where it hurt, how long she had experienced the problem, and what she had done or not done to alleviate it,” Ms. Chin said.

And of comprehending a response. But she was not given the opportunity.

“She would explain what was going on to the clinician,” Ms. Chin recalled. “And the clinician would turn to me and answer. It was this weird three-way conversation – as if she wasn’t even there in the room with us.”

Ms. Chin was incensed at the rude and disrespectful way the patient had been treated. But her charge didn’t seem upset or surprised. Just resigned. “Sadly, she had become used to this,” Ms. Chin said. 

For the young aide, however, the experience was searing. “It didn’t seem right to me,” Ms. Chin said. “That’s why, when I went to medical school, I knew I wanted to do better for this population.”

Serendipity led her to Georgetown University, Washington, where she met Kim Bullock, MD, one of the country’s leading advocates for improved health care delivery to those with IDDs.

Dr. Bullock, an associate professor of family medicine, seeks to create better training and educational opportunities for medical students who will likely encounter patients with these disabilities in their practices.

When Dr. Bullock heard Ms. Chin’s story about the patient being ignored, she was not surprised.

“This is not an unusual or unique situation,” said Dr. Bullock, who is also director of Georgetown’s community health division and a faculty member of the university’s Center for Excellence for Developmental Disabilities. “In fact, it’s quite common and is part of what spurred my own interest in educating pre-med and medical students about effective communication techniques, particularly when addressing neurodiverse patients.”

More than 13% of Americans, or roughly 44 million people, have some form of disability, according to the National Institute on Disability at the University of New Hampshire, a figure that does not include those who are institutionalized. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 17% of children aged 3-17 years have a developmental disability.

Even so, many physicians feel ill-prepared to care for disabled patients. A survey of physicians, published in the journal Health Affairs, found that some lacked the resources and training to properly care for patients with disabilities, or that they struggled to coordinate care for such individuals. Some said they did not know which types of accessible equipment, like adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them. And some said they actively try to avoid treating patients with disabilities.
 

Don’t assume

The first step at correcting the problem, Dr. Bullock said, is to not assume that all IDD patients are incapable of communicating. By talking not to the patient but to their caregiver or spouse or child, as the clinician did with Ms. Chin years ago, “we are taking away their agency, their autonomy to speak for and about themselves.”

Change involves altering physicians’ attitudes and assumptions toward this population, through education. But how?

“The medical school curriculum is tight as it is,” Dr. Bullock acknowledged. “There’s a lot of things students have to learn. People wonder: where we will add this?”

Her suggestion: Incorporate IDD all along the way, through programs or experiences that will enable medical students to see such patients “not as something separate, but as people that have special needs just as other populations have.”

Case in point: Operation House Call, a program in Massachusetts designed to support young health care professionals, by building “confidence, interest, and sensitivity” toward individuals with IDD.

Eight medical and allied health schools, including those at Harvard Medical School and Yale School of Nursing, participate in the program, the centerpiece of which is time spent by teams of medical students in the homes of families with neurodiverse members. “It’s transformational,” said Susan Feeney, DNP, NP-C, director of adult gerontology and family nurse practitioner programs at the graduate school of nursing at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “They spend a few hours at the homes of these families, have this interaction with them, and journal about their experiences.”

Dr. Feeney described as “transformational” the experience of the students after getting to know these families. “They all come back profoundly changed,” she told this news organization. “As a medical or health care professional, you meet people in an artificial environment of the clinic and hospital. Here, they become human, like you. It takes the stigma away.”

One area of medicine in which this is an exception is pediatrics, where interaction with children with IDD and their families is common – and close. “They’re going to be much more attuned to this,” Dr. Feeney said. “The problem is primary care or internal medicine. Once these children get into their mid and later 20s, and they need a practitioner to talk to about adult concerns.”

And with adulthood come other medical needs, as the physical demands of age fall no less heavily on individuals with IDDs than those without. For example: “Neurodiverse people get pregnant,” Dr. Bullock said. They also can get heart disease as they age; or require the care of a rheumatologist, a neurologist, an orthopedic surgeon, or any other medical specialty.

Generation gap

Fortunately, the next generation of physicians may be more open to this more inclusionary approach toward a widely misunderstood population.

Like Ms. Chin, Sarah Bdeir had experience with this population prior to beginning her training in medicine. She had volunteered at a school for people with IDD.

“It was one of the best experiences I’ve ever had,” Ms. Bdeir, now 23 and a first-year medical student at Wayne State University, Detroit, said. She found that the neurodiverse individuals she worked with had as many abilities as disabilities. “They are capable of learning, but they do it differently,” she said. “You have to adjust to the way they learn. And you have to step out of your own box.”

Ms. Bdeir also heard about Dr. Bullock’s work and is assisting her in a research project on how to better improve nutritional education for people with IDDs. And although she said it may take time for curriculum boards at medical schools to integrate this kind of training into their programs, she believes they will, in part because the rising cohort of medical students today have an eagerness to engage with and learn more about IDD patients.

As does Ms. Chin.

“When I talk to my peers about this, they’re very receptive,” Ms. Chin said. “They want to learn how to better support the IDD population. And they will learn. I believe in my generation of future doctors.”

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

The transition from medical school to residency is a rewarding milestone but involves a steep learning curve wrought with new responsibilities, new colleagues, and a new schedule, often all within a new setting. This transition period has been a longstanding focus of graduate medical education research, and a recent study identified 6 key areas that residency programs need to address to better facilitate this transition: (1) a sense of community within the residency program, (2) relocation resources, (3) residency preparation courses in medical school, (4) readiness to address racism and bias, (5) connecting with peers, and (6) open communication with program leadership.¹ There is considerable interest in ensuring that this transition is smooth for all graduates, as nearly all US medical schools feature some variety of a residency preparation course during the fourth year of medical school, which, alongside the subinternships, serves to better prepare their graduates for the healthcare workforce.²

What about the transition from intern to dermatology resident? Near the end of intern year, my categorical medicine colleagues experienced a crescendo of responsibilities, all in preparation for junior year. The senior medicine residents, themselves having previously experienced the graduated responsibilities, knew to ease their grip on the reins and provide the late spring interns an opportunity to lead rounds or run a code. This was not the case for the preliminary interns for whom there was no preview available for what was to come; little guidance exists on how to best transform from a preliminary or transitional postgraduate year (PGY) 1 to a dermatology PGY-2. A survey of 44 dermatology residents and 33 dermatology program directors found electives such as rheumatology, infectious diseases, and allergy and immunology to be helpful for this transition, and residents most often cited friendly and supportive senior and fellow residents as the factor that eased their transition to PGY-2.³ Notably, less than half of the residents (40%) surveyed stated that team-building exercises and dedicated time to meet colleagues were helpful for this transition. They identified studying principles of dermatologic disease, learning new clinical duties, and adjusting to new coworkers and supervisors as the greatest work-related stressors during entry to PGY-2.³

My transition from intern year to dermatology was shrouded in uncertainty, and I was fortunate to have supportive seniors and co-residents to ease the process. There is much about starting dermatology residency that cannot be prepared for by reading a book, and a natural metamorphosis into the new role is hard to articulate. Still, the following are pieces of information I wish I knew as a graduating intern, which I hope will prove useful for those graduating to their PGY-2 dermatology year.

