Pediatrics

SEATTLE – When new moms can get their well-baby visits and HIV care together in the same office, they have better antiretroviral adherence, better viral suppression, and breast-feed longer, according to a randomized trial of 472 new moms with HIV in Cape Town, South Africa.

“It’s a simple and highly effective strategy for promoting maternal postpartum engagement” in HIV care, said lead investigator Landon Myer, MD, professor and head of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Cape Town.

aotto@frontlinemedcom.com

SEATTLE – When new moms can get their well-baby visits and HIV care together in the same office, they have better antiretroviral adherence, better viral suppression, and breast-feed longer, according to a randomized trial of 472 new moms with HIV in Cape Town, South Africa.

“It’s a simple and highly effective strategy for promoting maternal postpartum engagement” in HIV care, said lead investigator Landon Myer, MD, professor and head of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Cape Town.

aotto@frontlinemedcom.com

SEATTLE – When new moms can get their well-baby visits and HIV care together in the same office, they have better antiretroviral adherence, better viral suppression, and breast-feed longer, according to a randomized trial of 472 new moms with HIV in Cape Town, South Africa.

“It’s a simple and highly effective strategy for promoting maternal postpartum engagement” in HIV care, said lead investigator Landon Myer, MD, professor and head of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Cape Town.

aotto@frontlinemedcom.com

The Diagnosis: PELVIS Syndrome

Infantile hemangiomas (IHs) are present in up to 10% of infants by 1 year of age and are most commonly located on the face and upper extremities. Less than 10% of IHs develop in the perineum.¹ Perineal IHs are benign tumors of the vascular endothelium that present as plaques and commonly are accompanied by painful ulcerations. Ulceration is more common in the diaper area secondary to irritation from urine, stool, and friction.² Although most IHs are benign isolated findings, facial IHs have been associated with several syndromes including Sturge-Weber and PHACE (posterior fossa brain malformations, hemangiomas, arterial anomalies, cardiac anomalies and coarctation of the aorta, and eye and endocrine abnormalities) syndromes.³ Researchers also have identified an association between lumbosacral IHs and spinal dysraphism (tethered spinal cord).⁴

A smaller number of studies have investigated congenital anomalies related to perineal IH,^1,5 specifically PELVIS syndrome. The acronym PELVIS has been used to describe a syndrome of congenital malformations including perineal hemangioma, external genital malformations, lipomyelomeningocele, vesicorenal abnormalities, imperforate anus, and skin tag.¹ An alternative description of similar findings is LUMBAR (lower body hemangioma and other cutaneous defects; urogenital anomalies, ulceration; myelopathy; bony deformities; anorectal malformations, arterial anomalies; and renal anomalies).⁵ Researchers have suggested that both of these acronyms describe the same syndrome, and it is common for the syndrome to be incomplete.⁶ One study (N=11) found that perineal hemangiomas are most commonly associated with anal malformations (8 patients), followed by urinary tract abnormalities (7 patients) and malformation of the external genitalia (7 patients). A skin tag was present in 5 patients.¹ The pathogenesis of PELVIS syndrome is unknown.

When an infant presents with a perineal hemangioma and physical examination suggests PELVIS syndrome, imaging should be performed to evaluate for other anomalies. Before 4 months of age, ultrasound should be utilized to investigate the presence of reno-genitourinary or spinal malformations. Magnetic resonance imaging is the preferred imaging modality in children older than 4 months.⁷ Management of PELVIS syndrome requires a multidisciplinary approach and early recognition of the full extent of congenital malformations. Pediatric dermatologists, urologists, endocrinologists, and neonatologists have a role in its diagnosis and treatment.

The Diagnosis: PELVIS Syndrome

Infantile hemangiomas (IHs) are present in up to 10% of infants by 1 year of age and are most commonly located on the face and upper extremities. Less than 10% of IHs develop in the perineum.¹ Perineal IHs are benign tumors of the vascular endothelium that present as plaques and commonly are accompanied by painful ulcerations. Ulceration is more common in the diaper area secondary to irritation from urine, stool, and friction.² Although most IHs are benign isolated findings, facial IHs have been associated with several syndromes including Sturge-Weber and PHACE (posterior fossa brain malformations, hemangiomas, arterial anomalies, cardiac anomalies and coarctation of the aorta, and eye and endocrine abnormalities) syndromes.³ Researchers also have identified an association between lumbosacral IHs and spinal dysraphism (tethered spinal cord).⁴

A smaller number of studies have investigated congenital anomalies related to perineal IH,^1,5 specifically PELVIS syndrome. The acronym PELVIS has been used to describe a syndrome of congenital malformations including perineal hemangioma, external genital malformations, lipomyelomeningocele, vesicorenal abnormalities, imperforate anus, and skin tag.¹ An alternative description of similar findings is LUMBAR (lower body hemangioma and other cutaneous defects; urogenital anomalies, ulceration; myelopathy; bony deformities; anorectal malformations, arterial anomalies; and renal anomalies).⁵ Researchers have suggested that both of these acronyms describe the same syndrome, and it is common for the syndrome to be incomplete.⁶ One study (N=11) found that perineal hemangiomas are most commonly associated with anal malformations (8 patients), followed by urinary tract abnormalities (7 patients) and malformation of the external genitalia (7 patients). A skin tag was present in 5 patients.¹ The pathogenesis of PELVIS syndrome is unknown.

