Steven Daveluy, MD

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs seek to improve dermatologic education and clinical care for an increasingly diverse patient population as well as to recruit and sustain a physician workforce that reflects the diversity of the patients they serve.^1,2 In dermatology, only 4.2% and 3.0% of practicing dermatologists self-identify as being of Hispanic and African American ethnicity, respectively, compared with 18.5% and 13.4% of the general population, respectively.³ Creating an educational system that works to meet the goals of DEI is essential to improve health outcomes and address disparities. The lack of robust DEI-related curricula during residency training may limit the ability of practicing dermatologists to provide comprehensive and culturally sensitive care. It has been shown that racial concordance between patients and physicians has a positive impact on patient satisfaction by fostering a trusting patient-physician relationship.⁴

It is the responsibility of all dermatologists to create an environment where patients from any background can feel comfortable, which can be cultivated by establishing patient-centered communication and cultural humility.⁵ These skills can be strengthened via the implementation of DEI-related curricula during residency training. Augmenting exposure of these topics during training can optimize the delivery of dermatologic care by providing residents with the tools and confidence needed to care for patients of culturally diverse backgrounds. Enhancing DEI education is crucial to not only improve the recognition and treatment of dermatologic conditions in all skin and hair types but also to minimize misconceptions, stigma, health disparities, and discrimination faced by historically marginalized communities. Creating a culture of inclusion is of paramount importance to build successful relationships with patients and colleagues of culturally diverse backgrounds.⁶

There are multiple efforts underway to increase DEI education across the field of dermatology, including the development of DEI task forces in professional organizations and societies that serve to expand DEI-related research, mentorship, and education. The American Academy of Dermatology has been leading efforts to create a curriculum focused on skin of color, particularly addressing inadequate educational training on how dermatologic conditions manifest in this population.⁷ The Skin of Color Society has similar efforts underway and is developing a speakers bureau to give leading experts a platform to lecture dermatology trainees as well as patient and community audiences on various topics in skin of color.⁸ These are just 2 of many professional dermatology organizations that are advocating for expanded education on DEI; however, consistently integrating DEI-related topics into dermatology residency training curricula remains a gap in pedagogy. To identify the DEI-related topics of greatest relevance to the dermatology resident curricula, we implemented a modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus process to provide standardized recommendations.

Methods

A 2-round modified e-Delphi method was utilized (Figure). An initial list of potential curricular topics was formulated by an expert panel consisting of 5 dermatologists from the Association of Professors of Dermatology DEI subcommittee and the American Academy of Dermatology Diversity Task Force (A.M.A., S.B., R.V., S.D.W., J.I.S.). Initial topics were selected via several meetings among the panel members to discuss existing DEI concerns and issues that were deemed relevant due to education gaps in residency training. The list of topics was further expanded with recommendations obtained via an email sent to dermatology program directors on the Association of Professors of Dermatology listserve, which solicited voluntary participation of academic dermatologists, including program directors and dermatology residents.

There were 2 voting rounds, with each round consisting of questions scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1=not essential, 2=probably not essential, 3=neutral, 4=probably essential, 5=definitely essential). The inclusion criteria to classify a topic as necessary for integration into the dermatology residency curriculum included 95% (18/19) or more of respondents rating the topic as probably essential or definitely essential; if more than 90% (17/19) of respondents rated the topic as probably essential or definitely essential and less than 10% (2/19) rated it as not essential or probably not essential, the topic was still included as part of the suggested curriculum. Topics that received ratings of probably essential or definitely essential by less than 80% (15/19) of respondents were removed from consideration. The topics that did not meet inclusion or exclusion criteria during the first round of voting were refined by the e-Delphi steering committee (V.S.E-C. and F-A.R.) based on open-ended feedback from the voting group provided at the end of the survey and subsequently passed to the second round of voting.

Results

Participants—A total of 19 respondents participated in both voting rounds, the majority (80% [15/19]) of whom were program directors or dermatologists affiliated with academia or development of DEI education; the remaining 20% [4/19]) were dermatology residents.

Open-Ended Feedback—Voting group members were able to provide open-ended feedback for each of the sets of topics after the survey, which the steering committee utilized to modify the topics as needed for the final voting round. For example, “structural racism/discrimination” was originally mentioned as a topic, but several participants suggested including specific types of racism; therefore, the wording was changed to “racism: types, definitions” to encompass broader definitions and types of racism.

Survey Results—Two genres of topics were surveyed in each voting round: clinical and nonclinical. Participants voted on a total of 61 topics, with 23 ultimately selected in the final list of consensus curricular topics. Of those, 9 were clinical and 14 nonclinical. All topics deemed necessary for inclusion in residency curricula are presented in eTables 1 and 2.

During the first round of voting, the e-Delphi panel reached a consensus to include the following 17 topics as essential to dermatology residency training (along with the percentage of voters who classified them as probably essential or definitely essential): how to mitigate bias in clinical and workplace settings (100% [40/40]); social determinants of health-related disparities in dermatology (100% [40/40]); hairstyling practices across different hair textures (100% [40/40]); definitions and examples of microaggressions (97.50% [39/40]); definition, background, and types of bias (97.50% [39/40]); manifestations of bias in the clinical setting (97.44% [38/39]); racial and ethnic disparities in dermatology (97.44% [38/39]); keloids (97.37% [37/38]); differences in dermoscopic presentations in skin of color (97.30% [36/37]); skin cancer in patients with skin of color (97.30% [36/37]); disparities due to bias (95.00% [38/40]); how to apply cultural humility and safety to patients of different cultural backgrounds (94.87% [37/40]); best practices in providing care to patients with limited English proficiency (94.87% [37/40]); hair loss in patients with textured hair (94.74% [36/38]); pseudofolliculitis barbae and acne keloidalis nuchae (94.60% [35/37]); disparities regarding people experiencing homelessness (92.31% [36/39]); and definitions and types of racism and other forms of discrimination (92.31% [36/39]). eTable 1 provides a list of suggested resources to incorporate these topics into the educational components of residency curricula. The resources provided were not part of the voting process, and they were not considered in the consensus analysis; they are included here as suggested educational catalysts.

During the second round of voting, 25 topics were evaluated. Of those, the following 6 topics were proposed to be included as essential in residency training: differences in prevalence and presentation of common inflammatory disorders (100% [29/29]); manifestations of bias in the learning environment (96.55%); antiracist action and how to decrease the effects of structural racism in clinical and educational settings (96.55% [28/29]); diversity of images in dermatology education (96.55% [28/29]); pigmentary disorders and their psychological effects (96.55% [28/29]); and LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) dermatologic health care (96.55% [28/29]). eTable 2 includes these topics as well as suggested resources to help incorporate them into training.

Comment

This study utilized a modified e-Delphi technique to identify relevant clinical and nonclinical DEI topics that should be incorporated into dermatology residency curricula. The panel members reached a consensus for 9 clinical DEI-related topics. The respondents agreed that the topics related to skin and hair conditions in patients with skin of color as well as textured hair were crucial to residency education. Skin cancer, hair loss, pseudofolliculitis barbae, acne keloidalis nuchae, keloids, pigmentary disorders, and their varying presentations in patients with skin of color were among the recommended topics. The panel also recommended educating residents on the variable visual presentations of inflammatory conditions in skin of color. Addressing the needs of diverse patients—for example, those belonging to the LGBTQ community—also was deemed important for inclusion.

The remaining 14 chosen topics were nonclinical items addressing concepts such as bias and health care disparities as well as cultural humility and safety.⁹ Cultural humility and safety focus on developing cultural awareness by creating a safe setting for patients rather than encouraging power relationships between them and their physicians. Various topics related to racism also were recommended to be included in residency curricula, including education on implementation of antiracist action in the workplace.

Many of the nonclinical topics are intertwined; for instance, learning about health care disparities in patients with limited English proficiency allows for improved best practices in delivering care to patients from this population. The first step in overcoming bias and subsequent disparities is acknowledging how the perpetuation of bias leads to disparities after being taught tools to recognize it.

Our group’s guidance on DEI topics should help dermatology residency program leaders as they design and refine program curricula. There are multiple avenues for incorporating education on these topics, including lectures, interactive workshops, role-playing sessions, book or journal clubs, and discussion circles. Many of these topics/programs may already be included in programs’ didactic curricula, which would minimize the burden of finding space to educate on these topics. Institutional cultural change is key to ensuring truly diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces. Educating tomorrow’s dermatologists on these topics is a first step toward achieving that cultural change.

Limitations—A limitation of this e-Delphi survey is that only a selection of experts in this field was included. Additionally, we were concerned that the Likert scale format and the bar we set for inclusion and exclusion may have failed to adequately capture participants’ nuanced opinions. As such, participants were able to provide open-ended feedback, and suggestions for alternate wording or other changes were considered by the steering committee. Finally, inclusion recommendations identified in this survey were developed specifically for US dermatology residents.

Conclusion

In this e-Delphi consensus assessment of DEI-related topics, we recommend the inclusion of 23 topics into dermatology residency program curricula to improve medical training and the patient-physician relationship as well as to create better health outcomes. We also provide specific sample resource recommendations in eTables 1 and 2 to facilitate inclusion of these topics into residency curricula across the country.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs seek to improve dermatologic education and clinical care for an increasingly diverse patient population as well as to recruit and sustain a physician workforce that reflects the diversity of the patients they serve.^1,2 In dermatology, only 4.2% and 3.0% of practicing dermatologists self-identify as being of Hispanic and African American ethnicity, respectively, compared with 18.5% and 13.4% of the general population, respectively.³ Creating an educational system that works to meet the goals of DEI is essential to improve health outcomes and address disparities. The lack of robust DEI-related curricula during residency training may limit the ability of practicing dermatologists to provide comprehensive and culturally sensitive care. It has been shown that racial concordance between patients and physicians has a positive impact on patient satisfaction by fostering a trusting patient-physician relationship.⁴

It is the responsibility of all dermatologists to create an environment where patients from any background can feel comfortable, which can be cultivated by establishing patient-centered communication and cultural humility.⁵ These skills can be strengthened via the implementation of DEI-related curricula during residency training. Augmenting exposure of these topics during training can optimize the delivery of dermatologic care by providing residents with the tools and confidence needed to care for patients of culturally diverse backgrounds. Enhancing DEI education is crucial to not only improve the recognition and treatment of dermatologic conditions in all skin and hair types but also to minimize misconceptions, stigma, health disparities, and discrimination faced by historically marginalized communities. Creating a culture of inclusion is of paramount importance to build successful relationships with patients and colleagues of culturally diverse backgrounds.⁶

There are multiple efforts underway to increase DEI education across the field of dermatology, including the development of DEI task forces in professional organizations and societies that serve to expand DEI-related research, mentorship, and education. The American Academy of Dermatology has been leading efforts to create a curriculum focused on skin of color, particularly addressing inadequate educational training on how dermatologic conditions manifest in this population.⁷ The Skin of Color Society has similar efforts underway and is developing a speakers bureau to give leading experts a platform to lecture dermatology trainees as well as patient and community audiences on various topics in skin of color.⁸ These are just 2 of many professional dermatology organizations that are advocating for expanded education on DEI; however, consistently integrating DEI-related topics into dermatology residency training curricula remains a gap in pedagogy. To identify the DEI-related topics of greatest relevance to the dermatology resident curricula, we implemented a modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus process to provide standardized recommendations.