The Pace of Outpatient Dermatology

If the preliminary or transitional year did not have an ambulatory component, the switch from wards to clinic can be jarring. An outpatient encounter can be as short as 10 to 15 minutes, necessitating an efficient interview and examination to avoid a backup of patients. Unlike a hospital admission where the history of present illness can expound on multiple concerns and organ systems, the general dermatology visit must focus on the chief concern, with priority given to the clinical examination of the skin. For total-body skin examinations, a formulaic approach to assessing all areas of the body, with fluent transitions and minimal repositioning of the patient, is critical for patient comfort and to save time. Of course, accuracy and thoroughness are paramount, but the constant mindfulness of time and efficiency is uniquely emphasized in the outpatient setting.

Continuity of Care

On the wards, patients are admitted with an acute problem and discharged with the aim to prevent re-admission. However, in the dermatology clinic, the conditions encountered often are chronic, requiring repeated follow-ups that involve dosage tapers, laboratory monitoring, and trial and error. Unlike the rigid algorithm-based treatments utilized in the inpatient setting, the management of the same chronic disease can vary, as it is tailored to the patient based on their comorbidities and response. This longitudinal relationship with patients, whereby many disorders are managed rather than treated, stands in stark contrast to inpatient medicine, and learning to value symptom management rather than focusing on a cure is critical in a largely outpatient specialty such as dermatology.

Consulter to Consultant

Calling a consultation as an intern is challenging and requires succinct delivery of pertinent information while fearing pushback from the consultant. In a survey of 50 hospitalist attendings, only 11% responded that interns could be entrusted to call an effective consultation without supervision.⁴ When undertaking the role of a consultant, the goals should be to identify the team’s main question and to obtain key information necessary to formulate a differential diagnosis. The quality of the consultation will inevitably fluctuate; try to remember what it was like for you as a member of the primary team and remain patient and courteous during the exchange.⁵ In 1983, Goldman et al⁶ published a guideline on effective consultations that often is cited to this day, dubbed the “Ten Commandments for Effective Consultations,” which consists of the following: (1) determine the question that is being asked, (2) establish the urgency of the consultation, (3) gather primary data, (4) communicate as briefly as appropriate, (5) make specific recommendations, (6) provide contingency plans, (7) understand your own role in the process, (8) offer educational information, (9) communicate recommendations directly to the requesting physician, and (10) provide appropriate follow-up.

Consider Your Future

Frequently reflect on what you most enjoy about your job. Although it can be easy to passively engage with intern year as a mere stepping-stone to dermatology residency, the years in PGY-2 and onward require active introspection to find a future niche. What made you gravitate to the specialty of dermatology? Try to identify your predilections for dermatopathology, pediatric dermatology, dermatologic surgery, cosmetic dermatology, and academia. Be consistently cognizant of your life after residency, as some fellowships such as dermatopathology require applications to be submitted at the conclusion of the PGY-2 year. Seek out faculty mentors or alumni who are walking a path similar to the one you want to embark on, as the next stop after graduation may be your forever job.

Depth, Not Breadth

The practice of medicine changes when narrowing the focus to one organ system. In both medical school and intern year, my study habits and history-taking of patients cast a wide net across multiple organ systems, aiming to know just enough about any one specialty to address all chief concerns and to know when it was appropriate to consult a specialist. This paradigm inevitably shifts in dermatology residency, as residents are tasked with memorizing the endless number of diagnoses of the skin alone, comprehending the many shades of “erythematous,” including pink, salmon, red, and purple. Both on the wards and in clinics, I had to grow comfortable with telling patients that I did not have an answer for many of their nondermatologic concerns and directing them to the right specialist. As medicine continues trending to specialization, subspecialization, and sub-subspecialization, the scope of any given physician likely will continue to narrow,⁷ as evidenced by specialty clinics within dermatology such as those focusing on hair loss or immunobullous disease. In this health care system, it is imperative to remember that you are only one physician within a team of care providers—understand your own role in the process and become comfortable with not having the answer to all the questions.

Final Thoughts

In a study of 44 dermatology residents, 35 (83%) indicated zero to less than 1 hour per week of independent preparation for dermatology residency during PGY-1.³ Although the usefulness of preparing is debatable, this figure likely reflects the absence of any insight on how to best prepare for the transition. Recognizing the many contrasts between internal medicine and dermatology and embracing the changes will enable a seamless promotion from a medicine PGY-1 to a dermatology PGY-2.

The transition from medical school to residency is a rewarding milestone but involves a steep learning curve wrought with new responsibilities, new colleagues, and a new schedule, often all within a new setting. This transition period has been a longstanding focus of graduate medical education research, and a recent study identified 6 key areas that residency programs need to address to better facilitate this transition: (1) a sense of community within the residency program, (2) relocation resources, (3) residency preparation courses in medical school, (4) readiness to address racism and bias, (5) connecting with peers, and (6) open communication with program leadership.¹ There is considerable interest in ensuring that this transition is smooth for all graduates, as nearly all US medical schools feature some variety of a residency preparation course during the fourth year of medical school, which, alongside the subinternships, serves to better prepare their graduates for the healthcare workforce.²

What about the transition from intern to dermatology resident? Near the end of intern year, my categorical medicine colleagues experienced a crescendo of responsibilities, all in preparation for junior year. The senior medicine residents, themselves having previously experienced the graduated responsibilities, knew to ease their grip on the reins and provide the late spring interns an opportunity to lead rounds or run a code. This was not the case for the preliminary interns for whom there was no preview available for what was to come; little guidance exists on how to best transform from a preliminary or transitional postgraduate year (PGY) 1 to a dermatology PGY-2. A survey of 44 dermatology residents and 33 dermatology program directors found electives such as rheumatology, infectious diseases, and allergy and immunology to be helpful for this transition, and residents most often cited friendly and supportive senior and fellow residents as the factor that eased their transition to PGY-2.³ Notably, less than half of the residents (40%) surveyed stated that team-building exercises and dedicated time to meet colleagues were helpful for this transition. They identified studying principles of dermatologic disease, learning new clinical duties, and adjusting to new coworkers and supervisors as the greatest work-related stressors during entry to PGY-2.³

My transition from intern year to dermatology was shrouded in uncertainty, and I was fortunate to have supportive seniors and co-residents to ease the process. There is much about starting dermatology residency that cannot be prepared for by reading a book, and a natural metamorphosis into the new role is hard to articulate. Still, the following are pieces of information I wish I knew as a graduating intern, which I hope will prove useful for those graduating to their PGY-2 dermatology year.

The Pace of Outpatient Dermatology

If the preliminary or transitional year did not have an ambulatory component, the switch from wards to clinic can be jarring. An outpatient encounter can be as short as 10 to 15 minutes, necessitating an efficient interview and examination to avoid a backup of patients. Unlike a hospital admission where the history of present illness can expound on multiple concerns and organ systems, the general dermatology visit must focus on the chief concern, with priority given to the clinical examination of the skin. For total-body skin examinations, a formulaic approach to assessing all areas of the body, with fluent transitions and minimal repositioning of the patient, is critical for patient comfort and to save time. Of course, accuracy and thoroughness are paramount, but the constant mindfulness of time and efficiency is uniquely emphasized in the outpatient setting.