When an infant presents with a perineal hemangioma and physical examination suggests PELVIS syndrome, imaging should be performed to evaluate for other anomalies. Before 4 months of age, ultrasound should be utilized to investigate the presence of reno-genitourinary or spinal malformations. Magnetic resonance imaging is the preferred imaging modality in children older than 4 months.⁷ Management of PELVIS syndrome requires a multidisciplinary approach and early recognition of the full extent of congenital malformations. Pediatric dermatologists, urologists, endocrinologists, and neonatologists have a role in its diagnosis and treatment.

The Diagnosis: PELVIS Syndrome

Infantile hemangiomas (IHs) are present in up to 10% of infants by 1 year of age and are most commonly located on the face and upper extremities. Less than 10% of IHs develop in the perineum.¹ Perineal IHs are benign tumors of the vascular endothelium that present as plaques and commonly are accompanied by painful ulcerations. Ulceration is more common in the diaper area secondary to irritation from urine, stool, and friction.² Although most IHs are benign isolated findings, facial IHs have been associated with several syndromes including Sturge-Weber and PHACE (posterior fossa brain malformations, hemangiomas, arterial anomalies, cardiac anomalies and coarctation of the aorta, and eye and endocrine abnormalities) syndromes.³ Researchers also have identified an association between lumbosacral IHs and spinal dysraphism (tethered spinal cord).⁴

A smaller number of studies have investigated congenital anomalies related to perineal IH,^1,5 specifically PELVIS syndrome. The acronym PELVIS has been used to describe a syndrome of congenital malformations including perineal hemangioma, external genital malformations, lipomyelomeningocele, vesicorenal abnormalities, imperforate anus, and skin tag.¹ An alternative description of similar findings is LUMBAR (lower body hemangioma and other cutaneous defects; urogenital anomalies, ulceration; myelopathy; bony deformities; anorectal malformations, arterial anomalies; and renal anomalies).⁵ Researchers have suggested that both of these acronyms describe the same syndrome, and it is common for the syndrome to be incomplete.⁶ One study (N=11) found that perineal hemangiomas are most commonly associated with anal malformations (8 patients), followed by urinary tract abnormalities (7 patients) and malformation of the external genitalia (7 patients). A skin tag was present in 5 patients.¹ The pathogenesis of PELVIS syndrome is unknown.

When an infant presents with a perineal hemangioma and physical examination suggests PELVIS syndrome, imaging should be performed to evaluate for other anomalies. Before 4 months of age, ultrasound should be utilized to investigate the presence of reno-genitourinary or spinal malformations. Magnetic resonance imaging is the preferred imaging modality in children older than 4 months.⁷ Management of PELVIS syndrome requires a multidisciplinary approach and early recognition of the full extent of congenital malformations. Pediatric dermatologists, urologists, endocrinologists, and neonatologists have a role in its diagnosis and treatment.

Almost 200 cases of pregnant women with Zika virus infection were reported in the United States during the 2 weeks ending March 28, with the number split evenly between the territories and the 50 states and Washington, D.C., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

These latest 197 cases – 98 in the territories and 99 in the states/D.C. – bring the U.S. total since the beginning of 2016 to 5,177 pregnant women with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection: 3,461 in the U.S. territories and 1,716 in the states/D.C., the CDC reported on April 6.

rfranki@frontlinemedcom.com

Almost 200 cases of pregnant women with Zika virus infection were reported in the United States during the 2 weeks ending March 28, with the number split evenly between the territories and the 50 states and Washington, D.C., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

These latest 197 cases – 98 in the territories and 99 in the states/D.C. – bring the U.S. total since the beginning of 2016 to 5,177 pregnant women with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection: 3,461 in the U.S. territories and 1,716 in the states/D.C., the CDC reported on April 6.

rfranki@frontlinemedcom.com

Almost 200 cases of pregnant women with Zika virus infection were reported in the United States during the 2 weeks ending March 28, with the number split evenly between the territories and the 50 states and Washington, D.C., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

These latest 197 cases – 98 in the territories and 99 in the states/D.C. – bring the U.S. total since the beginning of 2016 to 5,177 pregnant women with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection: 3,461 in the U.S. territories and 1,716 in the states/D.C., the CDC reported on April 6.

rfranki@frontlinemedcom.com

Your first patient of the afternoon is a 9-year-old boy who moved to town several months ago. Mercifully, the second patient of the afternoon has canceled, giving you a few more minutes to get acquainted with this young man whose chief complaint is listed as “behavior problem.” You learn quickly that this family has relocated from a town just 20 miles away because they are seeking a school that is a “better fit” for your new patient.

