Scholarlink

<p>Dermatologists are regarded as experts in cosmetic and laser procedures. However, current Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements emphasize observational exposure for dermatology residents rather than hands-on training in these procedures. As discussions continue regarding whether observational procedural learning should transition to hands-on training requirements, contemporary data describing existing training models, barriers to hand-on training, and the feasibility of providing such learning opportunities are needed. The aim of this study was to better understand current hands-on training models and assess faculty perceptions regarding the feasibility of implementing hands-on cosmetic and laser procedural minimums, as well as barriers to such training. An electronic survey was distributed to members of the Association of Academic Cosmetic Dermatology. Forty-five faculty representing 40 institutions completed the survey (30.4% response rate). The most commonly cited barriers to hands-on resident training included faculty availability for supervision (62.2%), space/scheduling constraints (55.6%), and institutional or departmental policies and regulations (51.1%). Despite these challenges, the majority of respondents felt that transitioning current procedural minimums (15 laser, 10 botulinum toxin injection cases, and 5 soft tissue augmentation procedures) from observational to hands-on would be feasible with no or minimal programmatic changes. Among respondents who were already offering hands-on laser and cosmetic training to their residents (82.2%), all offered injectable training and 97.3% provided energy-based device training. Exposure typically began in PGY-2 (postgraduate year 2) (81.1%). Training usually occurred during faculty-supervised workshops before or after normal faculty-appointed clinic hours (67.6%) in dedicated procedure rooms (75.7%) with volunteer patients such as friends/family (86.5%) or institutional staff (73.0%), and at minimal or no cost to the patient (64.9%). While energy-based devices were mostly institution-owned (94.6%), injectable training relied heavily on industry donations (91.9%). Overall, limited resident hands-on procedural requirements appear achievable within existing educational frameworks or with minimal changes, though long-term sustainability likely depends on continued institutional support for faculty supervision, clinic infrastructure, and supportive policies.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Hands-on cosmetic dermatology training across U.S. residency programs: a national survey

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月4日

查看全文
  • Bianca Y. Kang,
  • Sara Saheb Kashaf,
  • Murad Alam,
  • Adelaide A. Hebert,
  • Ronald Sulewski,
  • Kathleen C. Suozzi,
  • Neelam A. Vashi,
  • Jeffrey S. Orringer

摘要

Dermatologists are regarded as experts in cosmetic and laser procedures. However, current Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements emphasize observational exposure for dermatology residents rather than hands-on training in these procedures. As discussions continue regarding whether observational procedural learning should transition to hands-on training requirements, contemporary data describing existing training models, barriers to hand-on training, and the feasibility of providing such learning opportunities are needed. The aim of this study was to better understand current hands-on training models and assess faculty perceptions regarding the feasibility of implementing hands-on cosmetic and laser procedural minimums, as well as barriers to such training. An electronic survey was distributed to members of the Association of Academic Cosmetic Dermatology. Forty-five faculty representing 40 institutions completed the survey (30.4% response rate). The most commonly cited barriers to hands-on resident training included faculty availability for supervision (62.2%), space/scheduling constraints (55.6%), and institutional or departmental policies and regulations (51.1%). Despite these challenges, the majority of respondents felt that transitioning current procedural minimums (15 laser, 10 botulinum toxin injection cases, and 5 soft tissue augmentation procedures) from observational to hands-on would be feasible with no or minimal programmatic changes. Among respondents who were already offering hands-on laser and cosmetic training to their residents (82.2%), all offered injectable training and 97.3% provided energy-based device training. Exposure typically began in PGY-2 (postgraduate year 2) (81.1%). Training usually occurred during faculty-supervised workshops before or after normal faculty-appointed clinic hours (67.6%) in dedicated procedure rooms (75.7%) with volunteer patients such as friends/family (86.5%) or institutional staff (73.0%), and at minimal or no cost to the patient (64.9%). While energy-based devices were mostly institution-owned (94.6%), injectable training relied heavily on industry donations (91.9%). Overall, limited resident hands-on procedural requirements appear achievable within existing educational frameworks or with minimal changes, though long-term sustainability likely depends on continued institutional support for faculty supervision, clinic infrastructure, and supportive policies.