Methods

A 2-round modified e-Delphi method was utilized (Figure). An initial list of potential curricular topics was formulated by an expert panel consisting of 5 dermatologists from the Association of Professors of Dermatology DEI subcommittee and the American Academy of Dermatology Diversity Task Force (A.M.A., S.B., R.V., S.D.W., J.I.S.). Initial topics were selected via several meetings among the panel members to discuss existing DEI concerns and issues that were deemed relevant due to education gaps in residency training. The list of topics was further expanded with recommendations obtained via an email sent to dermatology program directors on the Association of Professors of Dermatology listserve, which solicited voluntary participation of academic dermatologists, including program directors and dermatology residents.

There were 2 voting rounds, with each round consisting of questions scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1=not essential, 2=probably not essential, 3=neutral, 4=probably essential, 5=definitely essential). The inclusion criteria to classify a topic as necessary for integration into the dermatology residency curriculum included 95% (18/19) or more of respondents rating the topic as probably essential or definitely essential; if more than 90% (17/19) of respondents rated the topic as probably essential or definitely essential and less than 10% (2/19) rated it as not essential or probably not essential, the topic was still included as part of the suggested curriculum. Topics that received ratings of probably essential or definitely essential by less than 80% (15/19) of respondents were removed from consideration. The topics that did not meet inclusion or exclusion criteria during the first round of voting were refined by the e-Delphi steering committee (V.S.E-C. and F-A.R.) based on open-ended feedback from the voting group provided at the end of the survey and subsequently passed to the second round of voting.

Results

Participants—A total of 19 respondents participated in both voting rounds, the majority (80% [15/19]) of whom were program directors or dermatologists affiliated with academia or development of DEI education; the remaining 20% [4/19]) were dermatology residents.

Open-Ended Feedback—Voting group members were able to provide open-ended feedback for each of the sets of topics after the survey, which the steering committee utilized to modify the topics as needed for the final voting round. For example, “structural racism/discrimination” was originally mentioned as a topic, but several participants suggested including specific types of racism; therefore, the wording was changed to “racism: types, definitions” to encompass broader definitions and types of racism.

Survey Results—Two genres of topics were surveyed in each voting round: clinical and nonclinical. Participants voted on a total of 61 topics, with 23 ultimately selected in the final list of consensus curricular topics. Of those, 9 were clinical and 14 nonclinical. All topics deemed necessary for inclusion in residency curricula are presented in eTables 1 and 2.

During the first round of voting, the e-Delphi panel reached a consensus to include the following 17 topics as essential to dermatology residency training (along with the percentage of voters who classified them as probably essential or definitely essential): how to mitigate bias in clinical and workplace settings (100% [40/40]); social determinants of health-related disparities in dermatology (100% [40/40]); hairstyling practices across different hair textures (100% [40/40]); definitions and examples of microaggressions (97.50% [39/40]); definition, background, and types of bias (97.50% [39/40]); manifestations of bias in the clinical setting (97.44% [38/39]); racial and ethnic disparities in dermatology (97.44% [38/39]); keloids (97.37% [37/38]); differences in dermoscopic presentations in skin of color (97.30% [36/37]); skin cancer in patients with skin of color (97.30% [36/37]); disparities due to bias (95.00% [38/40]); how to apply cultural humility and safety to patients of different cultural backgrounds (94.87% [37/40]); best practices in providing care to patients with limited English proficiency (94.87% [37/40]); hair loss in patients with textured hair (94.74% [36/38]); pseudofolliculitis barbae and acne keloidalis nuchae (94.60% [35/37]); disparities regarding people experiencing homelessness (92.31% [36/39]); and definitions and types of racism and other forms of discrimination (92.31% [36/39]). eTable 1 provides a list of suggested resources to incorporate these topics into the educational components of residency curricula. The resources provided were not part of the voting process, and they were not considered in the consensus analysis; they are included here as suggested educational catalysts.

During the second round of voting, 25 topics were evaluated. Of those, the following 6 topics were proposed to be included as essential in residency training: differences in prevalence and presentation of common inflammatory disorders (100% [29/29]); manifestations of bias in the learning environment (96.55%); antiracist action and how to decrease the effects of structural racism in clinical and educational settings (96.55% [28/29]); diversity of images in dermatology education (96.55% [28/29]); pigmentary disorders and their psychological effects (96.55% [28/29]); and LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) dermatologic health care (96.55% [28/29]). eTable 2 includes these topics as well as suggested resources to help incorporate them into training.

Comment

This study utilized a modified e-Delphi technique to identify relevant clinical and nonclinical DEI topics that should be incorporated into dermatology residency curricula. The panel members reached a consensus for 9 clinical DEI-related topics. The respondents agreed that the topics related to skin and hair conditions in patients with skin of color as well as textured hair were crucial to residency education. Skin cancer, hair loss, pseudofolliculitis barbae, acne keloidalis nuchae, keloids, pigmentary disorders, and their varying presentations in patients with skin of color were among the recommended topics. The panel also recommended educating residents on the variable visual presentations of inflammatory conditions in skin of color. Addressing the needs of diverse patients—for example, those belonging to the LGBTQ community—also was deemed important for inclusion.

The remaining 14 chosen topics were nonclinical items addressing concepts such as bias and health care disparities as well as cultural humility and safety.⁹ Cultural humility and safety focus on developing cultural awareness by creating a safe setting for patients rather than encouraging power relationships between them and their physicians. Various topics related to racism also were recommended to be included in residency curricula, including education on implementation of antiracist action in the workplace.

Many of the nonclinical topics are intertwined; for instance, learning about health care disparities in patients with limited English proficiency allows for improved best practices in delivering care to patients from this population. The first step in overcoming bias and subsequent disparities is acknowledging how the perpetuation of bias leads to disparities after being taught tools to recognize it.

Our group’s guidance on DEI topics should help dermatology residency program leaders as they design and refine program curricula. There are multiple avenues for incorporating education on these topics, including lectures, interactive workshops, role-playing sessions, book or journal clubs, and discussion circles. Many of these topics/programs may already be included in programs’ didactic curricula, which would minimize the burden of finding space to educate on these topics. Institutional cultural change is key to ensuring truly diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces. Educating tomorrow’s dermatologists on these topics is a first step toward achieving that cultural change.

Limitations—A limitation of this e-Delphi survey is that only a selection of experts in this field was included. Additionally, we were concerned that the Likert scale format and the bar we set for inclusion and exclusion may have failed to adequately capture participants’ nuanced opinions. As such, participants were able to provide open-ended feedback, and suggestions for alternate wording or other changes were considered by the steering committee. Finally, inclusion recommendations identified in this survey were developed specifically for US dermatology residents.

Conclusion

In this e-Delphi consensus assessment of DEI-related topics, we recommend the inclusion of 23 topics into dermatology residency program curricula to improve medical training and the patient-physician relationship as well as to create better health outcomes. We also provide specific sample resource recommendations in eTables 1 and 2 to facilitate inclusion of these topics into residency curricula across the country.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs seek to improve dermatologic education and clinical care for an increasingly diverse patient population as well as to recruit and sustain a physician workforce that reflects the diversity of the patients they serve.^1,2 In dermatology, only 4.2% and 3.0% of practicing dermatologists self-identify as being of Hispanic and African American ethnicity, respectively, compared with 18.5% and 13.4% of the general population, respectively.³ Creating an educational system that works to meet the goals of DEI is essential to improve health outcomes and address disparities. The lack of robust DEI-related curricula during residency training may limit the ability of practicing dermatologists to provide comprehensive and culturally sensitive care. It has been shown that racial concordance between patients and physicians has a positive impact on patient satisfaction by fostering a trusting patient-physician relationship.⁴

It is the responsibility of all dermatologists to create an environment where patients from any background can feel comfortable, which can be cultivated by establishing patient-centered communication and cultural humility.⁵ These skills can be strengthened via the implementation of DEI-related curricula during residency training. Augmenting exposure of these topics during training can optimize the delivery of dermatologic care by providing residents with the tools and confidence needed to care for patients of culturally diverse backgrounds. Enhancing DEI education is crucial to not only improve the recognition and treatment of dermatologic conditions in all skin and hair types but also to minimize misconceptions, stigma, health disparities, and discrimination faced by historically marginalized communities. Creating a culture of inclusion is of paramount importance to build successful relationships with patients and colleagues of culturally diverse backgrounds.⁶

There are multiple efforts underway to increase DEI education across the field of dermatology, including the development of DEI task forces in professional organizations and societies that serve to expand DEI-related research, mentorship, and education. The American Academy of Dermatology has been leading efforts to create a curriculum focused on skin of color, particularly addressing inadequate educational training on how dermatologic conditions manifest in this population.⁷ The Skin of Color Society has similar efforts underway and is developing a speakers bureau to give leading experts a platform to lecture dermatology trainees as well as patient and community audiences on various topics in skin of color.⁸ These are just 2 of many professional dermatology organizations that are advocating for expanded education on DEI; however, consistently integrating DEI-related topics into dermatology residency training curricula remains a gap in pedagogy. To identify the DEI-related topics of greatest relevance to the dermatology resident curricula, we implemented a modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus process to provide standardized recommendations.