Due to some miscommunications, the child’s old records have not arrived at your office. The mother says that her son is not taking any medication, and she isn’t sure if he has ever been given a diagnosis. You learn that he likes to argue and is prone to violent temper tantrums. Your initial brief exam does not suggest any cognitive deficits, but he exudes an aura of anger and discontent. You tell his mother that you will be glad to try to help, but you will need his old records and another longer visit before you can make any recommendations.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com

Your first patient of the afternoon is a 9-year-old boy who moved to town several months ago. Mercifully, the second patient of the afternoon has canceled, giving you a few more minutes to get acquainted with this young man whose chief complaint is listed as “behavior problem.” You learn quickly that this family has relocated from a town just 20 miles away because they are seeking a school that is a “better fit” for your new patient.

Due to some miscommunications, the child’s old records have not arrived at your office. The mother says that her son is not taking any medication, and she isn’t sure if he has ever been given a diagnosis. You learn that he likes to argue and is prone to violent temper tantrums. Your initial brief exam does not suggest any cognitive deficits, but he exudes an aura of anger and discontent. You tell his mother that you will be glad to try to help, but you will need his old records and another longer visit before you can make any recommendations.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com

Your first patient of the afternoon is a 9-year-old boy who moved to town several months ago. Mercifully, the second patient of the afternoon has canceled, giving you a few more minutes to get acquainted with this young man whose chief complaint is listed as “behavior problem.” You learn quickly that this family has relocated from a town just 20 miles away because they are seeking a school that is a “better fit” for your new patient.

Due to some miscommunications, the child’s old records have not arrived at your office. The mother says that her son is not taking any medication, and she isn’t sure if he has ever been given a diagnosis. You learn that he likes to argue and is prone to violent temper tantrums. Your initial brief exam does not suggest any cognitive deficits, but he exudes an aura of anger and discontent. You tell his mother that you will be glad to try to help, but you will need his old records and another longer visit before you can make any recommendations.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com

The Food and Drug Administration authorized 23andMe’s Personal Genome Service Genetic Health Risk (GHR) test, the first direct-to-consumer genetic screening test, according to a press release on Thursday, April 6.
 

FDA officials expect the product, which tests individuals for possible genetic predisposition for 10 diseases including Parkinson’s, late-onset Alzheimer’s, celiac disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis, to spur patients to consult with their physicians and make more informed lifestyle decisions.

ezimmerman@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @EAZTweets

The Food and Drug Administration authorized 23andMe’s Personal Genome Service Genetic Health Risk (GHR) test, the first direct-to-consumer genetic screening test, according to a press release on Thursday, April 6.
 

FDA officials expect the product, which tests individuals for possible genetic predisposition for 10 diseases including Parkinson’s, late-onset Alzheimer’s, celiac disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis, to spur patients to consult with their physicians and make more informed lifestyle decisions.

ezimmerman@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @EAZTweets

The Food and Drug Administration authorized 23andMe’s Personal Genome Service Genetic Health Risk (GHR) test, the first direct-to-consumer genetic screening test, according to a press release on Thursday, April 6.
 

FDA officials expect the product, which tests individuals for possible genetic predisposition for 10 diseases including Parkinson’s, late-onset Alzheimer’s, celiac disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis, to spur patients to consult with their physicians and make more informed lifestyle decisions.

ezimmerman@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @EAZTweets

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Mastocytoma

Physical examination revealed a 58×51-mm hyperpigmented plaque with central pink coloration and scale on the right side of the back as well as a 39×33-mm pink plaque with a hyperpigmented border on the left side of the flank (Figure 1). At follow-up 2 weeks later, the patient's parents reported that blisters formed within both of the plaques. The blisters ruptured a few hours after forming and drained clear fluid with scant blood. Both plaques contained erosions from the ruptured bullae but remained the same size with no surrounding erythema or warmth. A 4-mm punch biopsy was performed of intact skin from the back lesion (Figure 2A). Histologic examination revealed a cellular infiltrate of monotonous bland cells that completely filled the dermis without epidermal involvement, along with occasional intermixed eosinophils. The morphology of these infiltrating cells was compatible with mast cells confirmed by strongly positive Leder staining (Figure 2B).

Mastocytosis encompasses a rare group of disorders characterized by abnormal mast cell accumulation or mast cell mediator release in various tissues. These disorders can be classified as either systemic mastocytosis with mast cell infiltration into bone marrow or other extracutaneous organs, or cutaneous mastocytosis with disease limited to the skin.¹ Mutations involving activation of the c-Kit receptor in stimulating mast cell growth and development have been implicated in both systemic and cutaneous forms of the disease.^2,3