Continuity of Care

On the wards, patients are admitted with an acute problem and discharged with the aim to prevent re-admission. However, in the dermatology clinic, the conditions encountered often are chronic, requiring repeated follow-ups that involve dosage tapers, laboratory monitoring, and trial and error. Unlike the rigid algorithm-based treatments utilized in the inpatient setting, the management of the same chronic disease can vary, as it is tailored to the patient based on their comorbidities and response. This longitudinal relationship with patients, whereby many disorders are managed rather than treated, stands in stark contrast to inpatient medicine, and learning to value symptom management rather than focusing on a cure is critical in a largely outpatient specialty such as dermatology.

Consulter to Consultant

Calling a consultation as an intern is challenging and requires succinct delivery of pertinent information while fearing pushback from the consultant. In a survey of 50 hospitalist attendings, only 11% responded that interns could be entrusted to call an effective consultation without supervision.⁴ When undertaking the role of a consultant, the goals should be to identify the team’s main question and to obtain key information necessary to formulate a differential diagnosis. The quality of the consultation will inevitably fluctuate; try to remember what it was like for you as a member of the primary team and remain patient and courteous during the exchange.⁵ In 1983, Goldman et al⁶ published a guideline on effective consultations that often is cited to this day, dubbed the “Ten Commandments for Effective Consultations,” which consists of the following: (1) determine the question that is being asked, (2) establish the urgency of the consultation, (3) gather primary data, (4) communicate as briefly as appropriate, (5) make specific recommendations, (6) provide contingency plans, (7) understand your own role in the process, (8) offer educational information, (9) communicate recommendations directly to the requesting physician, and (10) provide appropriate follow-up.

Consider Your Future

Frequently reflect on what you most enjoy about your job. Although it can be easy to passively engage with intern year as a mere stepping-stone to dermatology residency, the years in PGY-2 and onward require active introspection to find a future niche. What made you gravitate to the specialty of dermatology? Try to identify your predilections for dermatopathology, pediatric dermatology, dermatologic surgery, cosmetic dermatology, and academia. Be consistently cognizant of your life after residency, as some fellowships such as dermatopathology require applications to be submitted at the conclusion of the PGY-2 year. Seek out faculty mentors or alumni who are walking a path similar to the one you want to embark on, as the next stop after graduation may be your forever job.

Depth, Not Breadth

The practice of medicine changes when narrowing the focus to one organ system. In both medical school and intern year, my study habits and history-taking of patients cast a wide net across multiple organ systems, aiming to know just enough about any one specialty to address all chief concerns and to know when it was appropriate to consult a specialist. This paradigm inevitably shifts in dermatology residency, as residents are tasked with memorizing the endless number of diagnoses of the skin alone, comprehending the many shades of “erythematous,” including pink, salmon, red, and purple. Both on the wards and in clinics, I had to grow comfortable with telling patients that I did not have an answer for many of their nondermatologic concerns and directing them to the right specialist. As medicine continues trending to specialization, subspecialization, and sub-subspecialization, the scope of any given physician likely will continue to narrow,⁷ as evidenced by specialty clinics within dermatology such as those focusing on hair loss or immunobullous disease. In this health care system, it is imperative to remember that you are only one physician within a team of care providers—understand your own role in the process and become comfortable with not having the answer to all the questions.

Final Thoughts

In a study of 44 dermatology residents, 35 (83%) indicated zero to less than 1 hour per week of independent preparation for dermatology residency during PGY-1.³ Although the usefulness of preparing is debatable, this figure likely reflects the absence of any insight on how to best prepare for the transition. Recognizing the many contrasts between internal medicine and dermatology and embracing the changes will enable a seamless promotion from a medicine PGY-1 to a dermatology PGY-2.

The transition from medical school to residency is a rewarding milestone but involves a steep learning curve wrought with new responsibilities, new colleagues, and a new schedule, often all within a new setting. This transition period has been a longstanding focus of graduate medical education research, and a recent study identified 6 key areas that residency programs need to address to better facilitate this transition: (1) a sense of community within the residency program, (2) relocation resources, (3) residency preparation courses in medical school, (4) readiness to address racism and bias, (5) connecting with peers, and (6) open communication with program leadership.¹ There is considerable interest in ensuring that this transition is smooth for all graduates, as nearly all US medical schools feature some variety of a residency preparation course during the fourth year of medical school, which, alongside the subinternships, serves to better prepare their graduates for the healthcare workforce.²

What about the transition from intern to dermatology resident? Near the end of intern year, my categorical medicine colleagues experienced a crescendo of responsibilities, all in preparation for junior year. The senior medicine residents, themselves having previously experienced the graduated responsibilities, knew to ease their grip on the reins and provide the late spring interns an opportunity to lead rounds or run a code. This was not the case for the preliminary interns for whom there was no preview available for what was to come; little guidance exists on how to best transform from a preliminary or transitional postgraduate year (PGY) 1 to a dermatology PGY-2. A survey of 44 dermatology residents and 33 dermatology program directors found electives such as rheumatology, infectious diseases, and allergy and immunology to be helpful for this transition, and residents most often cited friendly and supportive senior and fellow residents as the factor that eased their transition to PGY-2.³ Notably, less than half of the residents (40%) surveyed stated that team-building exercises and dedicated time to meet colleagues were helpful for this transition. They identified studying principles of dermatologic disease, learning new clinical duties, and adjusting to new coworkers and supervisors as the greatest work-related stressors during entry to PGY-2.³

My transition from intern year to dermatology was shrouded in uncertainty, and I was fortunate to have supportive seniors and co-residents to ease the process. There is much about starting dermatology residency that cannot be prepared for by reading a book, and a natural metamorphosis into the new role is hard to articulate. Still, the following are pieces of information I wish I knew as a graduating intern, which I hope will prove useful for those graduating to their PGY-2 dermatology year.

The Pace of Outpatient Dermatology

If the preliminary or transitional year did not have an ambulatory component, the switch from wards to clinic can be jarring. An outpatient encounter can be as short as 10 to 15 minutes, necessitating an efficient interview and examination to avoid a backup of patients. Unlike a hospital admission where the history of present illness can expound on multiple concerns and organ systems, the general dermatology visit must focus on the chief concern, with priority given to the clinical examination of the skin. For total-body skin examinations, a formulaic approach to assessing all areas of the body, with fluent transitions and minimal repositioning of the patient, is critical for patient comfort and to save time. Of course, accuracy and thoroughness are paramount, but the constant mindfulness of time and efficiency is uniquely emphasized in the outpatient setting.

Continuity of Care

On the wards, patients are admitted with an acute problem and discharged with the aim to prevent re-admission. However, in the dermatology clinic, the conditions encountered often are chronic, requiring repeated follow-ups that involve dosage tapers, laboratory monitoring, and trial and error. Unlike the rigid algorithm-based treatments utilized in the inpatient setting, the management of the same chronic disease can vary, as it is tailored to the patient based on their comorbidities and response. This longitudinal relationship with patients, whereby many disorders are managed rather than treated, stands in stark contrast to inpatient medicine, and learning to value symptom management rather than focusing on a cure is critical in a largely outpatient specialty such as dermatology.