Methods

A 2-round modified e-Delphi method was utilized (Figure). An initial list of potential curricular topics was formulated by an expert panel consisting of 5 dermatologists from the Association of Professors of Dermatology DEI subcommittee and the American Academy of Dermatology Diversity Task Force (A.M.A., S.B., R.V., S.D.W., J.I.S.). Initial topics were selected via several meetings among the panel members to discuss existing DEI concerns and issues that were deemed relevant due to education gaps in residency training. The list of topics was further expanded with recommendations obtained via an email sent to dermatology program directors on the Association of Professors of Dermatology listserve, which solicited voluntary participation of academic dermatologists, including program directors and dermatology residents.

There were 2 voting rounds, with each round consisting of questions scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1=not essential, 2=probably not essential, 3=neutral, 4=probably essential, 5=definitely essential). The inclusion criteria to classify a topic as necessary for integration into the dermatology residency curriculum included 95% (18/19) or more of respondents rating the topic as probably essential or definitely essential; if more than 90% (17/19) of respondents rated the topic as probably essential or definitely essential and less than 10% (2/19) rated it as not essential or probably not essential, the topic was still included as part of the suggested curriculum. Topics that received ratings of probably essential or definitely essential by less than 80% (15/19) of respondents were removed from consideration. The topics that did not meet inclusion or exclusion criteria during the first round of voting were refined by the e-Delphi steering committee (V.S.E-C. and F-A.R.) based on open-ended feedback from the voting group provided at the end of the survey and subsequently passed to the second round of voting.

Results

Participants—A total of 19 respondents participated in both voting rounds, the majority (80% [15/19]) of whom were program directors or dermatologists affiliated with academia or development of DEI education; the remaining 20% [4/19]) were dermatology residents.

Open-Ended Feedback—Voting group members were able to provide open-ended feedback for each of the sets of topics after the survey, which the steering committee utilized to modify the topics as needed for the final voting round. For example, “structural racism/discrimination” was originally mentioned as a topic, but several participants suggested including specific types of racism; therefore, the wording was changed to “racism: types, definitions” to encompass broader definitions and types of racism.

Survey Results—Two genres of topics were surveyed in each voting round: clinical and nonclinical. Participants voted on a total of 61 topics, with 23 ultimately selected in the final list of consensus curricular topics. Of those, 9 were clinical and 14 nonclinical. All topics deemed necessary for inclusion in residency curricula are presented in eTables 1 and 2.

During the first round of voting, the e-Delphi panel reached a consensus to include the following 17 topics as essential to dermatology residency training (along with the percentage of voters who classified them as probably essential or definitely essential): how to mitigate bias in clinical and workplace settings (100% [40/40]); social determinants of health-related disparities in dermatology (100% [40/40]); hairstyling practices across different hair textures (100% [40/40]); definitions and examples of microaggressions (97.50% [39/40]); definition, background, and types of bias (97.50% [39/40]); manifestations of bias in the clinical setting (97.44% [38/39]); racial and ethnic disparities in dermatology (97.44% [38/39]); keloids (97.37% [37/38]); differences in dermoscopic presentations in skin of color (97.30% [36/37]); skin cancer in patients with skin of color (97.30% [36/37]); disparities due to bias (95.00% [38/40]); how to apply cultural humility and safety to patients of different cultural backgrounds (94.87% [37/40]); best practices in providing care to patients with limited English proficiency (94.87% [37/40]); hair loss in patients with textured hair (94.74% [36/38]); pseudofolliculitis barbae and acne keloidalis nuchae (94.60% [35/37]); disparities regarding people experiencing homelessness (92.31% [36/39]); and definitions and types of racism and other forms of discrimination (92.31% [36/39]). eTable 1 provides a list of suggested resources to incorporate these topics into the educational components of residency curricula. The resources provided were not part of the voting process, and they were not considered in the consensus analysis; they are included here as suggested educational catalysts.

During the second round of voting, 25 topics were evaluated. Of those, the following 6 topics were proposed to be included as essential in residency training: differences in prevalence and presentation of common inflammatory disorders (100% [29/29]); manifestations of bias in the learning environment (96.55%); antiracist action and how to decrease the effects of structural racism in clinical and educational settings (96.55% [28/29]); diversity of images in dermatology education (96.55% [28/29]); pigmentary disorders and their psychological effects (96.55% [28/29]); and LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) dermatologic health care (96.55% [28/29]). eTable 2 includes these topics as well as suggested resources to help incorporate them into training.

Comment

This study utilized a modified e-Delphi technique to identify relevant clinical and nonclinical DEI topics that should be incorporated into dermatology residency curricula. The panel members reached a consensus for 9 clinical DEI-related topics. The respondents agreed that the topics related to skin and hair conditions in patients with skin of color as well as textured hair were crucial to residency education. Skin cancer, hair loss, pseudofolliculitis barbae, acne keloidalis nuchae, keloids, pigmentary disorders, and their varying presentations in patients with skin of color were among the recommended topics. The panel also recommended educating residents on the variable visual presentations of inflammatory conditions in skin of color. Addressing the needs of diverse patients—for example, those belonging to the LGBTQ community—also was deemed important for inclusion.

The remaining 14 chosen topics were nonclinical items addressing concepts such as bias and health care disparities as well as cultural humility and safety.⁹ Cultural humility and safety focus on developing cultural awareness by creating a safe setting for patients rather than encouraging power relationships between them and their physicians. Various topics related to racism also were recommended to be included in residency curricula, including education on implementation of antiracist action in the workplace.

Many of the nonclinical topics are intertwined; for instance, learning about health care disparities in patients with limited English proficiency allows for improved best practices in delivering care to patients from this population. The first step in overcoming bias and subsequent disparities is acknowledging how the perpetuation of bias leads to disparities after being taught tools to recognize it.

Our group’s guidance on DEI topics should help dermatology residency program leaders as they design and refine program curricula. There are multiple avenues for incorporating education on these topics, including lectures, interactive workshops, role-playing sessions, book or journal clubs, and discussion circles. Many of these topics/programs may already be included in programs’ didactic curricula, which would minimize the burden of finding space to educate on these topics. Institutional cultural change is key to ensuring truly diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces. Educating tomorrow’s dermatologists on these topics is a first step toward achieving that cultural change.

Limitations—A limitation of this e-Delphi survey is that only a selection of experts in this field was included. Additionally, we were concerned that the Likert scale format and the bar we set for inclusion and exclusion may have failed to adequately capture participants’ nuanced opinions. As such, participants were able to provide open-ended feedback, and suggestions for alternate wording or other changes were considered by the steering committee. Finally, inclusion recommendations identified in this survey were developed specifically for US dermatology residents.

Conclusion

In this e-Delphi consensus assessment of DEI-related topics, we recommend the inclusion of 23 topics into dermatology residency program curricula to improve medical training and the patient-physician relationship as well as to create better health outcomes. We also provide specific sample resource recommendations in eTables 1 and 2 to facilitate inclusion of these topics into residency curricula across the country.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 0.1% of the US population.^1,2 Severe disease or HS flares can lead patients to seek care through the emergency department (ED), with some requiring inpatient admission. ³ Inpatient hospitalization of patients with HS has increased over the last 2 decades, and patients with HS utilize emergency and inpatient care more frequently than those with other dermatologic conditions.^4,5 Minority patients and those of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to present to the ED for HS management due to limited access to care and other existing comorbid conditions. ⁴ In a 2022 study of the Nationwide Readmissions Database, the authors looked at hospital readmission rates of patients with HS compared with those with heart failure—both patient populations with chronic debilitating conditions. Results indicated that the hospital readmission rates for patients with HS surpassed those of patients with heart failure for that year, highlighting the need for improved inpatient management of HS.⁶

Patients with HS present to the ED with severe pain, fever, wound care, or the need for surgical intervention. The ED and inpatient hospital setting are locations in which physicians may not be as familiar with the diagnosis or treatment of HS, specifically flares or severe disease. ⁷ The inpatient care setting provides access to certain resources that can be challenging to obtain in the outpatient clinical setting, such as social workers and pain specialists, but also can prove challenging in obtaining other resources for HS management, such as advanced medical therapies. Given the increase in hospital- based care for HS and lack of widespread inpatient access to dermatology and HS experts, consensus recommendations for management of HS in the acute hospital setting would be beneficial. In our study, we sought to generate a collection of expert consensus statements providers can refer to when managing patients with HS in the inpatient setting.

Methods

The study team at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)(M.N., R.P., L.C.S.) developed an initial set of consensus statements based on current published HS treatment guidelines,^8,9 publications on management of inpatient HS,³ published supportive care guidelines for Stevens-Johnson syndrome, 10 and personal clinical experience in managing inpatient HS, which resulted in 50 statements organized into the following categories: overall care, wound care, genital care, pain management, infection control, medical management, surgical management, nutrition, and transitional care guidelines. This study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (IRB00084257).

Participant Recruitment—Dermatologists were identified for participation in the study based on membership in the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists and the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation or authorship of publications relevant to HS or inpatient dermatology. Dermatologists from larger academic institutions with HS specialty clinics and inpatient dermatology services also were identified. Participants were invited via email and could suggest other experts for inclusion. A total of 31 dermatologists were invited to participate in the study, with 26 agreeing to participate. All participating dermatologists were practicing in the United States.

Delphi Study—In the first round of the Delphi study, the participants were sent an online survey via REDCap in which they were asked to rank the appropriateness of each of the proposed 50 guideline statements on a scale of 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate). Participants also were able to provide commentary and feedback on each of the statements. Survey results were analyzed using the RAND/ UCLA Appropriateness Method.¹¹ For each statement, the median rating for appropriateness, interpercentile range (IPR), IPR adjusted for symmetry, and disagreement index (DI) were calculated (DI=IPR/IPR adjusted for symmetry). The 30th and 70th percentiles were used in the DI calculation as the upper and lower limits, respectively. A median rating for appropriateness of 1.0 to 3.9 was considered “inappropriate,” 4.0 to 6.9 was considered “uncertain appropriateness,” and 7.0 to 9.0 was “appropriate.” A DI value greater than or equal to 1 indicated a lack of consensus regarding the appropriateness of the statement. Following each round, participants received a copy of their responses along with the group median rank of each statement. Statements that did not reach consensus in the first Delphi round were revised based on feedback received by the participants, and a second survey with 14 statements was sent via REDCap 2 weeks later. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method also was applied to this second Delphi round. After the second survey, participants received a copy of anonymized comments regarding the consensus statements and were allowed to provide additional final commentary to be included in the discussion of these recommendations.