Cutaneous mastocytosis is most often diagnosed in childhood and typically is characterized by spontaneous regression before puberty in a majority of cases.^1,4 Under the World Health Organization classification system, cutaneous mastocytosis can be further subdivided into 3 disorders (listed in order of most to least common): urticaria pigmentosa (also known as maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis) with typical, plaque, and nodular forms; cutaneous mastocytoma (as seen in this patient); and diffuse cutaneous mastocytosis.⁵ Compared to the widespread distribution of small macules and papules in urticaria pigmentosa, the cutaneous mastocytoma subtype presents with 1 to 6 brown to orange-yellow plaques or nodules measuring more than 1 cm in diameter. Cutaneous mastocytoma typically presents in infancy and is located most commonly on the trunk and extremities, though it may be found on the face or scalp. The plaques of mastocytoma often have well-defined margins, and these lesions may become bullous or demonstrate Darier sign of urtication and erythema on physical stimulation. Patients most commonly experience pruritus from mast cell degranulation and rarely exhibit systemic symptoms of mast cell mediator release; however, generalized flushing, hypotension, headaches, and gastrointestinal symptoms may occur, particularly if the lesion is vigorously rubbed.^6,7 Conditions in the differential include aplasia cutis congenita, connective tissue nevus, epidermal nevus, and epidermolysis bullosa. They should not elicit a blister if rubbed, except for epidermolysis bullosa, which can easily be differentiated based on histology.

The workup for cutaneous mastocytosis in the pediatric population may include a biopsy of lesional skin, though in many cases the characteristic cutaneous manifestations are sufficient to make a diagnosis. Histologically, biopsy results often reveal abundant diffuse dermal infiltration of mast cells, which are characterized by their large pink granular cytoplasm and round dense central nuclei. In pediatric patients, mast cells typically are restricted to the dermis, and there is a low risk for hematologic abnormalities, thereby precluding the need for bone marrow examination in the absence of organomegaly or notable peripheral blood abnormalities such as severe cytopenia.^5,6

Management of cutaneous mastocytosis consists of avoidance of mast cell degranulation triggers and symptomatic treatment of histamine release. Triggers include certain medications (eg, narcotic analgesics, aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, iodinated contrast agents, antibiotics, muscle relaxants), mechanical irritation, insect stings, spicy foods, stress, or extreme temperature changes.⁸ Symptomatic treatment can be achieved through topical corticosteroid or oral antihistamine use. Along with decreasing pruritus, topical corticosteroids also may be helpful in decreasing time to spontaneous resolution and healing.⁷ The patient in this case was treated with desonide ointment 0.05% daily to both lesions as well as mupirocin ointment 2% as needed for erosions. These treatments helped reduce the patient's symptoms, but her lesions persisted over a follow-up period of 4 months.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Mastocytoma

Physical examination revealed a 58×51-mm hyperpigmented plaque with central pink coloration and scale on the right side of the back as well as a 39×33-mm pink plaque with a hyperpigmented border on the left side of the flank (Figure 1). At follow-up 2 weeks later, the patient's parents reported that blisters formed within both of the plaques. The blisters ruptured a few hours after forming and drained clear fluid with scant blood. Both plaques contained erosions from the ruptured bullae but remained the same size with no surrounding erythema or warmth. A 4-mm punch biopsy was performed of intact skin from the back lesion (Figure 2A). Histologic examination revealed a cellular infiltrate of monotonous bland cells that completely filled the dermis without epidermal involvement, along with occasional intermixed eosinophils. The morphology of these infiltrating cells was compatible with mast cells confirmed by strongly positive Leder staining (Figure 2B).

Mastocytosis encompasses a rare group of disorders characterized by abnormal mast cell accumulation or mast cell mediator release in various tissues. These disorders can be classified as either systemic mastocytosis with mast cell infiltration into bone marrow or other extracutaneous organs, or cutaneous mastocytosis with disease limited to the skin.¹ Mutations involving activation of the c-Kit receptor in stimulating mast cell growth and development have been implicated in both systemic and cutaneous forms of the disease.^2,3

Cutaneous mastocytosis is most often diagnosed in childhood and typically is characterized by spontaneous regression before puberty in a majority of cases.^1,4 Under the World Health Organization classification system, cutaneous mastocytosis can be further subdivided into 3 disorders (listed in order of most to least common): urticaria pigmentosa (also known as maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis) with typical, plaque, and nodular forms; cutaneous mastocytoma (as seen in this patient); and diffuse cutaneous mastocytosis.⁵ Compared to the widespread distribution of small macules and papules in urticaria pigmentosa, the cutaneous mastocytoma subtype presents with 1 to 6 brown to orange-yellow plaques or nodules measuring more than 1 cm in diameter. Cutaneous mastocytoma typically presents in infancy and is located most commonly on the trunk and extremities, though it may be found on the face or scalp. The plaques of mastocytoma often have well-defined margins, and these lesions may become bullous or demonstrate Darier sign of urtication and erythema on physical stimulation. Patients most commonly experience pruritus from mast cell degranulation and rarely exhibit systemic symptoms of mast cell mediator release; however, generalized flushing, hypotension, headaches, and gastrointestinal symptoms may occur, particularly if the lesion is vigorously rubbed.^6,7 Conditions in the differential include aplasia cutis congenita, connective tissue nevus, epidermal nevus, and epidermolysis bullosa. They should not elicit a blister if rubbed, except for epidermolysis bullosa, which can easily be differentiated based on histology.

