Performing research and publishing in the peer-reviewed medical literature should be a requirement for completion of post-graduate residency and fellowship training.

Graduate medical education (GME) in the USA is an increasingly organized and formalized process overseen by regulatory bodies, notably the American Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), and associated specialty-specific Residency Review Committees (RRCs) to ensure that trainees, including residents and fellows, receive comprehensive, high-quality didactic education, clinical training, and research experience. Among the required elements of GME, performance of independent research is emphasized less than clinical and didactic education. In general, there are no ACGME requirements that trainees successfully publish papers in the peer reviewed. Indeed, unlike as is the case with procedure case logs, there are no minimum thresholds for specific numbers of abstracts presented, posters accepted, or manuscripts published. As such, while residencies and fellowships in certain disciplines or institutions may require considerable, documented research activity, others may not. Since future attending physicians are expected to be experts in their fields, able to digest relevant medical knowledge, critically evaluate emerging findings in the literature, and lead multi-professional healthcare teams, they must have a level of facility with the medical literature than can only be acquired by having performed research and having published papers themselves. Publishing one paper during training is easily attainable for all trainees. Having this be an ACGME requirement will necessitate protected time, research methods education, and mentorship for trainees. This can be accomplished without disrupting the other elements of resident and fellow training. From an ACGME perspective, required scholarly activity will support the competencies of practice-based learning and improvement as well as professionalism. In lay terms, benefits will be a higher level of education and attainment for trainees, and a potentially higher standard of health care for our patients.

Delayed-Onset Nodules to Differentially Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acids: Comparative Incidence and Risk Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Robust and long-term data on true incidence of delayed-onset nodules and immune tolerance of hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the incidence of delayed nodules in Vycross (VYC) HA fillers compared with previously reported FDA and non-FDA data of all HA fillers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The incidence of delayed nodules in all patients who had received VYC fillers in a 12-month period was assessed through a retrospective chart review. Nodule incidence for currently approved nonanimal-stabilized hyaluronic acid (NASHA) fillers was assessed using the FDA Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data. RESULTS: Overall, 1,029 patients received 1,250 VYC filler treatments. Five patients developed delayed nodules to VOB, with an incidence of 1.0% per patient and 0.8% per syringe. No nodules were observed in patients who received VLR or VOL. All nodules were treated successfully using a combination of intralesional triamcinolone and hyaluronidase. Compared with other currently approved NASHA fillers, VOB is associated with a higher incidence of nodule formation. CONCLUSION: The introduction of VYC HAs has introduced a new variable that may be changing the immune tolerance of these substances, resulting in a higher incidence of delayed nodules than previously expected.

ASDS Cosmetic Dermatologic Surgery Fellowship Milestones.

BACKGROUND: The American Council of Graduate Medical Education, which oversees much of postgraduate medical education in the United States, has championed the concept of "milestones," standard levels of achievement keyed to particular time points, to assess trainee performance during residency. OBJECTIVE: To develop a milestones document for the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) Cosmetic Dermatologic Surgery (CDS) fellowship program. METHODS: An ad hoc milestone drafting committee was convened that included members of the ASDS Accreditation Work Group and program directors of ASDS-approved Cosmetic Dermatologic Surgery (CDC) fellowship training programs. Draft milestones were circulated through email in multiple rounds until consensus was achieved. RESULTS: Thirteen milestones were developed in the 6 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competency areas, with 8 of these being patient-care milestones. Additional instructions for milestone administration more specific to the CDS fellowship than general ACGME instructions were also approved. Implementation of semiannual milestones was scheduled for the fellowship class entering in July 2018. CONCLUSION: Milestones are now available for CDS fellowship directors to implement in combination with other tools for fellow evaluation.

A quality rating scale for aesthetic surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND: Cosmetic dermatologic procedures offer the promise of visible aesthetic enhancement with minimal risk. While in recent years the number of available procedures has proliferated, there are few objective methods for evaluating the relative quality of these procedures for particular indications or specific patients. OBJECTIVE: (A) To develop a simple, easy-to-use numerical rating scale to assess the quality of cosmetic surgical procedures on a range of parameters pertaining to clinical efficacy and patient satisfaction; (B) to statistically validate the discriminative value of this rating scale. METHODS: (A) Patient and physician interviews were performed to elicit a list of factors that may collectively characterize the clinical efficacy and patient tolerability of cosmetic dermatologic procedures. A 0-100 point rating scale was developed based on these factors, with the face-validity of this scale checked by a group of patients and physicians; (B) Statistical analysis of the questionnaire was performed by asking 15 expert cosmetic dermatologic surgeons to use it to rate 23 common cosmetic dermatologic procedures, and analyzing the results. RESULTS: (A) An easy-to-use scale was constructed to assess the quality of cosmetic dermatologic procedures by rating the associated cost, risk, time (procedure and recovery), discomfort, results, and longevity of benefit. A "physician adjustment factor" was used to further increase the relevance of this 0-100 point scale for specific patients; (B) Repeated-measures analysis of variations (ANOVAs) performed on the data from the survey of experts demonstrated that this scale can be used to discriminate between common dermatologic procedures. The differences in mean subscores and total scores among procedures grouped by anatomic site and target lesion-type were significant at the level of P < .05. LIMITATIONS: Patient preferences exogenous to the rating scale may increase or decrease the suitability of specific procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Common cosmetic dermatologic procedures are of uniformly high quality, as per expert ratings on a systematic measure. This quality rating scale appears statistically valid and robust, given that expert raters assigned similar ratings to the same procedures but mean ratings were different across procedures. In the future, this quality rating scale can be used to assess novel interventions, and to help dermatologic surgeons faced with patient concern to optimally select among alternative procedures for a given indication.