Results

Twenty-six dermatologists completed the first-round survey, and 24 participants completed the second-round survey. All participants self-identified as having expertise in either HS (n=22 [85%]) or inpatient dermatology (n=17 [65%]), and 13 (50%) participants self-identified as experts in both HS and inpatient dermatology. All participants, except 1, were affiliated with an academic health system with inpatient dermatology services. The average length of time in practice as a dermatologist was 10 years (median, 9 years [range, 3–27 years]).

Of the 50 initial proposed consensus statements, 26 (52%) achieved consensus after the first round; 21 statements revealed DI calculations that did not achieve consensus. Two statements achieved consensus but received median ratings for appropriateness, indicating uncertain appropriateness; because of this, 1 statement was removed and 1 was revised based on participant feedback, resulting in 13 revised statements (eTable 1). Controversial topics in the consensus process included obtaining wound cultures and meaningful culture data interpretation, use of specific biologic medications in the inpatient setting, and use of intravenous ertapenem. Participant responses to these topics are discussed in detail below. Of these secondround statements, all achieved consensus. The final set of consensus statements can be found in eTable 2.

Comment

Our Delphi consensus study combined the expertise of both dermatologists who care for patients with HS and those with inpatient dermatology experience to produce a set of recommendations for the management of HS in the hospital care setting. A strength of this study is inclusion of many national leaders in both HS and inpatient dermatology, with some participants having developed the previously published HS treatment guidelines and others having participated in inpatient dermatology Delphi studies.8-10 The expertise is further strengthened by the geographically diverse institutional representation within the United States.

The final consensus recommendations included 40 statements covering a range of patient care issues, including use of appropriate inpatient subspecialists (care team), supportive care measures (wound care, pain control, genital care), disease-oriented treatment (medical management, surgical management), inpatient complications (infection control, nutrition), and successful transition back to outpatient management (transitional care). These recommendations are meant to serve as a resource for providers to consider when taking care of inpatient HS flares, recognizing that the complexity and individual circumstances of each patient are unique.

Delphi Consensus Recommendations Compared to Prior Guidelines—Several recommendations in the current study align with the previously published North American clinical management guidelines for HS.^8,9 Our recommendations agree with prior guidelines on the importance of disease staging and pain assessment using validated assessment tools as well as screening for HS comorbidities. There also is agreement in the potential benefit of involving pain specialists in the development of a comprehensive pain management plan. The inpatient care setting provides a unique opportunity to engage multiple specialists and collaborate on patient care in a timely manner. Our recommendations regarding surgical care also align with established guidelines in recommending incision and drainage as an acute bedside procedure best utilized for symptom relief in inflamed abscesses and relegating most other surgical management to the outpatient setting. Wound care recommendations also are similar, with our expert participants agreeing on individualizing dressing choices based on wound characteristics. A benefit of inpatient wound care is access to skilled nursing for dressing changes and potentially improved access to more sophisticated dressing materials. Our recommendations differ from the prior guidelines in our focus on severe HS, HS flares, and HS complications, which constitute the majority of inpatient disease management. We provide additional guidance on management of secondary infections, perianal fistulous disease, and importantly transitional care to optimize discharge planning.

Differing Opinions in Our Analysis—Despite the success of our Delphi consensus process, there were some differing opinions regarding certain aspects of inpatient HS management, which is to be expected given the lack of strong evidence-based research to support some of the recommended practices. There were differing opinions on the utility of wound culture data, with some participants feeling culture data could help with antibiotic susceptibility and resistance patterns, while others felt wound cultures represent bacterial colonization or biofilm formation.

Initial consensus statements in the first Delphi round were created for individual biologic medications but did not achieve consensus, and feedback on the use of biologics in the inpatient environment was mixed, largely due to logistic and insurance issues. Many participants felt biologic medication cost, difficulty obtaining inpatient reimbursement, health care resource utilization, and availability of biologics in different hospital systems prevented recommending the use of specific biologics during hospitalization. The one exception was in the case of a hospitalized patient who was already receiving infliximab for HS: there was consensus on ensuring the patient dosing was maximized, if appropriate, to 10 mg/kg.12 Ertapenem use also was controversial, with some participants using it as a bridge therapy to either outpatient biologic use or surgery, while others felt it was onerous and difficult to establish reliable access to secure intravenous administration and regular dosing once the patient left the inpatient setting.¹³ Others said they have experienced objections from infectious disease colleagues on the use of intravenous antibiotics, citing antibiotic stewardship concerns.

Patient Care in the Inpatient Setting—Prior literature suggests patients admitted as inpatients for HS tend to be of lower socioeconomic status and are admitted to larger urban teaching hospitals.^14,15 Patients with lower socioeconomic status have increased difficulty accessing health care resources; therefore, inpatient admission serves as an opportunity to provide a holistic HS assessment and coordinate resources for chronic outpatient management.

Study Limitations—This Delphi consensus study has some limitations. The existing literature on inpatient management of HS is limited, challenging our ability to assess the extent to which these published recommendations are already being implemented. Additionally, the study included HS and inpatient dermatology experts from the United States, which means the recommendations may not be generalizable to other countries. Most participants practiced dermatology at large tertiary care academic medical centers, which may limit the ability to implement recommendations in all US inpatient care settings such as small community-based hospitals; however, many of the supportive care guidelines such as pain control, wound care, nutritional support, and social work should be achievable in most inpatient care settings.

Conclusion

Given the increase in inpatient and ED health care utilization for HS, there is an urgent need for expert consensus recommendations on inpatient management of this unique patient population, which requires complex multidisciplinary care. Our recommendations are a resource for providers to utilize and potentially improve the standard of care we provide these patients.

Acknowledgment—We thank the Wake Forest University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (Winston- Salem, North Carolina) for providing statistical help.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 0.1% of the US population.^1,2 Severe disease or HS flares can lead patients to seek care through the emergency department (ED), with some requiring inpatient admission. ³ Inpatient hospitalization of patients with HS has increased over the last 2 decades, and patients with HS utilize emergency and inpatient care more frequently than those with other dermatologic conditions.^4,5 Minority patients and those of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to present to the ED for HS management due to limited access to care and other existing comorbid conditions. ⁴ In a 2022 study of the Nationwide Readmissions Database, the authors looked at hospital readmission rates of patients with HS compared with those with heart failure—both patient populations with chronic debilitating conditions. Results indicated that the hospital readmission rates for patients with HS surpassed those of patients with heart failure for that year, highlighting the need for improved inpatient management of HS.⁶

Patients with HS present to the ED with severe pain, fever, wound care, or the need for surgical intervention. The ED and inpatient hospital setting are locations in which physicians may not be as familiar with the diagnosis or treatment of HS, specifically flares or severe disease. ⁷ The inpatient care setting provides access to certain resources that can be challenging to obtain in the outpatient clinical setting, such as social workers and pain specialists, but also can prove challenging in obtaining other resources for HS management, such as advanced medical therapies. Given the increase in hospital- based care for HS and lack of widespread inpatient access to dermatology and HS experts, consensus recommendations for management of HS in the acute hospital setting would be beneficial. In our study, we sought to generate a collection of expert consensus statements providers can refer to when managing patients with HS in the inpatient setting.

Methods

The study team at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)(M.N., R.P., L.C.S.) developed an initial set of consensus statements based on current published HS treatment guidelines,^8,9 publications on management of inpatient HS,³ published supportive care guidelines for Stevens-Johnson syndrome, 10 and personal clinical experience in managing inpatient HS, which resulted in 50 statements organized into the following categories: overall care, wound care, genital care, pain management, infection control, medical management, surgical management, nutrition, and transitional care guidelines. This study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (IRB00084257).

Participant Recruitment—Dermatologists were identified for participation in the study based on membership in the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists and the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation or authorship of publications relevant to HS or inpatient dermatology. Dermatologists from larger academic institutions with HS specialty clinics and inpatient dermatology services also were identified. Participants were invited via email and could suggest other experts for inclusion. A total of 31 dermatologists were invited to participate in the study, with 26 agreeing to participate. All participating dermatologists were practicing in the United States.

Delphi Study—In the first round of the Delphi study, the participants were sent an online survey via REDCap in which they were asked to rank the appropriateness of each of the proposed 50 guideline statements on a scale of 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate). Participants also were able to provide commentary and feedback on each of the statements. Survey results were analyzed using the RAND/ UCLA Appropriateness Method.¹¹ For each statement, the median rating for appropriateness, interpercentile range (IPR), IPR adjusted for symmetry, and disagreement index (DI) were calculated (DI=IPR/IPR adjusted for symmetry). The 30th and 70th percentiles were used in the DI calculation as the upper and lower limits, respectively. A median rating for appropriateness of 1.0 to 3.9 was considered “inappropriate,” 4.0 to 6.9 was considered “uncertain appropriateness,” and 7.0 to 9.0 was “appropriate.” A DI value greater than or equal to 1 indicated a lack of consensus regarding the appropriateness of the statement. Following each round, participants received a copy of their responses along with the group median rank of each statement. Statements that did not reach consensus in the first Delphi round were revised based on feedback received by the participants, and a second survey with 14 statements was sent via REDCap 2 weeks later. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method also was applied to this second Delphi round. After the second survey, participants received a copy of anonymized comments regarding the consensus statements and were allowed to provide additional final commentary to be included in the discussion of these recommendations.

Results

Twenty-six dermatologists completed the first-round survey, and 24 participants completed the second-round survey. All participants self-identified as having expertise in either HS (n=22 [85%]) or inpatient dermatology (n=17 [65%]), and 13 (50%) participants self-identified as experts in both HS and inpatient dermatology. All participants, except 1, were affiliated with an academic health system with inpatient dermatology services. The average length of time in practice as a dermatologist was 10 years (median, 9 years [range, 3–27 years]).

Of the 50 initial proposed consensus statements, 26 (52%) achieved consensus after the first round; 21 statements revealed DI calculations that did not achieve consensus. Two statements achieved consensus but received median ratings for appropriateness, indicating uncertain appropriateness; because of this, 1 statement was removed and 1 was revised based on participant feedback, resulting in 13 revised statements (eTable 1). Controversial topics in the consensus process included obtaining wound cultures and meaningful culture data interpretation, use of specific biologic medications in the inpatient setting, and use of intravenous ertapenem. Participant responses to these topics are discussed in detail below. Of these secondround statements, all achieved consensus. The final set of consensus statements can be found in eTable 2.