Consulter to Consultant

Calling a consultation as an intern is challenging and requires succinct delivery of pertinent information while fearing pushback from the consultant. In a survey of 50 hospitalist attendings, only 11% responded that interns could be entrusted to call an effective consultation without supervision.⁴ When undertaking the role of a consultant, the goals should be to identify the team’s main question and to obtain key information necessary to formulate a differential diagnosis. The quality of the consultation will inevitably fluctuate; try to remember what it was like for you as a member of the primary team and remain patient and courteous during the exchange.⁵ In 1983, Goldman et al⁶ published a guideline on effective consultations that often is cited to this day, dubbed the “Ten Commandments for Effective Consultations,” which consists of the following: (1) determine the question that is being asked, (2) establish the urgency of the consultation, (3) gather primary data, (4) communicate as briefly as appropriate, (5) make specific recommendations, (6) provide contingency plans, (7) understand your own role in the process, (8) offer educational information, (9) communicate recommendations directly to the requesting physician, and (10) provide appropriate follow-up.

Consider Your Future

Frequently reflect on what you most enjoy about your job. Although it can be easy to passively engage with intern year as a mere stepping-stone to dermatology residency, the years in PGY-2 and onward require active introspection to find a future niche. What made you gravitate to the specialty of dermatology? Try to identify your predilections for dermatopathology, pediatric dermatology, dermatologic surgery, cosmetic dermatology, and academia. Be consistently cognizant of your life after residency, as some fellowships such as dermatopathology require applications to be submitted at the conclusion of the PGY-2 year. Seek out faculty mentors or alumni who are walking a path similar to the one you want to embark on, as the next stop after graduation may be your forever job.

Depth, Not Breadth

The practice of medicine changes when narrowing the focus to one organ system. In both medical school and intern year, my study habits and history-taking of patients cast a wide net across multiple organ systems, aiming to know just enough about any one specialty to address all chief concerns and to know when it was appropriate to consult a specialist. This paradigm inevitably shifts in dermatology residency, as residents are tasked with memorizing the endless number of diagnoses of the skin alone, comprehending the many shades of “erythematous,” including pink, salmon, red, and purple. Both on the wards and in clinics, I had to grow comfortable with telling patients that I did not have an answer for many of their nondermatologic concerns and directing them to the right specialist. As medicine continues trending to specialization, subspecialization, and sub-subspecialization, the scope of any given physician likely will continue to narrow,⁷ as evidenced by specialty clinics within dermatology such as those focusing on hair loss or immunobullous disease. In this health care system, it is imperative to remember that you are only one physician within a team of care providers—understand your own role in the process and become comfortable with not having the answer to all the questions.

Final Thoughts

In a study of 44 dermatology residents, 35 (83%) indicated zero to less than 1 hour per week of independent preparation for dermatology residency during PGY-1.³ Although the usefulness of preparing is debatable, this figure likely reflects the absence of any insight on how to best prepare for the transition. Recognizing the many contrasts between internal medicine and dermatology and embracing the changes will enable a seamless promotion from a medicine PGY-1 to a dermatology PGY-2.

Approximately 4.5% of adults within the United States identify as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community.¹ This is an umbrella term inclusive of all individuals identifying as nonheterosexual or noncisgender. Although the LGBT community has increasingly become more recognized and accepted by society over time, health care disparities persist and have been well documented in the literature.^2-4 Dermatologists have the potential to greatly impact LGBT health, as many health concerns in this population are cutaneous, such as sun-protection behaviors, side effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender-affirming procedures, and cutaneous manifestations of sexually transmitted infections.^5-7

An education gap has been demonstrated in both medical students and resident physicians regarding LGBT health and cultural competency. In a large-scale, multi-institutional survey study published in 2015, approximately two-thirds of medical students rated their schools’ LGBT curriculum as fair, poor, or very poor.⁸ Additional studies have echoed these results and have demonstrated not only the need but the desire for additional training on LGBT issues in medical school.^9-11 The Association of American Medical Colleges has begun implementing curricular and institutional changes to fulfill this need.^12,13

The LGBT education gap has been shown to extend into residency training. Multiple studies performed within a variety of medical specialties have demonstrated that resident physicians receive insufficient training in LGBT health issues, lack comfort in caring for LGBT patients, and would benefit from dedicated curricula on these topics.^14-18 Currently, the 2022 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines related to LGBT health are minimal and nonspecific.¹⁹

Ensuring that dermatology trainees are well equipped to manage these issues while providing culturally competent care to LGBT patients is paramount. However, research suggests that dedicated training on these topics likely is insufficient. A survey study of dermatology residency program directors (N=90) revealed that although 81% (72/89) viewed training in LGBT health as either very important or somewhat important, 46% (41/90) of programs did not dedicate any time to this content and 37% (33/90) only dedicated 1 to 2 hours per year.²⁰

To further explore this potential education gap, we surveyed dermatology residents directly to better understand LGBT education within residency training, resident preparedness to care for LGBT patients, and outness/discrimination of LGBT-identifying residents. We believe this study should drive future research on the development and implementation of LGBT-specific curricula in dermatology training programs.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey study of dermatology residents in the United States was conducted. The study was deemed exempt from review by The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) institutional review board. Survey responses were collected from October 7, 2020, to November 13, 2020. Qualtrics software was used to create the 20-question survey, which included a combination of categorical, dichotomous, and optional free-text questions related to patient demographics, LGBT training experiences, perceived areas of curriculum improvement, comfort level managing LGBT health issues, and personal experiences. Some questions were adapted from prior surveys.^15,21 Validated survey tools used included the 2020 US Census to collect information regarding race and ethnicity, the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory to measure outness regarding sexual orientation, and select questions from the 2020 Association of American Medical Colleges Medical School Graduation Questionnaire regarding discrimination.^22-24

The survey was distributed to current allopathic and osteopathic dermatology residents by a variety of methods, including emails to program director and program coordinator listserves. The survey also was posted in the American Academy of Dermatology Expert Resource Group on LGBTQ Health October 2020 newsletter, as well as dermatology social media groups, including a messaging forum limited to dermatology residents, a Facebook group open to dermatologists and dermatology residents, and the Facebook group of the Gay and Lesbian Dermatology Association. Current dermatology residents, including those in combined dermatology and internal medicine programs, were included. Individuals who had been accepted to dermatology training programs but had not yet started were excluded. A follow-up email was sent to the program director listserve approximately 3 weeks after the initial distribution.

Statistical Analysis—The data were analyzed in Qualtrics and Microsoft Excel using descriptive statistics. Stata software (Stata 15.1, StataCorp) was used to perform a Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test to compare the means of education level and feelings of preparedness.

Results

Demographics of Respondents—A total of 126 responses were recorded, 12 of which were blank and were removed from the database. A total of 114 dermatology residents’ responses were collected in Qualtrics and analyzed; 91 completed the entire survey (an 80% completion rate). Based on the 2020-2021 ACGME data listing, there were 1612 dermatology residents in the United States, which is an estimated response rate of 7% (114/1612).²⁵ The eTable outlines the demographics of the survey respondents. Most were cisgender females (60%), followed by cisgender males (35%); the remainder preferred not to answer. Regarding sexual orientation, 77% identified as straight or heterosexual; 17% as gay, lesbian, or homosexual; 1% as queer; and 1% as bisexual. The training programs were in 26 states, the majority of which were in the Midwest (34%) and in urban settings (69%). A wide range of postgraduate levels and residency sizes were represented in the survey.