The workup for cutaneous mastocytosis in the pediatric population may include a biopsy of lesional skin, though in many cases the characteristic cutaneous manifestations are sufficient to make a diagnosis. Histologically, biopsy results often reveal abundant diffuse dermal infiltration of mast cells, which are characterized by their large pink granular cytoplasm and round dense central nuclei. In pediatric patients, mast cells typically are restricted to the dermis, and there is a low risk for hematologic abnormalities, thereby precluding the need for bone marrow examination in the absence of organomegaly or notable peripheral blood abnormalities such as severe cytopenia.^5,6

Management of cutaneous mastocytosis consists of avoidance of mast cell degranulation triggers and symptomatic treatment of histamine release. Triggers include certain medications (eg, narcotic analgesics, aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, iodinated contrast agents, antibiotics, muscle relaxants), mechanical irritation, insect stings, spicy foods, stress, or extreme temperature changes.⁸ Symptomatic treatment can be achieved through topical corticosteroid or oral antihistamine use. Along with decreasing pruritus, topical corticosteroids also may be helpful in decreasing time to spontaneous resolution and healing.⁷ The patient in this case was treated with desonide ointment 0.05% daily to both lesions as well as mupirocin ointment 2% as needed for erosions. These treatments helped reduce the patient's symptoms, but her lesions persisted over a follow-up period of 4 months.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Mastocytoma

Physical examination revealed a 58×51-mm hyperpigmented plaque with central pink coloration and scale on the right side of the back as well as a 39×33-mm pink plaque with a hyperpigmented border on the left side of the flank (Figure 1). At follow-up 2 weeks later, the patient's parents reported that blisters formed within both of the plaques. The blisters ruptured a few hours after forming and drained clear fluid with scant blood. Both plaques contained erosions from the ruptured bullae but remained the same size with no surrounding erythema or warmth. A 4-mm punch biopsy was performed of intact skin from the back lesion (Figure 2A). Histologic examination revealed a cellular infiltrate of monotonous bland cells that completely filled the dermis without epidermal involvement, along with occasional intermixed eosinophils. The morphology of these infiltrating cells was compatible with mast cells confirmed by strongly positive Leder staining (Figure 2B).

Mastocytosis encompasses a rare group of disorders characterized by abnormal mast cell accumulation or mast cell mediator release in various tissues. These disorders can be classified as either systemic mastocytosis with mast cell infiltration into bone marrow or other extracutaneous organs, or cutaneous mastocytosis with disease limited to the skin.¹ Mutations involving activation of the c-Kit receptor in stimulating mast cell growth and development have been implicated in both systemic and cutaneous forms of the disease.^2,3

Cutaneous mastocytosis is most often diagnosed in childhood and typically is characterized by spontaneous regression before puberty in a majority of cases.^1,4 Under the World Health Organization classification system, cutaneous mastocytosis can be further subdivided into 3 disorders (listed in order of most to least common): urticaria pigmentosa (also known as maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis) with typical, plaque, and nodular forms; cutaneous mastocytoma (as seen in this patient); and diffuse cutaneous mastocytosis.⁵ Compared to the widespread distribution of small macules and papules in urticaria pigmentosa, the cutaneous mastocytoma subtype presents with 1 to 6 brown to orange-yellow plaques or nodules measuring more than 1 cm in diameter. Cutaneous mastocytoma typically presents in infancy and is located most commonly on the trunk and extremities, though it may be found on the face or scalp. The plaques of mastocytoma often have well-defined margins, and these lesions may become bullous or demonstrate Darier sign of urtication and erythema on physical stimulation. Patients most commonly experience pruritus from mast cell degranulation and rarely exhibit systemic symptoms of mast cell mediator release; however, generalized flushing, hypotension, headaches, and gastrointestinal symptoms may occur, particularly if the lesion is vigorously rubbed.^6,7 Conditions in the differential include aplasia cutis congenita, connective tissue nevus, epidermal nevus, and epidermolysis bullosa. They should not elicit a blister if rubbed, except for epidermolysis bullosa, which can easily be differentiated based on histology.

The workup for cutaneous mastocytosis in the pediatric population may include a biopsy of lesional skin, though in many cases the characteristic cutaneous manifestations are sufficient to make a diagnosis. Histologically, biopsy results often reveal abundant diffuse dermal infiltration of mast cells, which are characterized by their large pink granular cytoplasm and round dense central nuclei. In pediatric patients, mast cells typically are restricted to the dermis, and there is a low risk for hematologic abnormalities, thereby precluding the need for bone marrow examination in the absence of organomegaly or notable peripheral blood abnormalities such as severe cytopenia.^5,6

Management of cutaneous mastocytosis consists of avoidance of mast cell degranulation triggers and symptomatic treatment of histamine release. Triggers include certain medications (eg, narcotic analgesics, aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, iodinated contrast agents, antibiotics, muscle relaxants), mechanical irritation, insect stings, spicy foods, stress, or extreme temperature changes.⁸ Symptomatic treatment can be achieved through topical corticosteroid or oral antihistamine use. Along with decreasing pruritus, topical corticosteroids also may be helpful in decreasing time to spontaneous resolution and healing.⁷ The patient in this case was treated with desonide ointment 0.05% daily to both lesions as well as mupirocin ointment 2% as needed for erosions. These treatments helped reduce the patient's symptoms, but her lesions persisted over a follow-up period of 4 months.

