7 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Survey of resident physician and attending physician feedback perceptions: There is still work to be done
Feedback is essential for resident physician (RP) personal and professional growth. The goal of this study was to explore RP and attending physician (AP) perceptions of feedback. Two online surveys (one for RPs and one for APs) were distributed. One hundred twenty two responses were received, of which 67 were RPs and 55 were APs. Although the majority of RP and AP agree that feedback is essential for resident formation, there was a statistical difference between these groups, P=0.04 (RPs 91% versus APs 80%) with residents more likely to agree and strongly agree with this sentiment. Thirty one percent of APs report giving daily feedback, while only 9% of RPs report receiving daily feedback. Resident physicians are more dissatisfied with the quality of the feedback (40%) rather than the amount of feedback (34%). When providing feedback to their AP only 33% of RP versus 83% of APs provide honest and balanced feedback (P?0.001). RPs desire feedback that is specific, prompt, private, personalized and face-to-face. This knowledge and skills gap presents an important opportunity to incorporate feedback training into residencies to ensure that the dermatologists of the future are not only medically competent, but also competent in providing feedback to future generations
Recommended from our members
Ulcerative C2 neurocutaneous dysesthesia (trigeminal trophic syndrome in an alternative distribution)
Trigeminal trophic syndrome is an uncommon condition characterized by paresthesia, itch, and self-inflicted wounds following the trigeminal dermatome(s). Similar processes adhering to cervical nerve distributions have been reported, calling into question the specificity of trigeminal trophic syndrome for the trigeminal network. Herein, we report patient with trigeminal trophic syndrome adhering to the C2 dermatome, a previously unreported distribution
Recommended from our members
Survey of resident physician and attending physician feedback perceptions: There is still work to be done
Feedback is essential for resident physician (RP) personal and professional growth. The goal of this study was to explore RP and attending physician (AP) perceptions of feedback. Two online surveys (one for RPs and one for APs) were distributed. One hundred twenty two responses were received, of which 67 were RPs and 55 were APs. Although the majority of RP and AP agree that feedback is essential for resident formation, there was a statistical difference between these groups, P=0.04 (RPs 91% versus APs 80%) with residents more likely to agree and strongly agree with this sentiment. Thirty one percent of APs report giving daily feedback, while only 9% of RPs report receiving daily feedback. Resident physicians are more dissatisfied with the quality of the feedback (40%) rather than the amount of feedback (34%). When providing feedback to their AP only 33% of RP versus 83% of APs provide honest and balanced feedback (P?0.001). RPs desire feedback that is specific, prompt, private, personalized and face-to-face. This knowledge and skills gap presents an important opportunity to incorporate feedback training into residencies to ensure that the dermatologists of the future are not only medically competent, but also competent in providing feedback to future generations
Recommended from our members
Ulcerative C2 neurocutaneous dysesthesia (trigeminal trophic syndrome in an alternative distribution)
Trigeminal trophic syndrome is an uncommon condition characterized by paresthesia, itch, and self-inflicted wounds following the trigeminal dermatome(s). Similar processes adhering to cervical nerve distributions have been reported, calling into question the specificity of trigeminal trophic syndrome for the trigeminal network. Herein, we report patient with trigeminal trophic syndrome adhering to the C2 dermatome, a previously unreported distribution
Low-dose methotrexate in dermatology: the utility of serological monitoring in a real-world cohort
When prescribing low-dose methotrexate, frequent serological testing is recommended in the dermatologic literature, although much of the supporting data is extrapolated from non-dermatologic conditions. We performed a retrospective cohort study to determine the cumulative incidence and timing of low-dose methotrexate-associated serological abnormalities over the first year of therapy, in a pragmatic cohort of patients with dermatologic compared to non-dermatologic diagnoses. Laboratory values recorded included white blood cell count, hemoglobin, platelet count, estimated glomerular filtration rate, alanine aminotransferase, and aspartate aminotransferase. Among 1376 patients, there were no cases of methotrexate-associated grade 4/very severe lab abnormality or fatality. Baseline risk factors associated with moderate-to-severe lab abnormalities included non-dermatologic diagnoses, low hemoglobin, low estimated glomerular filtration rate, and elevated transaminases. The incidence of moderate-to-severe lab abnormalities was 4.4% among all patients, 3.1% among patients with dermatologic diagnoses, and 2.3% among patients with normal baseline lab values. Lab abnormalities led to discontinuation of therapy in 0.8% of patients. Serious changes did not occur in the first two weeks of therapy. We conclude that the cumulative incidence of low-dose methotrexate-associated lab abnormality was lower in patients with dermatologic diagnoses or normal baseline testing and these factors may be used to adjust monitoring practices