LGBT Education—Fifty-one percent of respondents reported that their programs offer 1 hour or less of LGBT-related curricula per year; 34% reported no time dedicated to this topic. A small portion of residents (5%) reported 10 or more hours of LGBT education per year. Residents also were asked the average number of hours of LGBT education they thought they should receive. The discrepancy between these measures can be visualized in Figure 1. The median hours of education received was 1 hour (IQR, 0–4 hours), whereas the median hours of education desired was 4 hours (IQR, 2–5 hours). The most common and most helpful methods of education reported were clinical experiences with faculty or patients and live lectures.

Overall, 45% of survey respondents felt that LGBT topics were covered poorly or not at all in dermatology residency, whereas 26% thought the coverage was good or excellent. The topics that residents were most likely to report receiving good or excellent coverage were dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS (70%) and sexually transmitted diseases in LGBT patients (48%). The topics that were most likely to be reported as not taught or poorly taught included dermatologic concerns associated with puberty blockers (71%), body image (58%), dermatologic concerns associated with gender-affirming surgery (55%), skin cancer risk (53%), taking an LGBT-oriented history and physical examination (52%), and effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy on the skin (50%). A detailed breakdown of coverage level by topic can be found in Figure 2.

Preparedness to Care for LGBT Patients—Only 68% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable treating LGBT patients. Furthermore, 49% of dermatology residents reported that they feel not at all prepared or insufficiently prepared to provide care to LGBT individuals (Figure 2), and 60% believed that LGBT training needed to be improved at their residency programs.

There was a significant association between reported level of education and feelings of preparedness. A high ranking of provided education was associated with higher levels of feeling prepared to care for LGBT patients (Kruskal-Wallis rank test, P<.001).

Discrimination/Outness—Approximately one-fourth (24%; 4/17) of nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported that they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation in the workplace. One respondent commented that they were less “out” at their residency program due to fear of discrimination. Nearly one-third of the overall group of dermatology residents surveyed (29%; 27/92) reported that they had witnessed inappropriate or discriminatory comments about LGBT persons made by employees or staff at their programs. Most residents surveyed (96%; 88/92) agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians.

There were 18 nonheterosexual dermatologyresidents who completed the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory.²³ In general, respondents reported that they were more “out” with friends and family than work peers and were least “out” with work supervisors and strangers.

Comment

Dermatology Residents Desire More Time on LGBT Health—This cross-sectional survey study explored dermatology residents’ educational experiences with LGBT health during residency training. Similar studies have been performed in other specialties, including a study from 2019 surveying emergency medicine residents that demonstrated residents find caring for LGBT patients more challenging.¹⁵ Another 2019 study surveying psychiatry residents found that 42.4% (N=99) reported no coverage of LGBT topics.¹⁸ Our study is unique in that it surveyed dermatology residents directly regarding this topic. Although most dermatology program directors view LGBT dermatologic health as an important topic, a prior study revealed that many programs are lacking dedicated LGBT educational experiences. The most common barriers reported were insufficient time in the didactic schedule and lack of experienced faculty.²⁰

Our study revealed that dermatology residents overall tend to agree with residents from other specialties and dermatology program directors. Most of the dermatology residents surveyed reported desiring more time per year spent on LGBT health education than they receive, and 60% expressed that LGBT educational experiences need to be improved at their residency programs. Education on and subsequent comfort level with LGBT health issues varied by subtopic, with most residents feeling comfortable dealing with dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and less comfortable with topics such as puberty blockers, gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy, body image, and skin cancer risk.

Overall, LGBT health training is viewed as important and in need of improvement by both program directors and residents, yet implementation lags at many programs. A small proportion of the represented programs are excelling in this area—just over 5% of respondents reported receiving 10 or more hours of LGBT-relevant education per year, and approximately 26% of residents felt that LGBT coverage was good or excellent at their programs. Our study showed a clear relationship between feelings of preparedness and education level. The lack of LGBT education at some dermatology residency programs translated into a large portion of dermatology residents feeling ill equipped to care for LGBT patients after graduation—nearly 50% of those surveyed reported feeling insufficiently prepared to care for the LGBT community.

Discrimination in Residency Programs—Dermatology residency programs also are not free from sexual orientation–related and gender identity–related workplace discrimination. Although 96% of dermatology residents reported that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians, 24% of nonheterosexual respondents stated they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation, and 29% of the overall group of dermatology residents had witnessed discriminatory comments to LGBT individuals at their programs. In addition, some nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported being less “out” with their workplace supervisors and strangers, such as patients, than with their family and friends, and 50% of this group reported that their sexual identity was not openly discussed with their workplace supervisors. It has been demonstrated that individuals are more likely to “come out” in perceived LGBT-friendly workplace environments and that being “out” positively impacts psychological health because of the effects of perceived social support and self-coherence.^26,27

Study Strengths and Limitations—Strengths of this study include the modest sample size of dermatology residents that participated, high completion rate, and the anonymity of the survey. Limitations include the risk of sampling bias by posting the survey on LGBT-specific groups. The survey also took place in the fall, so the results may not accurately reflect programs that cover this material later in the academic year. Lastly, not all survey questions were validated.

Implementing Change in Residency Programs—Although the results of this study exposed the need for increasing LGBT education in dermatology residency, they do not provide guidelines for the best strategy to begin implementing change. A study from 2020 provides some guidance for incorporating LGBT health training into dermatology residency programs through a combination of curricular modifications and climate optimization.²⁸ Additional future research should focus on the best methods for preparing dermatology residents to care for this population. In this study, residents reported that the most effective teaching methods were real encounters with LGBT patients or faculty educated on LGBT health as well as live lectures from experts. There also appeared to be a correlation between hours spent on LGBT health, including various subtopics, and residents’ perceived preparedness in these areas. Potential actionable items include clarifying the ACGME guidelines on LGBT health topics; increasing the sexual and gender diversity of the faculty, staff, residents, and patients; and dedicating additional didactic and clinical time to LGBT topics and experiences.

Conclusion

This survey study of dermatology residents regarding LGBT learning experiences in residency training provided evidence that dermatology residents as a whole are not adequately taught LGBT health topics and therefore feel unprepared to take care of this patient population. Additionally, most residents desire improvement of LGBT health education and training. Further studies focusing on the best methods for implementing LGBT-specific curricula are needed.