More than 1.8 billion individuals utilize social media, a number that continues to grow as the social media market expands.¹ Social media enables individuals, groups, and organizations to efficiently disperse and access information^2-4 and also provides a structure that encourages collaboration between patients, staff, and physicians that cannot be achieved by other communication modalities.^4-6 Expert opinions and related educational materials can be shared globally, improving collaboration between dermatologists.⁶ A structured social networking site for sharing training materials, research, and ideas can help bring the national dermatology community together in a new way.

Other professions have employed social networking tools to accomplish similar goals of organizing training resources; radiology has an electronic database that allows sharing of training materials and incorporates social networking capabilities.⁷ Their Web software provides functionality for individual file uploading and supports collaboration and sharing, all while maintaining the security of uploaded information. General surgery has already addressed similar concerns via a task force that incorporates all the essential organizations in surgical education.⁸ Increased satisfaction and academic abilities have been demonstrated with their collaborative curriculum.⁹ Gastroenterologists also utilize electronic resources; one study showed that using videos to educate patients prior to colonoscopies was superior to face-to-face education.¹⁰ In addition, video education may free up time for office staff to accomplish other tasks.

As a specialty, dermatology has not been a leader in the implementation of social networking for collaboration and training purposes. Every dermatologist is an educator. To maintain a successful practice, dermatologists must keep up-to-date on their own clinical knowledge, provide training to their staff, and educate their patients. Although there are numerous educational resources available to dermatologists, an informal survey of 30 dermatology faculty members revealed a practice gap in awareness and utilization of these expanding electronic resources.¹¹

To better understand the needs of the specialty as a whole, we chose to focus on one aspect of dermatology education: resident training. The goal of our study was to survey dermatology residents and faculty to gain a better understanding of how they currently provide education and what online resources and social networking sites they currently use or would be willing to use. The study included 3 central hypotheses: First, residents would be less satisfied with their current curriculum and residents would report greater contributions to the curriculum relative to faculty. Second, both residents and faculty of smaller programs would be more interested in collaborative educational resources relative to larger programs. Lastly, residents would be more willing than faculty to participate in social networking for educational purposes.

Methods

This study was granted institutional review board exemption. Two surveys were developed by the authors to assess the current structure and satisfaction of dermatology residency curriculum and the willingness to participate in social networking to use and share educational materials. The surveys were evaluated for relevance by the survey evaluation team of the Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD). The instrument was not pilot tested.

The surveys were electronically distributed using an online service to dermatology faculty via the APD listserve, which comprised the entirety of the APD membership in 2014. The resident survey was distributed to the dermatology residents via the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery listserve, which included all residents in training (2013-2014 academic year). Second and third invitations to complete the surveys were distributed 3 and 5 weeks later, respectively.

Resident and faculty responses were compared. Additionally, responses were stratified for large (>9 residents) and small programs (≤9 residents) for comparison. Descriptive statistics including means and medians for continuous variables and frequency tables for categorical variables were generated using research and spreadsheet software.

Results

There were 137 survey respondents; 52 of 426 (12.2%) dermatology faculty and 85 of 1539 (5.5%) dermatology residents responded to the survey. Small programs accounted for 24% of total survey responses and 76% were from large programs.

Current Curriculum

The majority of dermatology faculty (44%) and residents (35%) identified 1 to 2 faculty members as contributing to the creation and organization of their respective curricula; however, a notable percentage of residents (9%) reported that no faculty contributed to the organization of the curriculum. Residents noted that senior residents carry twice the responsibility for structuring the curriculum compared to faculty (61% vs 32% of the workload), but faculty described an even split between senior residents and faculty (47% vs 49% of the workload). Faculty believed their residents spend a similar amount of time in resident- and faculty-led instruction (38% vs 35% of their time); however, the majority of residents reported spending too little time in faculty-led instruction (53%). When residents ranked their preference for learning modes, faculty-led and self-study learning were ranked first and second by 48% and 45% of residents, respectively. Resident-led instruction was ranked last by 66% of residents. Likewise, a majority of residents (53%) described their amount of time in faculty-led instruction as too little.

When asked what subjects in dermatology were lacking at their programs, residents reported clinical trials (47%), skin of color (46%), cosmetic dermatology (34%), and aggressive skin cancer/multidisciplinary tumor board (32%). Although 11% of residents reported lacking inpatient dermatology in their curriculum, 0% of faculty reported the same. A notable percentage of faculty reported nothing was lacking compared to residents (25% vs 7%). Despite these different views between residents and faculty on their contributions to and structure of their curriculums, both faculty and residents claimed overall satisfaction (satisfied or very satisfied) with their program’s ability to optimally cover the field of dermatology in 3 years (100% and 91%, respectively).

Large Versus Small Residency Programs

When stratifying the resident responses for small versus large programs, both program sizes reported more time in resident-led instruction than faculty-led instruction. Likewise, residents in both program sizes equally preferred self-study or faculty-led instruction to resident-led instruction. Residents at small programs more often reported lacking instruction in rheumatology, immunobullous diseases, and basic science/skin biology compared to large-program residents. Compared to large-program faculty, small-program faculty reported lacking instruction in cosmetic dermatology.