Comment

Our Delphi consensus study combined the expertise of both dermatologists who care for patients with HS and those with inpatient dermatology experience to produce a set of recommendations for the management of HS in the hospital care setting. A strength of this study is inclusion of many national leaders in both HS and inpatient dermatology, with some participants having developed the previously published HS treatment guidelines and others having participated in inpatient dermatology Delphi studies.8-10 The expertise is further strengthened by the geographically diverse institutional representation within the United States.

The final consensus recommendations included 40 statements covering a range of patient care issues, including use of appropriate inpatient subspecialists (care team), supportive care measures (wound care, pain control, genital care), disease-oriented treatment (medical management, surgical management), inpatient complications (infection control, nutrition), and successful transition back to outpatient management (transitional care). These recommendations are meant to serve as a resource for providers to consider when taking care of inpatient HS flares, recognizing that the complexity and individual circumstances of each patient are unique.

Delphi Consensus Recommendations Compared to Prior Guidelines—Several recommendations in the current study align with the previously published North American clinical management guidelines for HS.^8,9 Our recommendations agree with prior guidelines on the importance of disease staging and pain assessment using validated assessment tools as well as screening for HS comorbidities. There also is agreement in the potential benefit of involving pain specialists in the development of a comprehensive pain management plan. The inpatient care setting provides a unique opportunity to engage multiple specialists and collaborate on patient care in a timely manner. Our recommendations regarding surgical care also align with established guidelines in recommending incision and drainage as an acute bedside procedure best utilized for symptom relief in inflamed abscesses and relegating most other surgical management to the outpatient setting. Wound care recommendations also are similar, with our expert participants agreeing on individualizing dressing choices based on wound characteristics. A benefit of inpatient wound care is access to skilled nursing for dressing changes and potentially improved access to more sophisticated dressing materials. Our recommendations differ from the prior guidelines in our focus on severe HS, HS flares, and HS complications, which constitute the majority of inpatient disease management. We provide additional guidance on management of secondary infections, perianal fistulous disease, and importantly transitional care to optimize discharge planning.

Differing Opinions in Our Analysis—Despite the success of our Delphi consensus process, there were some differing opinions regarding certain aspects of inpatient HS management, which is to be expected given the lack of strong evidence-based research to support some of the recommended practices. There were differing opinions on the utility of wound culture data, with some participants feeling culture data could help with antibiotic susceptibility and resistance patterns, while others felt wound cultures represent bacterial colonization or biofilm formation.

Initial consensus statements in the first Delphi round were created for individual biologic medications but did not achieve consensus, and feedback on the use of biologics in the inpatient environment was mixed, largely due to logistic and insurance issues. Many participants felt biologic medication cost, difficulty obtaining inpatient reimbursement, health care resource utilization, and availability of biologics in different hospital systems prevented recommending the use of specific biologics during hospitalization. The one exception was in the case of a hospitalized patient who was already receiving infliximab for HS: there was consensus on ensuring the patient dosing was maximized, if appropriate, to 10 mg/kg.12 Ertapenem use also was controversial, with some participants using it as a bridge therapy to either outpatient biologic use or surgery, while others felt it was onerous and difficult to establish reliable access to secure intravenous administration and regular dosing once the patient left the inpatient setting.¹³ Others said they have experienced objections from infectious disease colleagues on the use of intravenous antibiotics, citing antibiotic stewardship concerns.

Patient Care in the Inpatient Setting—Prior literature suggests patients admitted as inpatients for HS tend to be of lower socioeconomic status and are admitted to larger urban teaching hospitals.^14,15 Patients with lower socioeconomic status have increased difficulty accessing health care resources; therefore, inpatient admission serves as an opportunity to provide a holistic HS assessment and coordinate resources for chronic outpatient management.

Study Limitations—This Delphi consensus study has some limitations. The existing literature on inpatient management of HS is limited, challenging our ability to assess the extent to which these published recommendations are already being implemented. Additionally, the study included HS and inpatient dermatology experts from the United States, which means the recommendations may not be generalizable to other countries. Most participants practiced dermatology at large tertiary care academic medical centers, which may limit the ability to implement recommendations in all US inpatient care settings such as small community-based hospitals; however, many of the supportive care guidelines such as pain control, wound care, nutritional support, and social work should be achievable in most inpatient care settings.

Conclusion

Given the increase in inpatient and ED health care utilization for HS, there is an urgent need for expert consensus recommendations on inpatient management of this unique patient population, which requires complex multidisciplinary care. Our recommendations are a resource for providers to utilize and potentially improve the standard of care we provide these patients.

Acknowledgment—We thank the Wake Forest University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (Winston- Salem, North Carolina) for providing statistical help.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 0.1% of the US population.^1,2 Severe disease or HS flares can lead patients to seek care through the emergency department (ED), with some requiring inpatient admission. ³ Inpatient hospitalization of patients with HS has increased over the last 2 decades, and patients with HS utilize emergency and inpatient care more frequently than those with other dermatologic conditions.^4,5 Minority patients and those of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to present to the ED for HS management due to limited access to care and other existing comorbid conditions. ⁴ In a 2022 study of the Nationwide Readmissions Database, the authors looked at hospital readmission rates of patients with HS compared with those with heart failure—both patient populations with chronic debilitating conditions. Results indicated that the hospital readmission rates for patients with HS surpassed those of patients with heart failure for that year, highlighting the need for improved inpatient management of HS.⁶

Patients with HS present to the ED with severe pain, fever, wound care, or the need for surgical intervention. The ED and inpatient hospital setting are locations in which physicians may not be as familiar with the diagnosis or treatment of HS, specifically flares or severe disease. ⁷ The inpatient care setting provides access to certain resources that can be challenging to obtain in the outpatient clinical setting, such as social workers and pain specialists, but also can prove challenging in obtaining other resources for HS management, such as advanced medical therapies. Given the increase in hospital- based care for HS and lack of widespread inpatient access to dermatology and HS experts, consensus recommendations for management of HS in the acute hospital setting would be beneficial. In our study, we sought to generate a collection of expert consensus statements providers can refer to when managing patients with HS in the inpatient setting.

Methods

The study team at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)(M.N., R.P., L.C.S.) developed an initial set of consensus statements based on current published HS treatment guidelines,^8,9 publications on management of inpatient HS,³ published supportive care guidelines for Stevens-Johnson syndrome, 10 and personal clinical experience in managing inpatient HS, which resulted in 50 statements organized into the following categories: overall care, wound care, genital care, pain management, infection control, medical management, surgical management, nutrition, and transitional care guidelines. This study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (IRB00084257).

Participant Recruitment—Dermatologists were identified for participation in the study based on membership in the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists and the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation or authorship of publications relevant to HS or inpatient dermatology. Dermatologists from larger academic institutions with HS specialty clinics and inpatient dermatology services also were identified. Participants were invited via email and could suggest other experts for inclusion. A total of 31 dermatologists were invited to participate in the study, with 26 agreeing to participate. All participating dermatologists were practicing in the United States.

Delphi Study—In the first round of the Delphi study, the participants were sent an online survey via REDCap in which they were asked to rank the appropriateness of each of the proposed 50 guideline statements on a scale of 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate). Participants also were able to provide commentary and feedback on each of the statements. Survey results were analyzed using the RAND/ UCLA Appropriateness Method.¹¹ For each statement, the median rating for appropriateness, interpercentile range (IPR), IPR adjusted for symmetry, and disagreement index (DI) were calculated (DI=IPR/IPR adjusted for symmetry). The 30th and 70th percentiles were used in the DI calculation as the upper and lower limits, respectively. A median rating for appropriateness of 1.0 to 3.9 was considered “inappropriate,” 4.0 to 6.9 was considered “uncertain appropriateness,” and 7.0 to 9.0 was “appropriate.” A DI value greater than or equal to 1 indicated a lack of consensus regarding the appropriateness of the statement. Following each round, participants received a copy of their responses along with the group median rank of each statement. Statements that did not reach consensus in the first Delphi round were revised based on feedback received by the participants, and a second survey with 14 statements was sent via REDCap 2 weeks later. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method also was applied to this second Delphi round. After the second survey, participants received a copy of anonymized comments regarding the consensus statements and were allowed to provide additional final commentary to be included in the discussion of these recommendations.

Results

Twenty-six dermatologists completed the first-round survey, and 24 participants completed the second-round survey. All participants self-identified as having expertise in either HS (n=22 [85%]) or inpatient dermatology (n=17 [65%]), and 13 (50%) participants self-identified as experts in both HS and inpatient dermatology. All participants, except 1, were affiliated with an academic health system with inpatient dermatology services. The average length of time in practice as a dermatologist was 10 years (median, 9 years [range, 3–27 years]).

Of the 50 initial proposed consensus statements, 26 (52%) achieved consensus after the first round; 21 statements revealed DI calculations that did not achieve consensus. Two statements achieved consensus but received median ratings for appropriateness, indicating uncertain appropriateness; because of this, 1 statement was removed and 1 was revised based on participant feedback, resulting in 13 revised statements (eTable 1). Controversial topics in the consensus process included obtaining wound cultures and meaningful culture data interpretation, use of specific biologic medications in the inpatient setting, and use of intravenous ertapenem. Participant responses to these topics are discussed in detail below. Of these secondround statements, all achieved consensus. The final set of consensus statements can be found in eTable 2.

Comment

Our Delphi consensus study combined the expertise of both dermatologists who care for patients with HS and those with inpatient dermatology experience to produce a set of recommendations for the management of HS in the hospital care setting. A strength of this study is inclusion of many national leaders in both HS and inpatient dermatology, with some participants having developed the previously published HS treatment guidelines and others having participated in inpatient dermatology Delphi studies.8-10 The expertise is further strengthened by the geographically diverse institutional representation within the United States.

The final consensus recommendations included 40 statements covering a range of patient care issues, including use of appropriate inpatient subspecialists (care team), supportive care measures (wound care, pain control, genital care), disease-oriented treatment (medical management, surgical management), inpatient complications (infection control, nutrition), and successful transition back to outpatient management (transitional care). These recommendations are meant to serve as a resource for providers to consider when taking care of inpatient HS flares, recognizing that the complexity and individual circumstances of each patient are unique.