Approximately 4.5% of adults within the United States identify as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community.¹ This is an umbrella term inclusive of all individuals identifying as nonheterosexual or noncisgender. Although the LGBT community has increasingly become more recognized and accepted by society over time, health care disparities persist and have been well documented in the literature.^2-4 Dermatologists have the potential to greatly impact LGBT health, as many health concerns in this population are cutaneous, such as sun-protection behaviors, side effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender-affirming procedures, and cutaneous manifestations of sexually transmitted infections.^5-7

An education gap has been demonstrated in both medical students and resident physicians regarding LGBT health and cultural competency. In a large-scale, multi-institutional survey study published in 2015, approximately two-thirds of medical students rated their schools’ LGBT curriculum as fair, poor, or very poor.⁸ Additional studies have echoed these results and have demonstrated not only the need but the desire for additional training on LGBT issues in medical school.^9-11 The Association of American Medical Colleges has begun implementing curricular and institutional changes to fulfill this need.^12,13

The LGBT education gap has been shown to extend into residency training. Multiple studies performed within a variety of medical specialties have demonstrated that resident physicians receive insufficient training in LGBT health issues, lack comfort in caring for LGBT patients, and would benefit from dedicated curricula on these topics.^14-18 Currently, the 2022 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines related to LGBT health are minimal and nonspecific.¹⁹

Ensuring that dermatology trainees are well equipped to manage these issues while providing culturally competent care to LGBT patients is paramount. However, research suggests that dedicated training on these topics likely is insufficient. A survey study of dermatology residency program directors (N=90) revealed that although 81% (72/89) viewed training in LGBT health as either very important or somewhat important, 46% (41/90) of programs did not dedicate any time to this content and 37% (33/90) only dedicated 1 to 2 hours per year.²⁰

To further explore this potential education gap, we surveyed dermatology residents directly to better understand LGBT education within residency training, resident preparedness to care for LGBT patients, and outness/discrimination of LGBT-identifying residents. We believe this study should drive future research on the development and implementation of LGBT-specific curricula in dermatology training programs.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey study of dermatology residents in the United States was conducted. The study was deemed exempt from review by The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) institutional review board. Survey responses were collected from October 7, 2020, to November 13, 2020. Qualtrics software was used to create the 20-question survey, which included a combination of categorical, dichotomous, and optional free-text questions related to patient demographics, LGBT training experiences, perceived areas of curriculum improvement, comfort level managing LGBT health issues, and personal experiences. Some questions were adapted from prior surveys.^15,21 Validated survey tools used included the 2020 US Census to collect information regarding race and ethnicity, the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory to measure outness regarding sexual orientation, and select questions from the 2020 Association of American Medical Colleges Medical School Graduation Questionnaire regarding discrimination.^22-24

The survey was distributed to current allopathic and osteopathic dermatology residents by a variety of methods, including emails to program director and program coordinator listserves. The survey also was posted in the American Academy of Dermatology Expert Resource Group on LGBTQ Health October 2020 newsletter, as well as dermatology social media groups, including a messaging forum limited to dermatology residents, a Facebook group open to dermatologists and dermatology residents, and the Facebook group of the Gay and Lesbian Dermatology Association. Current dermatology residents, including those in combined dermatology and internal medicine programs, were included. Individuals who had been accepted to dermatology training programs but had not yet started were excluded. A follow-up email was sent to the program director listserve approximately 3 weeks after the initial distribution.

Statistical Analysis—The data were analyzed in Qualtrics and Microsoft Excel using descriptive statistics. Stata software (Stata 15.1, StataCorp) was used to perform a Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test to compare the means of education level and feelings of preparedness.

Results

Demographics of Respondents—A total of 126 responses were recorded, 12 of which were blank and were removed from the database. A total of 114 dermatology residents’ responses were collected in Qualtrics and analyzed; 91 completed the entire survey (an 80% completion rate). Based on the 2020-2021 ACGME data listing, there were 1612 dermatology residents in the United States, which is an estimated response rate of 7% (114/1612).²⁵ The eTable outlines the demographics of the survey respondents. Most were cisgender females (60%), followed by cisgender males (35%); the remainder preferred not to answer. Regarding sexual orientation, 77% identified as straight or heterosexual; 17% as gay, lesbian, or homosexual; 1% as queer; and 1% as bisexual. The training programs were in 26 states, the majority of which were in the Midwest (34%) and in urban settings (69%). A wide range of postgraduate levels and residency sizes were represented in the survey.

LGBT Education—Fifty-one percent of respondents reported that their programs offer 1 hour or less of LGBT-related curricula per year; 34% reported no time dedicated to this topic. A small portion of residents (5%) reported 10 or more hours of LGBT education per year. Residents also were asked the average number of hours of LGBT education they thought they should receive. The discrepancy between these measures can be visualized in Figure 1. The median hours of education received was 1 hour (IQR, 0–4 hours), whereas the median hours of education desired was 4 hours (IQR, 2–5 hours). The most common and most helpful methods of education reported were clinical experiences with faculty or patients and live lectures.

Overall, 45% of survey respondents felt that LGBT topics were covered poorly or not at all in dermatology residency, whereas 26% thought the coverage was good or excellent. The topics that residents were most likely to report receiving good or excellent coverage were dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS (70%) and sexually transmitted diseases in LGBT patients (48%). The topics that were most likely to be reported as not taught or poorly taught included dermatologic concerns associated with puberty blockers (71%), body image (58%), dermatologic concerns associated with gender-affirming surgery (55%), skin cancer risk (53%), taking an LGBT-oriented history and physical examination (52%), and effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy on the skin (50%). A detailed breakdown of coverage level by topic can be found in Figure 2.

Preparedness to Care for LGBT Patients—Only 68% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable treating LGBT patients. Furthermore, 49% of dermatology residents reported that they feel not at all prepared or insufficiently prepared to provide care to LGBT individuals (Figure 2), and 60% believed that LGBT training needed to be improved at their residency programs.

There was a significant association between reported level of education and feelings of preparedness. A high ranking of provided education was associated with higher levels of feeling prepared to care for LGBT patients (Kruskal-Wallis rank test, P<.001).

Discrimination/Outness—Approximately one-fourth (24%; 4/17) of nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported that they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation in the workplace. One respondent commented that they were less “out” at their residency program due to fear of discrimination. Nearly one-third of the overall group of dermatology residents surveyed (29%; 27/92) reported that they had witnessed inappropriate or discriminatory comments about LGBT persons made by employees or staff at their programs. Most residents surveyed (96%; 88/92) agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians.

There were 18 nonheterosexual dermatologyresidents who completed the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory.²³ In general, respondents reported that they were more “out” with friends and family than work peers and were least “out” with work supervisors and strangers.

Comment

Dermatology Residents Desire More Time on LGBT Health—This cross-sectional survey study explored dermatology residents’ educational experiences with LGBT health during residency training. Similar studies have been performed in other specialties, including a study from 2019 surveying emergency medicine residents that demonstrated residents find caring for LGBT patients more challenging.¹⁵ Another 2019 study surveying psychiatry residents found that 42.4% (N=99) reported no coverage of LGBT topics.¹⁸ Our study is unique in that it surveyed dermatology residents directly regarding this topic. Although most dermatology program directors view LGBT dermatologic health as an important topic, a prior study revealed that many programs are lacking dedicated LGBT educational experiences. The most common barriers reported were insufficient time in the didactic schedule and lack of experienced faculty.²⁰

Our study revealed that dermatology residents overall tend to agree with residents from other specialties and dermatology program directors. Most of the dermatology residents surveyed reported desiring more time per year spent on LGBT health education than they receive, and 60% expressed that LGBT educational experiences need to be improved at their residency programs. Education on and subsequent comfort level with LGBT health issues varied by subtopic, with most residents feeling comfortable dealing with dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and less comfortable with topics such as puberty blockers, gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy, body image, and skin cancer risk.

