Milestones 2.0: An advancement in competency-based assessment for dermatology.

In 2013, Next Accreditation System and Milestones became the competency-based assessment framework required for all specialties accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Dermatology residency programs implemented Milestones 1.0 in the 2013-2014 academic year. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education committed to review and revise Milestones 1.0 within 3 to 5 years. Subsequently, feedback from key stakeholders influenced the goals for revision, including reducing complexity, enhancing community engagement, and providing additional resources for programs. In 2019, the Dermatology Milestones 2.0 work group streamlined the specialty-specific patient care and medical knowledge subcompetencies. The harmonized milestones allowed for greater uniformity across specialties in systems-based practice, practice-based learning and improvement, professionalism, and interpersonal communication and skills. The work group developed a supplemental guide with specialty-specific context to help program directors, clinical competency committee members, and other faculty understand individual milestones. Dermatology Milestones 2.0 reduces the number of subcompetencies from 28 to 21. Milestones 2.0 represents an advancement in competency-based assessment for dermatology. The first year of reporting for Dermatology Milestones 2.0 is 2021.

Assessment of Topical Corticosteroid Prescribing, Counseling, and Communication Among Dermatologists and Pharmacists.

Importance: Topical corticosteroids (TCs) are common treatments for many dermatologic conditions. Anecdotal experience and literature suggest that dermatologists and pharmacists differ in their beliefs about TCs and approach to TC counseling, creating the opportunity for patient confusion. Objective: To examine interprofessional practice gaps between dermatologists and pharmacists with regard to how each group views TCs, counsels patients on TC use, and communicates modifications to TC prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: An electronic survey was disseminated statewide in Wisconsin to 117 board-certified or eligible dermatologist members of the Wisconsin Dermatological Society and 2954 licensed pharmacists. The survey was performed from October 11, 2017, to January 2, 2018. Survey responses and demographic information were compiled and analyzed for each population. Exposures: Study participants completed and returned a 17-question survey recalling experiences with TC prescribing from the past year along with self-reported demographic information. Main Outcomes and Measures: Dermatologists' and pharmacists' self-reported counseling of patients regarding TC application, duration of use, and adverse effects; frequency of communication of changes to TC prescriptions and instructions; and demographic data were tabulated and compared. Results: Of the 117 dermatologists, 52 (44.4%) completed and returned the survey; of the 2954 pharmacists, 111 (3.8%) returned the survey. Those no longer in active practice (3 dermatologists, 1 pharmacist) were excluded from analysis. A substantial proportion of pharmacists (51 [46.4%]) advised patients to limit TC use to 2 weeks or less, which was an uncommon strategy among dermatologists (3 [6.1%]) (P < .001). Discordance also was noted in the adverse effects that are emphasized in counseling, pharmacist-perceived and dermatologist-observed adverse effects in patients, and resources that inform counseling content. Only 8 (16.3%) dermatologists perceived that pharmacists made no unauthorized modifications to their TC prescriptions or instructions; however, 77 (70.0%) pharmacists reported not doing so (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: An interprofessional practice gap appears to exist between dermatologists and pharmacists in Wisconsin regarding TC beliefs and counseling strategies. Collaborative education and improved communication between the 2 groups may be necessary to ensure that patients receive a unified, clear message about TC application and adverse effects. Larger studies are needed to further investigate this potential practice gap.

Assessment of residents' loss of interest in academic careers and identification of correctable factors.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify interest in an academic career at the dermatology resident and residency applicant level. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Dermatology residents attending a basic science course and residency applicants applying to a single residency program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported level of interest in an academic dermatology career, reasons for losing interest in academics, and area of desired primary academic contribution. RESULTS: One hundred nine of 230 dermatology applicants and 130 of 190 dermatology residents completed the survey. Seventy-nine applicants (72.5%) and 48 residents (36.9%) were interested in an academic career. Thirty-three of 47 residents (70.2%) and 63 of 79 applicants (79.8%) interested in an academic career hoped to make their primary academic contribution as teacher-clinicians, while only 7 residents (14.9%) and 15 applicants (19.0%) planned to primarily contribute through basic or clinical research. Thirty-eight resident respondents (29.2%) reported losing interest in academics for the following primary reasons: bureaucracy, 24 (63.2%); salary differential/financial issues, 20 (52.6%); lack of effective mentorship, role model, or professional guidance, 19 (50.0%); and location or practice environment, 10 (26.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Many residents report losing interest in pursuing a career in academic dermatology. Many reasons for this are not easy to correct. However, half of those residents primarily lose interest because of a lack of mentors, role models, and career guidance. Methods to improve this perception and experience should be sought. Strategies should also be developed to cultivate future teacher-clinicians, where most of the interest lies.