Delphi Consensus Recommendations Compared to Prior Guidelines—Several recommendations in the current study align with the previously published North American clinical management guidelines for HS.^8,9 Our recommendations agree with prior guidelines on the importance of disease staging and pain assessment using validated assessment tools as well as screening for HS comorbidities. There also is agreement in the potential benefit of involving pain specialists in the development of a comprehensive pain management plan. The inpatient care setting provides a unique opportunity to engage multiple specialists and collaborate on patient care in a timely manner. Our recommendations regarding surgical care also align with established guidelines in recommending incision and drainage as an acute bedside procedure best utilized for symptom relief in inflamed abscesses and relegating most other surgical management to the outpatient setting. Wound care recommendations also are similar, with our expert participants agreeing on individualizing dressing choices based on wound characteristics. A benefit of inpatient wound care is access to skilled nursing for dressing changes and potentially improved access to more sophisticated dressing materials. Our recommendations differ from the prior guidelines in our focus on severe HS, HS flares, and HS complications, which constitute the majority of inpatient disease management. We provide additional guidance on management of secondary infections, perianal fistulous disease, and importantly transitional care to optimize discharge planning.

Differing Opinions in Our Analysis—Despite the success of our Delphi consensus process, there were some differing opinions regarding certain aspects of inpatient HS management, which is to be expected given the lack of strong evidence-based research to support some of the recommended practices. There were differing opinions on the utility of wound culture data, with some participants feeling culture data could help with antibiotic susceptibility and resistance patterns, while others felt wound cultures represent bacterial colonization or biofilm formation.

Initial consensus statements in the first Delphi round were created for individual biologic medications but did not achieve consensus, and feedback on the use of biologics in the inpatient environment was mixed, largely due to logistic and insurance issues. Many participants felt biologic medication cost, difficulty obtaining inpatient reimbursement, health care resource utilization, and availability of biologics in different hospital systems prevented recommending the use of specific biologics during hospitalization. The one exception was in the case of a hospitalized patient who was already receiving infliximab for HS: there was consensus on ensuring the patient dosing was maximized, if appropriate, to 10 mg/kg.12 Ertapenem use also was controversial, with some participants using it as a bridge therapy to either outpatient biologic use or surgery, while others felt it was onerous and difficult to establish reliable access to secure intravenous administration and regular dosing once the patient left the inpatient setting.¹³ Others said they have experienced objections from infectious disease colleagues on the use of intravenous antibiotics, citing antibiotic stewardship concerns.

Patient Care in the Inpatient Setting—Prior literature suggests patients admitted as inpatients for HS tend to be of lower socioeconomic status and are admitted to larger urban teaching hospitals.^14,15 Patients with lower socioeconomic status have increased difficulty accessing health care resources; therefore, inpatient admission serves as an opportunity to provide a holistic HS assessment and coordinate resources for chronic outpatient management.

Study Limitations—This Delphi consensus study has some limitations. The existing literature on inpatient management of HS is limited, challenging our ability to assess the extent to which these published recommendations are already being implemented. Additionally, the study included HS and inpatient dermatology experts from the United States, which means the recommendations may not be generalizable to other countries. Most participants practiced dermatology at large tertiary care academic medical centers, which may limit the ability to implement recommendations in all US inpatient care settings such as small community-based hospitals; however, many of the supportive care guidelines such as pain control, wound care, nutritional support, and social work should be achievable in most inpatient care settings.

Conclusion

Given the increase in inpatient and ED health care utilization for HS, there is an urgent need for expert consensus recommendations on inpatient management of this unique patient population, which requires complex multidisciplinary care. Our recommendations are a resource for providers to utilize and potentially improve the standard of care we provide these patients.

Acknowledgment—We thank the Wake Forest University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (Winston- Salem, North Carolina) for providing statistical help.

The phenomenon of natural (nonchemically treated) hair in individuals of African and Afro-Caribbean descent is sweeping across the United States. The ideals of beauty among this patient population have shifted from a relaxed, straightened, noncurly look to a more natural curly and/or kinky appearance. The discussion on natural hair versus straight hair has been brought to the mainstream by films such as Good Hair (2009). Furthermore, major hair care companies have increased their marketing of natural hair products to address the needs of these patients.

Popular traumatic hair care practices such as chemical relaxation and thermal straightening may lead to hair damage. Although the role of hair care practices in various scalp and hair disorders is ambiguous, traumatic practices commonly are performed by patients who are diagnosed with dermatologic conditions such as scarring alopecia.¹ Alopecia is the fourth most common dermatologic diagnosis in black patients.² Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia is the most common form of scarring alopecia in this patient population³ and has been associated with traumatic hair care practices. As a result, many patients have switched to natural hairstyles that are less traumatic and damaging, often due to recommendations by dermatologists.

As the US population continues to become more diverse, dermatologists will be faced with many questions regarding hair disease and natural hair care in patients with skin of color. A basic understanding of hair care practices among black individuals is important to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of hair shaft and scalp disorders.⁴ When patients switch to natural hairstyles, are dermatologists prepared to answer questions that may arise during this process? This article will familiarize dermatologists with basic hair care terminology and general recommendations they can make to black patients who are transitioning to natural hairstyles.

Characteristics of Hair in the Skin of Color Population

A basic understanding of the structural properties of hair is fundamental. Human hair is categorized into 3 groups: Asian, Caucasian, and African.⁵ African hair typically is curly and, depending on the degree of the curl, is more susceptible to damage due to increased mechanical fragility. It also has a tendency to form knots and fissures along the hair shaft, which causes additional fracturing with simple manipulation. African hair grows more slowly than Asian and Caucasian hair, which can be discouraging to patients. It also has a lower water concentration and does not become coated with sebum as naturally as straightened hair.⁵ A simplified explanation of these characteristics can help patients understand how to proceed in managing and styling their natural hair.

As physicians, it is important for us to treat any underlying conditions related to the hair and scalp in black patients. Common dermatologic conditions such as seborrheic dermatitis, lupus, folliculitis, and alopecia can affect patients’ hair health. In addition to traumatic hair care practices, inflammation secondary to bacterial infections can contribute to the onset of central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia.⁶ Therefore, a detailed history and physical examination are needed to evaluate the etiology of associated symptoms. Treatment of these associated symptoms will aid in the overall care of patients.

Transitioning to Natural Hairstyles

Following evaluation and treatment of any hair or scalp conditions, how can dermatologists help black patients transition to natural hairstyles? The term transition refers to the process of switching from a chemically relaxed or thermally straightened hairstyle to a natural hairstyle. Dermatologists must understand the common terminology used to describe natural hair practices in this patient population.

There are several methods patients can use to transition from chemically treated hairstyles to natural hairstyles. Patients may consider the option of the “big chop,” or cutting off all chemically treated hair. This option typically leaves women with very short hairstyles down to the new growth, or hair that has grown since the last chemical relaxer. Other commonly used methods during the transition phase include protective styling (eg, braids, weaves, extensions) or simply growing out the chemically treated hair.

Protective styling methods such as braids, weaves, and extensions allow hair to be easily styled while the chemically treated hair grows out over time.⁷ Typically, protective styles may be worn for weeks to months, allowing hair growth without hair breakage and shedding. Hair weaving is a practice that incorporates artificial (synthetic) or human hair into one’s natural scalp hair.⁸ There are various techniques to extend hair including clip-in extensions, hair bonding and fusion with adhesives, sewing hair into braided hair, or the application of single strands of hair into a cap made of nylon mesh known as a lace front. Braided styles, weaves, and hair extensions cannot be washed as often as natural hair, but it is important to remind patients to replenish moisture as often as possible. Moisturizing or greasing the exposed scalp and proximal hair shafts can assist with water retention. It is imperative to inform patients that overuse of tight braids and glues for weaves and extensions may further damage the hair and scalp. Some of the natural ingredients commonly used in moisturizers include olive oil, jojoba oil, coconut oil, castor oil, and glycerin. These products can commonly cause pomade acne, which should be recognized and treated by dermatologists. Furthermore, long weaves and extensions can put excess weight on natural hair causing breakage. To prevent breakage, wearing an updo (a hairstyle in which the hair is pulled upward) can reduce the heavy strain on the hair.

Dermatologists should remind patients who wish to grow out chemically treated hair to frequently moisturize the hair and scalp as well as to avoid trauma to prevent hair breakage. As the natural hair grows out, the patient will experience varying hair textures from the natural curly hair to the previously processed straightened hair; as a result, the hair may tangle and become damaged. Manual detangling and detangling conditioners can help prevent damage. Patients should be advised to detangle the hair in sections first with the fingers, then with a wide-tooth comb working retrograde from the hair end to the roots.

Frequent hair trimming, ranging from every 4 to 6 weeks to every 2 to 4 months, should be recommended to patients who are experiencing breakage or wish to prevent damage. Trimming damaged hair can relieve excess weight on the natural hair and remove split ends, which promotes hair growth. Braiding and other lengthening techniques can prevent the hair from curling upon itself or tangling, causing less kinking and thereby decreasing the need for trimming.⁷ Wearing bonnets, using satin pillowcases, and wearing protective hairstyles while sleeping also can decrease hair breakage and hair loss. A commonly used hairstyle to protect the hair while sleeping is called “pineappling,” which is used to preserve and protect curls. This technique is described as gathering the hair in a high but loose ponytail at the top of the head. For patients with straightened hair, wrapping the hair underneath a bonnet or satin scarf while sleeping can prevent damage.

Managing Natural Hairstyles

An important factor in the management of natural hairstyles is the retention of hair moisture, as there is less water content in African hair compared to other hair types.⁵ Overuse of heat and harsh shampoos can strip moisture from the hair. Similar to patients with atopic dermatitis who should restore and maintain the skin barrier to prevent transepidermal water loss, it is important to remind patients with natural hairstyles to avoid using products and styling practices that may further deplete water content in the hair. Moisture is crucial to healthy hair.

A common culprit in shampoos that leads to hair dryness is sodium lauryl sulfate/sodium laureth sulfate, a detergent/surfactant used as a foaming agent. Sodium lauryl sulfate is a potent degreaser that binds dirt and excess product on the hair and scalp. It also dissolves oil in the hair, causing additional dryness and breakage.

Patients with natural hairstyles commonly use sulfate-free shampoos to prevent stripping the hair of its moisture and natural oils. Another method used to prevent hair dryness is co-washing, or washing the hair with a conditioner. Co-washing can effectively cleanse the hair while maintaining moisture. The use of cationic ingredients in conditioners aids in sealing moisture within the hair shaft. Hair consists of the negatively charged protein keratin, which binds to cationic surfactants in conditioners.⁹ The hydrophobic ends of the surfactant prevent the substance from being rinsed out and act to restore the hair barrier.