Overall, LGBT health training is viewed as important and in need of improvement by both program directors and residents, yet implementation lags at many programs. A small proportion of the represented programs are excelling in this area—just over 5% of respondents reported receiving 10 or more hours of LGBT-relevant education per year, and approximately 26% of residents felt that LGBT coverage was good or excellent at their programs. Our study showed a clear relationship between feelings of preparedness and education level. The lack of LGBT education at some dermatology residency programs translated into a large portion of dermatology residents feeling ill equipped to care for LGBT patients after graduation—nearly 50% of those surveyed reported feeling insufficiently prepared to care for the LGBT community.

Discrimination in Residency Programs—Dermatology residency programs also are not free from sexual orientation–related and gender identity–related workplace discrimination. Although 96% of dermatology residents reported that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians, 24% of nonheterosexual respondents stated they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation, and 29% of the overall group of dermatology residents had witnessed discriminatory comments to LGBT individuals at their programs. In addition, some nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported being less “out” with their workplace supervisors and strangers, such as patients, than with their family and friends, and 50% of this group reported that their sexual identity was not openly discussed with their workplace supervisors. It has been demonstrated that individuals are more likely to “come out” in perceived LGBT-friendly workplace environments and that being “out” positively impacts psychological health because of the effects of perceived social support and self-coherence.^26,27

Study Strengths and Limitations—Strengths of this study include the modest sample size of dermatology residents that participated, high completion rate, and the anonymity of the survey. Limitations include the risk of sampling bias by posting the survey on LGBT-specific groups. The survey also took place in the fall, so the results may not accurately reflect programs that cover this material later in the academic year. Lastly, not all survey questions were validated.

Implementing Change in Residency Programs—Although the results of this study exposed the need for increasing LGBT education in dermatology residency, they do not provide guidelines for the best strategy to begin implementing change. A study from 2020 provides some guidance for incorporating LGBT health training into dermatology residency programs through a combination of curricular modifications and climate optimization.²⁸ Additional future research should focus on the best methods for preparing dermatology residents to care for this population. In this study, residents reported that the most effective teaching methods were real encounters with LGBT patients or faculty educated on LGBT health as well as live lectures from experts. There also appeared to be a correlation between hours spent on LGBT health, including various subtopics, and residents’ perceived preparedness in these areas. Potential actionable items include clarifying the ACGME guidelines on LGBT health topics; increasing the sexual and gender diversity of the faculty, staff, residents, and patients; and dedicating additional didactic and clinical time to LGBT topics and experiences.

Conclusion

This survey study of dermatology residents regarding LGBT learning experiences in residency training provided evidence that dermatology residents as a whole are not adequately taught LGBT health topics and therefore feel unprepared to take care of this patient population. Additionally, most residents desire improvement of LGBT health education and training. Further studies focusing on the best methods for implementing LGBT-specific curricula are needed.

Approximately 4.5% of adults within the United States identify as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community.¹ This is an umbrella term inclusive of all individuals identifying as nonheterosexual or noncisgender. Although the LGBT community has increasingly become more recognized and accepted by society over time, health care disparities persist and have been well documented in the literature.^2-4 Dermatologists have the potential to greatly impact LGBT health, as many health concerns in this population are cutaneous, such as sun-protection behaviors, side effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender-affirming procedures, and cutaneous manifestations of sexually transmitted infections.^5-7

An education gap has been demonstrated in both medical students and resident physicians regarding LGBT health and cultural competency. In a large-scale, multi-institutional survey study published in 2015, approximately two-thirds of medical students rated their schools’ LGBT curriculum as fair, poor, or very poor.⁸ Additional studies have echoed these results and have demonstrated not only the need but the desire for additional training on LGBT issues in medical school.^9-11 The Association of American Medical Colleges has begun implementing curricular and institutional changes to fulfill this need.^12,13

The LGBT education gap has been shown to extend into residency training. Multiple studies performed within a variety of medical specialties have demonstrated that resident physicians receive insufficient training in LGBT health issues, lack comfort in caring for LGBT patients, and would benefit from dedicated curricula on these topics.^14-18 Currently, the 2022 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines related to LGBT health are minimal and nonspecific.¹⁹

Ensuring that dermatology trainees are well equipped to manage these issues while providing culturally competent care to LGBT patients is paramount. However, research suggests that dedicated training on these topics likely is insufficient. A survey study of dermatology residency program directors (N=90) revealed that although 81% (72/89) viewed training in LGBT health as either very important or somewhat important, 46% (41/90) of programs did not dedicate any time to this content and 37% (33/90) only dedicated 1 to 2 hours per year.²⁰

To further explore this potential education gap, we surveyed dermatology residents directly to better understand LGBT education within residency training, resident preparedness to care for LGBT patients, and outness/discrimination of LGBT-identifying residents. We believe this study should drive future research on the development and implementation of LGBT-specific curricula in dermatology training programs.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey study of dermatology residents in the United States was conducted. The study was deemed exempt from review by The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) institutional review board. Survey responses were collected from October 7, 2020, to November 13, 2020. Qualtrics software was used to create the 20-question survey, which included a combination of categorical, dichotomous, and optional free-text questions related to patient demographics, LGBT training experiences, perceived areas of curriculum improvement, comfort level managing LGBT health issues, and personal experiences. Some questions were adapted from prior surveys.^15,21 Validated survey tools used included the 2020 US Census to collect information regarding race and ethnicity, the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory to measure outness regarding sexual orientation, and select questions from the 2020 Association of American Medical Colleges Medical School Graduation Questionnaire regarding discrimination.^22-24

The survey was distributed to current allopathic and osteopathic dermatology residents by a variety of methods, including emails to program director and program coordinator listserves. The survey also was posted in the American Academy of Dermatology Expert Resource Group on LGBTQ Health October 2020 newsletter, as well as dermatology social media groups, including a messaging forum limited to dermatology residents, a Facebook group open to dermatologists and dermatology residents, and the Facebook group of the Gay and Lesbian Dermatology Association. Current dermatology residents, including those in combined dermatology and internal medicine programs, were included. Individuals who had been accepted to dermatology training programs but had not yet started were excluded. A follow-up email was sent to the program director listserve approximately 3 weeks after the initial distribution.

Statistical Analysis—The data were analyzed in Qualtrics and Microsoft Excel using descriptive statistics. Stata software (Stata 15.1, StataCorp) was used to perform a Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test to compare the means of education level and feelings of preparedness.

Results

Demographics of Respondents—A total of 126 responses were recorded, 12 of which were blank and were removed from the database. A total of 114 dermatology residents’ responses were collected in Qualtrics and analyzed; 91 completed the entire survey (an 80% completion rate). Based on the 2020-2021 ACGME data listing, there were 1612 dermatology residents in the United States, which is an estimated response rate of 7% (114/1612).²⁵ The eTable outlines the demographics of the survey respondents. Most were cisgender females (60%), followed by cisgender males (35%); the remainder preferred not to answer. Regarding sexual orientation, 77% identified as straight or heterosexual; 17% as gay, lesbian, or homosexual; 1% as queer; and 1% as bisexual. The training programs were in 26 states, the majority of which were in the Midwest (34%) and in urban settings (69%). A wide range of postgraduate levels and residency sizes were represented in the survey.