Faculty at small programs reported spending too little time preparing for their faculty-led instruction compared to faculty at large programs (44% vs 12%). All (100%) of the faculty at small programs were likely to seek out study materials shared by top educators, while 77% of faculty at large programs were likely to do the same. When asked if faculty would translate what their program does well into an electronic format for sharing, 30% of large-program faculty were likely to do so compared to 11% of small-program faculty (Figure 1).

Use of Online Educational Materials and Interest in Collaboration

A majority of faculty and residents stated that they use online educational materials as supplements to traditional classroom lecture and print materials (81% vs 86%); however, almost twice as many residents stated that online educational materials were essential to their current study routines compared to faculty (39% vs 21%).

The majority of faculty (92%) and residents (84%) were either interested or very interested in a collaborative online curriculum. Both residents (85%) and faculty (81%) stated they would be likely to seek out online educational materials shared by top educators. Although both residents and faculty reported many aspects of their curriculums they thought could be beneficial to other dermatology programs (Table 1), only 27% of faculty and 19% of residents were likely to translate those strengths into a shareable electronic format. Several reasons were reported for not contributing to an online curriculum, with lack of time being the most common reason (Table 2).

Eighty percent of residents and 88% of faculty reported they were either interested or very interested in being more connected/interactive with their dermatology peers nationally (Figure 2). Likewise, 94% of residents and 87% of faculty agreed that the dermatology community could benefit from a social networking site for educational collaboration. Four times as many residents versus faculty currently use social networking sites (eg, Facebook, LinkedIn, Google Groups) as a primary mode of communication with distant professional peers. The majority of residents (52%) reported they would be likely to participate in a professional social networking site, while the majority of faculty (50%) stated they were neutral on their likelihood of participating. Both residents and faculty reported lack of time as a common reason for being unlikely to utilize a professional social networking site. Other barriers to participation are listed in Table 3.

Comment

This study showed how dermatology faculty and residents currently provide training and what online resources and social networking sites they currently use or would be willing to use. The generalizability of the conclusions is limited by the low response rate for the surveys. The results demonstrated the different views between faculty and residents and between large and small residency programs on various topics. This microcosm of dermatology training can likely be applied to other training scenarios in dermatology, including patient education; training of nurses, physician extenders, and office staff; continuing medical education for physicians; and peer-to-peer collaboration.

Hypothesis 1: Partially Proven

We hypothesized that residents would report less satisfaction with their current curriculum and would report greater resident contributions to the curriculum relative to faculty. Overall, residents and faculty reported satisfaction with their curriculums to provide up-to-date information and breadth in the field of dermatology. Despite their overall satisfaction, more residents reported lacking instruction in several dermatology subtopics compared to faculty. Additionally, residents believed they spend twice as much time structuring their curriculum compared to faculty, with some residents reporting no faculty involvement. Although residents preferred faculty-led instruction, a majority of residents reported they do not have enough faculty-led didactics. The preference for faculty-led training is likely due to the expertise of faculty compared to residents.

Hypothesis 2: Partially Proven

We also hypothesized that both residents and faculty of smaller programs would be more interested in collaborative educational resources relative to larger programs. Although there was no difference in interest between residents at small versus large programs, there was a difference between faculty at small versus large programs. Small-program faculty were more interested in using shared materials than larger programs, while large-program faculty were more likely to share their educational materials. Small-program faculty reported spending too little time preparing their lectures, which is possibly due to a lack of time for preparation. Additionally, residents and faculty at smaller programs report their curriculum was lacking specific dermatology topics compared to large programs. These disparities between program sizes indicate a need for a social networking site for training collaboration in dermatology. Large programs have the ability to share what they do well, which small programs are eager to utilize.

Hypothesis 3: Not Proven

We hypothesized that residents would be more willing than faculty to participate in social networking for educational purposes. The majority of faculty and residents were interested in participating in a collaborative online curriculum and using the shared materials from top educators; however, even though such large majorities favored collaboration and sharing, only 27% of faculty and 19% of residents were likely to translate their own materials into a shareable format. Although lack of time was the most common reason for not sharing materials, electronic methods may have the potential to ultimately save time and remove the burden of content creation. The time it would take to translate selected personal training materials into a shareable form would be made up for by the time saved using another educators’ materials. Updating and customizing shared online educational materials can be much quicker and easier than educators creating materials on their own. Dermatologists would be more efficient facilitators of training via high-quality shared materials while decreasing the time burden associated with resident education.⁵ Another concern for not sharing or participating in a social networking site was skepticism of information security on such a network. The poor organization and information overload of online resources can compound the already existing time constraints on dermatologists, which may limit their ability to utilize such valuable resources. In addition, quality of online resources is not always guaranteed, and determining the sources that are high quality is sometimes a difficult task.⁶ For online materials to remain useful, there should be a peer-review process to evaluate quality and assess satisfaction.⁵

Solution: Create a Dermatology Task Force

A dermatology task force could facilitate the resolution of these challenges of online materials. In addition, a task force could cover the administrative support needed to ensure security and provide maintenance on social networks.