Silicone is another important ingredient in hair care products. In patients with natural hair, there are varying views on the use of products containing silicone. Silicones are added to products designed to coat the hair, adding shine, retaining moisture, and providing thermal protection. Silicones are used to provide “slip.” Slip is a term that is commonly used among patients with natural hair to describe how slippery a product is and how easily the product will help comb or detangle the hair. There are 2 basic types of silicones: water insoluble and water soluble. Water-insoluble silicones traditionally build up on the hair and require surfactant-containing shampoos to becompletely removed. Residue buildup on the hair weighs the hair down and causes damage. In contrast, water-soluble silicones do not build up and typically do not cause damage.

Silicones with the prefixes PEG- or PPG- typically are water soluble and will not build up on the hair. Dimethicone copolyol and lauryl methicone copolyol are other water-soluble silicones. In general, water-soluble silicones provide moisturizing properties without leaving residue. Other silicones such as amodimethicone and cyclomethicone are not water soluble but have properties that prevent buildup.

It is common practice for patients with natural hairstyles to avoid using water-insoluble silicones. As dermatologists, we can recommend silicone-free conditioners or conditioners containing water-soluble silicones to prevent hair dehydration and subsequent breakage. It may be advantageous to have patients try various products to determine which ones work best for their hair.

More Resources for Patients

Dermatologists have extensive knowledge of the pathophysiology of skin, hair, and nail diseases; however, despite our vast knowledge, we also need to recognize our limits. In addition to increasing your own knowledge of natural hair care practices to help your patients, it is important to recommend that your patients search for additional resources to aid in their transition to natural hairstyles. Natural hairstylists can be great resources for patients to help with hair management. In the current digital age, there also are thousands of blogs and social media forums dedicated to the topic of natural hair care. Advising patients to consult natural hair care resources can be beneficial, but as hair specialists, it also is important for us to dispel any false information that our patients may receive. As physicians, it is essential not only to manage patients who present to our offices with conditions resulting from damaging hair practices but also to help prevent such conditions from occurring. Although there may not be an overwhelming amount of evidence-based medical research to guide our decisions, we also can learn from the thousands of patients who have articulated their stories and experiences. Through observing and listening to our patients, we can incorporate this new knowledge in the management of our patients.

The phenomenon of natural (nonchemically treated) hair in individuals of African and Afro-Caribbean descent is sweeping across the United States. The ideals of beauty among this patient population have shifted from a relaxed, straightened, noncurly look to a more natural curly and/or kinky appearance. The discussion on natural hair versus straight hair has been brought to the mainstream by films such as Good Hair (2009). Furthermore, major hair care companies have increased their marketing of natural hair products to address the needs of these patients.

Popular traumatic hair care practices such as chemical relaxation and thermal straightening may lead to hair damage. Although the role of hair care practices in various scalp and hair disorders is ambiguous, traumatic practices commonly are performed by patients who are diagnosed with dermatologic conditions such as scarring alopecia.¹ Alopecia is the fourth most common dermatologic diagnosis in black patients.² Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia is the most common form of scarring alopecia in this patient population³ and has been associated with traumatic hair care practices. As a result, many patients have switched to natural hairstyles that are less traumatic and damaging, often due to recommendations by dermatologists.

As the US population continues to become more diverse, dermatologists will be faced with many questions regarding hair disease and natural hair care in patients with skin of color. A basic understanding of hair care practices among black individuals is important to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of hair shaft and scalp disorders.⁴ When patients switch to natural hairstyles, are dermatologists prepared to answer questions that may arise during this process? This article will familiarize dermatologists with basic hair care terminology and general recommendations they can make to black patients who are transitioning to natural hairstyles.

Characteristics of Hair in the Skin of Color Population

A basic understanding of the structural properties of hair is fundamental. Human hair is categorized into 3 groups: Asian, Caucasian, and African.⁵ African hair typically is curly and, depending on the degree of the curl, is more susceptible to damage due to increased mechanical fragility. It also has a tendency to form knots and fissures along the hair shaft, which causes additional fracturing with simple manipulation. African hair grows more slowly than Asian and Caucasian hair, which can be discouraging to patients. It also has a lower water concentration and does not become coated with sebum as naturally as straightened hair.⁵ A simplified explanation of these characteristics can help patients understand how to proceed in managing and styling their natural hair.

As physicians, it is important for us to treat any underlying conditions related to the hair and scalp in black patients. Common dermatologic conditions such as seborrheic dermatitis, lupus, folliculitis, and alopecia can affect patients’ hair health. In addition to traumatic hair care practices, inflammation secondary to bacterial infections can contribute to the onset of central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia.⁶ Therefore, a detailed history and physical examination are needed to evaluate the etiology of associated symptoms. Treatment of these associated symptoms will aid in the overall care of patients.

Transitioning to Natural Hairstyles

Following evaluation and treatment of any hair or scalp conditions, how can dermatologists help black patients transition to natural hairstyles? The term transition refers to the process of switching from a chemically relaxed or thermally straightened hairstyle to a natural hairstyle. Dermatologists must understand the common terminology used to describe natural hair practices in this patient population.

There are several methods patients can use to transition from chemically treated hairstyles to natural hairstyles. Patients may consider the option of the “big chop,” or cutting off all chemically treated hair. This option typically leaves women with very short hairstyles down to the new growth, or hair that has grown since the last chemical relaxer. Other commonly used methods during the transition phase include protective styling (eg, braids, weaves, extensions) or simply growing out the chemically treated hair.

Protective styling methods such as braids, weaves, and extensions allow hair to be easily styled while the chemically treated hair grows out over time.⁷ Typically, protective styles may be worn for weeks to months, allowing hair growth without hair breakage and shedding. Hair weaving is a practice that incorporates artificial (synthetic) or human hair into one’s natural scalp hair.⁸ There are various techniques to extend hair including clip-in extensions, hair bonding and fusion with adhesives, sewing hair into braided hair, or the application of single strands of hair into a cap made of nylon mesh known as a lace front. Braided styles, weaves, and hair extensions cannot be washed as often as natural hair, but it is important to remind patients to replenish moisture as often as possible. Moisturizing or greasing the exposed scalp and proximal hair shafts can assist with water retention. It is imperative to inform patients that overuse of tight braids and glues for weaves and extensions may further damage the hair and scalp. Some of the natural ingredients commonly used in moisturizers include olive oil, jojoba oil, coconut oil, castor oil, and glycerin. These products can commonly cause pomade acne, which should be recognized and treated by dermatologists. Furthermore, long weaves and extensions can put excess weight on natural hair causing breakage. To prevent breakage, wearing an updo (a hairstyle in which the hair is pulled upward) can reduce the heavy strain on the hair.

Dermatologists should remind patients who wish to grow out chemically treated hair to frequently moisturize the hair and scalp as well as to avoid trauma to prevent hair breakage. As the natural hair grows out, the patient will experience varying hair textures from the natural curly hair to the previously processed straightened hair; as a result, the hair may tangle and become damaged. Manual detangling and detangling conditioners can help prevent damage. Patients should be advised to detangle the hair in sections first with the fingers, then with a wide-tooth comb working retrograde from the hair end to the roots.

Frequent hair trimming, ranging from every 4 to 6 weeks to every 2 to 4 months, should be recommended to patients who are experiencing breakage or wish to prevent damage. Trimming damaged hair can relieve excess weight on the natural hair and remove split ends, which promotes hair growth. Braiding and other lengthening techniques can prevent the hair from curling upon itself or tangling, causing less kinking and thereby decreasing the need for trimming.⁷ Wearing bonnets, using satin pillowcases, and wearing protective hairstyles while sleeping also can decrease hair breakage and hair loss. A commonly used hairstyle to protect the hair while sleeping is called “pineappling,” which is used to preserve and protect curls. This technique is described as gathering the hair in a high but loose ponytail at the top of the head. For patients with straightened hair, wrapping the hair underneath a bonnet or satin scarf while sleeping can prevent damage.

Managing Natural Hairstyles

An important factor in the management of natural hairstyles is the retention of hair moisture, as there is less water content in African hair compared to other hair types.⁵ Overuse of heat and harsh shampoos can strip moisture from the hair. Similar to patients with atopic dermatitis who should restore and maintain the skin barrier to prevent transepidermal water loss, it is important to remind patients with natural hairstyles to avoid using products and styling practices that may further deplete water content in the hair. Moisture is crucial to healthy hair.

A common culprit in shampoos that leads to hair dryness is sodium lauryl sulfate/sodium laureth sulfate, a detergent/surfactant used as a foaming agent. Sodium lauryl sulfate is a potent degreaser that binds dirt and excess product on the hair and scalp. It also dissolves oil in the hair, causing additional dryness and breakage.

Patients with natural hairstyles commonly use sulfate-free shampoos to prevent stripping the hair of its moisture and natural oils. Another method used to prevent hair dryness is co-washing, or washing the hair with a conditioner. Co-washing can effectively cleanse the hair while maintaining moisture. The use of cationic ingredients in conditioners aids in sealing moisture within the hair shaft. Hair consists of the negatively charged protein keratin, which binds to cationic surfactants in conditioners.⁹ The hydrophobic ends of the surfactant prevent the substance from being rinsed out and act to restore the hair barrier.

Silicone is another important ingredient in hair care products. In patients with natural hair, there are varying views on the use of products containing silicone. Silicones are added to products designed to coat the hair, adding shine, retaining moisture, and providing thermal protection. Silicones are used to provide “slip.” Slip is a term that is commonly used among patients with natural hair to describe how slippery a product is and how easily the product will help comb or detangle the hair. There are 2 basic types of silicones: water insoluble and water soluble. Water-insoluble silicones traditionally build up on the hair and require surfactant-containing shampoos to becompletely removed. Residue buildup on the hair weighs the hair down and causes damage. In contrast, water-soluble silicones do not build up and typically do not cause damage.

Silicones with the prefixes PEG- or PPG- typically are water soluble and will not build up on the hair. Dimethicone copolyol and lauryl methicone copolyol are other water-soluble silicones. In general, water-soluble silicones provide moisturizing properties without leaving residue. Other silicones such as amodimethicone and cyclomethicone are not water soluble but have properties that prevent buildup.