LGBT Education—Fifty-one percent of respondents reported that their programs offer 1 hour or less of LGBT-related curricula per year; 34% reported no time dedicated to this topic. A small portion of residents (5%) reported 10 or more hours of LGBT education per year. Residents also were asked the average number of hours of LGBT education they thought they should receive. The discrepancy between these measures can be visualized in Figure 1. The median hours of education received was 1 hour (IQR, 0–4 hours), whereas the median hours of education desired was 4 hours (IQR, 2–5 hours). The most common and most helpful methods of education reported were clinical experiences with faculty or patients and live lectures.

Overall, 45% of survey respondents felt that LGBT topics were covered poorly or not at all in dermatology residency, whereas 26% thought the coverage was good or excellent. The topics that residents were most likely to report receiving good or excellent coverage were dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS (70%) and sexually transmitted diseases in LGBT patients (48%). The topics that were most likely to be reported as not taught or poorly taught included dermatologic concerns associated with puberty blockers (71%), body image (58%), dermatologic concerns associated with gender-affirming surgery (55%), skin cancer risk (53%), taking an LGBT-oriented history and physical examination (52%), and effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy on the skin (50%). A detailed breakdown of coverage level by topic can be found in Figure 2.

Preparedness to Care for LGBT Patients—Only 68% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable treating LGBT patients. Furthermore, 49% of dermatology residents reported that they feel not at all prepared or insufficiently prepared to provide care to LGBT individuals (Figure 2), and 60% believed that LGBT training needed to be improved at their residency programs.

There was a significant association between reported level of education and feelings of preparedness. A high ranking of provided education was associated with higher levels of feeling prepared to care for LGBT patients (Kruskal-Wallis rank test, P<.001).

Discrimination/Outness—Approximately one-fourth (24%; 4/17) of nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported that they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation in the workplace. One respondent commented that they were less “out” at their residency program due to fear of discrimination. Nearly one-third of the overall group of dermatology residents surveyed (29%; 27/92) reported that they had witnessed inappropriate or discriminatory comments about LGBT persons made by employees or staff at their programs. Most residents surveyed (96%; 88/92) agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians.

There were 18 nonheterosexual dermatologyresidents who completed the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory.²³ In general, respondents reported that they were more “out” with friends and family than work peers and were least “out” with work supervisors and strangers.

Comment

Dermatology Residents Desire More Time on LGBT Health—This cross-sectional survey study explored dermatology residents’ educational experiences with LGBT health during residency training. Similar studies have been performed in other specialties, including a study from 2019 surveying emergency medicine residents that demonstrated residents find caring for LGBT patients more challenging.¹⁵ Another 2019 study surveying psychiatry residents found that 42.4% (N=99) reported no coverage of LGBT topics.¹⁸ Our study is unique in that it surveyed dermatology residents directly regarding this topic. Although most dermatology program directors view LGBT dermatologic health as an important topic, a prior study revealed that many programs are lacking dedicated LGBT educational experiences. The most common barriers reported were insufficient time in the didactic schedule and lack of experienced faculty.²⁰

Our study revealed that dermatology residents overall tend to agree with residents from other specialties and dermatology program directors. Most of the dermatology residents surveyed reported desiring more time per year spent on LGBT health education than they receive, and 60% expressed that LGBT educational experiences need to be improved at their residency programs. Education on and subsequent comfort level with LGBT health issues varied by subtopic, with most residents feeling comfortable dealing with dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and less comfortable with topics such as puberty blockers, gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy, body image, and skin cancer risk.

Overall, LGBT health training is viewed as important and in need of improvement by both program directors and residents, yet implementation lags at many programs. A small proportion of the represented programs are excelling in this area—just over 5% of respondents reported receiving 10 or more hours of LGBT-relevant education per year, and approximately 26% of residents felt that LGBT coverage was good or excellent at their programs. Our study showed a clear relationship between feelings of preparedness and education level. The lack of LGBT education at some dermatology residency programs translated into a large portion of dermatology residents feeling ill equipped to care for LGBT patients after graduation—nearly 50% of those surveyed reported feeling insufficiently prepared to care for the LGBT community.

Discrimination in Residency Programs—Dermatology residency programs also are not free from sexual orientation–related and gender identity–related workplace discrimination. Although 96% of dermatology residents reported that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians, 24% of nonheterosexual respondents stated they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation, and 29% of the overall group of dermatology residents had witnessed discriminatory comments to LGBT individuals at their programs. In addition, some nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported being less “out” with their workplace supervisors and strangers, such as patients, than with their family and friends, and 50% of this group reported that their sexual identity was not openly discussed with their workplace supervisors. It has been demonstrated that individuals are more likely to “come out” in perceived LGBT-friendly workplace environments and that being “out” positively impacts psychological health because of the effects of perceived social support and self-coherence.^26,27

Study Strengths and Limitations—Strengths of this study include the modest sample size of dermatology residents that participated, high completion rate, and the anonymity of the survey. Limitations include the risk of sampling bias by posting the survey on LGBT-specific groups. The survey also took place in the fall, so the results may not accurately reflect programs that cover this material later in the academic year. Lastly, not all survey questions were validated.

Implementing Change in Residency Programs—Although the results of this study exposed the need for increasing LGBT education in dermatology residency, they do not provide guidelines for the best strategy to begin implementing change. A study from 2020 provides some guidance for incorporating LGBT health training into dermatology residency programs through a combination of curricular modifications and climate optimization.²⁸ Additional future research should focus on the best methods for preparing dermatology residents to care for this population. In this study, residents reported that the most effective teaching methods were real encounters with LGBT patients or faculty educated on LGBT health as well as live lectures from experts. There also appeared to be a correlation between hours spent on LGBT health, including various subtopics, and residents’ perceived preparedness in these areas. Potential actionable items include clarifying the ACGME guidelines on LGBT health topics; increasing the sexual and gender diversity of the faculty, staff, residents, and patients; and dedicating additional didactic and clinical time to LGBT topics and experiences.

Conclusion

This survey study of dermatology residents regarding LGBT learning experiences in residency training provided evidence that dermatology residents as a whole are not adequately taught LGBT health topics and therefore feel unprepared to take care of this patient population. Additionally, most residents desire improvement of LGBT health education and training. Further studies focusing on the best methods for implementing LGBT-specific curricula are needed.

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 (msears@mdedge.com) by October 28. The residents who are selected to write the column for the upcoming year will be notified by November 4.

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

The Cutis Editorial Board is now accepting applications for the 2023 Resident Corner column. The Editorial Board will select 2 to 3 residents to serve as the Resident Corner columnists for 1 year. Articles are posted online only at www.mdedge.com/dermatology but will be referenced in Index Medicus. All applicants must be current residents and will be in residency throughout 2023.

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

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

All materials should be submitted via email to Melissa Sears (msears@mdedge.com) by October 28. The residents who are selected to write the column for the upcoming year will be notified by November 4.

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

The Cutis Editorial Board is now accepting applications for the 2023 Resident Corner column. The Editorial Board will select 2 to 3 residents to serve as the Resident Corner columnists for 1 year. Articles are posted online only at www.mdedge.com/dermatology but will be referenced in Index Medicus. All applicants must be current residents and will be in residency throughout 2023.

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

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

All materials should be submitted via email to Melissa Sears (msears@mdedge.com) by October 28. The residents who are selected to write the column for the upcoming year will be notified by November 4.

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

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

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

Methods

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

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

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

Results

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Methods

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

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

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

Results

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Methods

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

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

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

Results

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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