It is common practice for patients with natural hairstyles to avoid using water-insoluble silicones. As dermatologists, we can recommend silicone-free conditioners or conditioners containing water-soluble silicones to prevent hair dehydration and subsequent breakage. It may be advantageous to have patients try various products to determine which ones work best for their hair.

More Resources for Patients

Dermatologists have extensive knowledge of the pathophysiology of skin, hair, and nail diseases; however, despite our vast knowledge, we also need to recognize our limits. In addition to increasing your own knowledge of natural hair care practices to help your patients, it is important to recommend that your patients search for additional resources to aid in their transition to natural hairstyles. Natural hairstylists can be great resources for patients to help with hair management. In the current digital age, there also are thousands of blogs and social media forums dedicated to the topic of natural hair care. Advising patients to consult natural hair care resources can be beneficial, but as hair specialists, it also is important for us to dispel any false information that our patients may receive. As physicians, it is essential not only to manage patients who present to our offices with conditions resulting from damaging hair practices but also to help prevent such conditions from occurring. Although there may not be an overwhelming amount of evidence-based medical research to guide our decisions, we also can learn from the thousands of patients who have articulated their stories and experiences. Through observing and listening to our patients, we can incorporate this new knowledge in the management of our patients.

The phenomenon of natural (nonchemically treated) hair in individuals of African and Afro-Caribbean descent is sweeping across the United States. The ideals of beauty among this patient population have shifted from a relaxed, straightened, noncurly look to a more natural curly and/or kinky appearance. The discussion on natural hair versus straight hair has been brought to the mainstream by films such as Good Hair (2009). Furthermore, major hair care companies have increased their marketing of natural hair products to address the needs of these patients.

Popular traumatic hair care practices such as chemical relaxation and thermal straightening may lead to hair damage. Although the role of hair care practices in various scalp and hair disorders is ambiguous, traumatic practices commonly are performed by patients who are diagnosed with dermatologic conditions such as scarring alopecia.¹ Alopecia is the fourth most common dermatologic diagnosis in black patients.² Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia is the most common form of scarring alopecia in this patient population³ and has been associated with traumatic hair care practices. As a result, many patients have switched to natural hairstyles that are less traumatic and damaging, often due to recommendations by dermatologists.

As the US population continues to become more diverse, dermatologists will be faced with many questions regarding hair disease and natural hair care in patients with skin of color. A basic understanding of hair care practices among black individuals is important to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of hair shaft and scalp disorders.⁴ When patients switch to natural hairstyles, are dermatologists prepared to answer questions that may arise during this process? This article will familiarize dermatologists with basic hair care terminology and general recommendations they can make to black patients who are transitioning to natural hairstyles.

Characteristics of Hair in the Skin of Color Population

A basic understanding of the structural properties of hair is fundamental. Human hair is categorized into 3 groups: Asian, Caucasian, and African.⁵ African hair typically is curly and, depending on the degree of the curl, is more susceptible to damage due to increased mechanical fragility. It also has a tendency to form knots and fissures along the hair shaft, which causes additional fracturing with simple manipulation. African hair grows more slowly than Asian and Caucasian hair, which can be discouraging to patients. It also has a lower water concentration and does not become coated with sebum as naturally as straightened hair.⁵ A simplified explanation of these characteristics can help patients understand how to proceed in managing and styling their natural hair.

As physicians, it is important for us to treat any underlying conditions related to the hair and scalp in black patients. Common dermatologic conditions such as seborrheic dermatitis, lupus, folliculitis, and alopecia can affect patients’ hair health. In addition to traumatic hair care practices, inflammation secondary to bacterial infections can contribute to the onset of central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia.⁶ Therefore, a detailed history and physical examination are needed to evaluate the etiology of associated symptoms. Treatment of these associated symptoms will aid in the overall care of patients.

Transitioning to Natural Hairstyles

Following evaluation and treatment of any hair or scalp conditions, how can dermatologists help black patients transition to natural hairstyles? The term transition refers to the process of switching from a chemically relaxed or thermally straightened hairstyle to a natural hairstyle. Dermatologists must understand the common terminology used to describe natural hair practices in this patient population.

There are several methods patients can use to transition from chemically treated hairstyles to natural hairstyles. Patients may consider the option of the “big chop,” or cutting off all chemically treated hair. This option typically leaves women with very short hairstyles down to the new growth, or hair that has grown since the last chemical relaxer. Other commonly used methods during the transition phase include protective styling (eg, braids, weaves, extensions) or simply growing out the chemically treated hair.

Protective styling methods such as braids, weaves, and extensions allow hair to be easily styled while the chemically treated hair grows out over time.⁷ Typically, protective styles may be worn for weeks to months, allowing hair growth without hair breakage and shedding. Hair weaving is a practice that incorporates artificial (synthetic) or human hair into one’s natural scalp hair.⁸ There are various techniques to extend hair including clip-in extensions, hair bonding and fusion with adhesives, sewing hair into braided hair, or the application of single strands of hair into a cap made of nylon mesh known as a lace front. Braided styles, weaves, and hair extensions cannot be washed as often as natural hair, but it is important to remind patients to replenish moisture as often as possible. Moisturizing or greasing the exposed scalp and proximal hair shafts can assist with water retention. It is imperative to inform patients that overuse of tight braids and glues for weaves and extensions may further damage the hair and scalp. Some of the natural ingredients commonly used in moisturizers include olive oil, jojoba oil, coconut oil, castor oil, and glycerin. These products can commonly cause pomade acne, which should be recognized and treated by dermatologists. Furthermore, long weaves and extensions can put excess weight on natural hair causing breakage. To prevent breakage, wearing an updo (a hairstyle in which the hair is pulled upward) can reduce the heavy strain on the hair.

Dermatologists should remind patients who wish to grow out chemically treated hair to frequently moisturize the hair and scalp as well as to avoid trauma to prevent hair breakage. As the natural hair grows out, the patient will experience varying hair textures from the natural curly hair to the previously processed straightened hair; as a result, the hair may tangle and become damaged. Manual detangling and detangling conditioners can help prevent damage. Patients should be advised to detangle the hair in sections first with the fingers, then with a wide-tooth comb working retrograde from the hair end to the roots.

Frequent hair trimming, ranging from every 4 to 6 weeks to every 2 to 4 months, should be recommended to patients who are experiencing breakage or wish to prevent damage. Trimming damaged hair can relieve excess weight on the natural hair and remove split ends, which promotes hair growth. Braiding and other lengthening techniques can prevent the hair from curling upon itself or tangling, causing less kinking and thereby decreasing the need for trimming.⁷ Wearing bonnets, using satin pillowcases, and wearing protective hairstyles while sleeping also can decrease hair breakage and hair loss. A commonly used hairstyle to protect the hair while sleeping is called “pineappling,” which is used to preserve and protect curls. This technique is described as gathering the hair in a high but loose ponytail at the top of the head. For patients with straightened hair, wrapping the hair underneath a bonnet or satin scarf while sleeping can prevent damage.

Managing Natural Hairstyles

An important factor in the management of natural hairstyles is the retention of hair moisture, as there is less water content in African hair compared to other hair types.⁵ Overuse of heat and harsh shampoos can strip moisture from the hair. Similar to patients with atopic dermatitis who should restore and maintain the skin barrier to prevent transepidermal water loss, it is important to remind patients with natural hairstyles to avoid using products and styling practices that may further deplete water content in the hair. Moisture is crucial to healthy hair.

A common culprit in shampoos that leads to hair dryness is sodium lauryl sulfate/sodium laureth sulfate, a detergent/surfactant used as a foaming agent. Sodium lauryl sulfate is a potent degreaser that binds dirt and excess product on the hair and scalp. It also dissolves oil in the hair, causing additional dryness and breakage.

Patients with natural hairstyles commonly use sulfate-free shampoos to prevent stripping the hair of its moisture and natural oils. Another method used to prevent hair dryness is co-washing, or washing the hair with a conditioner. Co-washing can effectively cleanse the hair while maintaining moisture. The use of cationic ingredients in conditioners aids in sealing moisture within the hair shaft. Hair consists of the negatively charged protein keratin, which binds to cationic surfactants in conditioners.⁹ The hydrophobic ends of the surfactant prevent the substance from being rinsed out and act to restore the hair barrier.

Silicone is another important ingredient in hair care products. In patients with natural hair, there are varying views on the use of products containing silicone. Silicones are added to products designed to coat the hair, adding shine, retaining moisture, and providing thermal protection. Silicones are used to provide “slip.” Slip is a term that is commonly used among patients with natural hair to describe how slippery a product is and how easily the product will help comb or detangle the hair. There are 2 basic types of silicones: water insoluble and water soluble. Water-insoluble silicones traditionally build up on the hair and require surfactant-containing shampoos to becompletely removed. Residue buildup on the hair weighs the hair down and causes damage. In contrast, water-soluble silicones do not build up and typically do not cause damage.

Silicones with the prefixes PEG- or PPG- typically are water soluble and will not build up on the hair. Dimethicone copolyol and lauryl methicone copolyol are other water-soluble silicones. In general, water-soluble silicones provide moisturizing properties without leaving residue. Other silicones such as amodimethicone and cyclomethicone are not water soluble but have properties that prevent buildup.

It is common practice for patients with natural hairstyles to avoid using water-insoluble silicones. As dermatologists, we can recommend silicone-free conditioners or conditioners containing water-soluble silicones to prevent hair dehydration and subsequent breakage. It may be advantageous to have patients try various products to determine which ones work best for their hair.

More Resources for Patients

Dermatologists have extensive knowledge of the pathophysiology of skin, hair, and nail diseases; however, despite our vast knowledge, we also need to recognize our limits. In addition to increasing your own knowledge of natural hair care practices to help your patients, it is important to recommend that your patients search for additional resources to aid in their transition to natural hairstyles. Natural hairstylists can be great resources for patients to help with hair management. In the current digital age, there also are thousands of blogs and social media forums dedicated to the topic of natural hair care. Advising patients to consult natural hair care resources can be beneficial, but as hair specialists, it also is important for us to dispel any false information that our patients may receive. As physicians, it is essential not only to manage patients who present to our offices with conditions resulting from damaging hair practices but also to help prevent such conditions from occurring. Although there may not be an overwhelming amount of evidence-based medical research to guide our decisions, we also can learn from the thousands of patients who have articulated their stories and experiences. Through observing and listening to our patients, we can incorporate this new knowledge in the management of our patients.