The main limitation to implementing a social network is the presence of the administrative infrastructure to jumpstart its creation. A task force incorporating the essential stakeholders in dermatology training is the first step. With inclusive representation from all of the smaller professional dermatology societies, the American Academy of Dermatology is optimally positioned to create this task force. With existing information technologies, a task force could address the concerns revealed in our survey as well as any future concerns that may arise.

The goal is a single social network for dermatologists that has the capability of improving communication and collaboration between professional peers regardless of their practice setting. Such a network is ideal for the practicing dermatologist for the purposes of staff training, patient education, and obtaining continuing medical education credit. Additionally, peer group collaboration would facilitate the understanding and completion of the evolving requirements for Maintenance of Certification from the American Board of Dermatology. The availability of quality shared materials would save time and increase efficiency of an entire dermatology practice. Materials that aid in patient education would allow office staff to dedicate their time to other tasks, thereby increasing productivity. Shared training materials would decrease the burden of staff education, providing more time for advanced hands-on training. This method of collaborative effort is capable of advancing the field of dermatology as a whole. It can overcome geographical and institutional barriers to connect dermatologists with similar interests worldwide; disseminate advances in diagnosis and treatment; and improve the quality of dermatology training of dermatologists, staff, and patients.

More than 1.8 billion individuals utilize social media, a number that continues to grow as the social media market expands.¹ Social media enables individuals, groups, and organizations to efficiently disperse and access information^2-4 and also provides a structure that encourages collaboration between patients, staff, and physicians that cannot be achieved by other communication modalities.^4-6 Expert opinions and related educational materials can be shared globally, improving collaboration between dermatologists.⁶ A structured social networking site for sharing training materials, research, and ideas can help bring the national dermatology community together in a new way.

Other professions have employed social networking tools to accomplish similar goals of organizing training resources; radiology has an electronic database that allows sharing of training materials and incorporates social networking capabilities.⁷ Their Web software provides functionality for individual file uploading and supports collaboration and sharing, all while maintaining the security of uploaded information. General surgery has already addressed similar concerns via a task force that incorporates all the essential organizations in surgical education.⁸ Increased satisfaction and academic abilities have been demonstrated with their collaborative curriculum.⁹ Gastroenterologists also utilize electronic resources; one study showed that using videos to educate patients prior to colonoscopies was superior to face-to-face education.¹⁰ In addition, video education may free up time for office staff to accomplish other tasks.

As a specialty, dermatology has not been a leader in the implementation of social networking for collaboration and training purposes. Every dermatologist is an educator. To maintain a successful practice, dermatologists must keep up-to-date on their own clinical knowledge, provide training to their staff, and educate their patients. Although there are numerous educational resources available to dermatologists, an informal survey of 30 dermatology faculty members revealed a practice gap in awareness and utilization of these expanding electronic resources.¹¹

To better understand the needs of the specialty as a whole, we chose to focus on one aspect of dermatology education: resident training. The goal of our study was to survey dermatology residents and faculty to gain a better understanding of how they currently provide education and what online resources and social networking sites they currently use or would be willing to use. The study included 3 central hypotheses: First, residents would be less satisfied with their current curriculum and residents would report greater contributions to the curriculum relative to faculty. Second, both residents and faculty of smaller programs would be more interested in collaborative educational resources relative to larger programs. Lastly, residents would be more willing than faculty to participate in social networking for educational purposes.

Methods

This study was granted institutional review board exemption. Two surveys were developed by the authors to assess the current structure and satisfaction of dermatology residency curriculum and the willingness to participate in social networking to use and share educational materials. The surveys were evaluated for relevance by the survey evaluation team of the Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD). The instrument was not pilot tested.

The surveys were electronically distributed using an online service to dermatology faculty via the APD listserve, which comprised the entirety of the APD membership in 2014. The resident survey was distributed to the dermatology residents via the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery listserve, which included all residents in training (2013-2014 academic year). Second and third invitations to complete the surveys were distributed 3 and 5 weeks later, respectively.

Resident and faculty responses were compared. Additionally, responses were stratified for large (>9 residents) and small programs (≤9 residents) for comparison. Descriptive statistics including means and medians for continuous variables and frequency tables for categorical variables were generated using research and spreadsheet software.

Results

There were 137 survey respondents; 52 of 426 (12.2%) dermatology faculty and 85 of 1539 (5.5%) dermatology residents responded to the survey. Small programs accounted for 24% of total survey responses and 76% were from large programs.

Current Curriculum

The majority of dermatology faculty (44%) and residents (35%) identified 1 to 2 faculty members as contributing to the creation and organization of their respective curricula; however, a notable percentage of residents (9%) reported that no faculty contributed to the organization of the curriculum. Residents noted that senior residents carry twice the responsibility for structuring the curriculum compared to faculty (61% vs 32% of the workload), but faculty described an even split between senior residents and faculty (47% vs 49% of the workload). Faculty believed their residents spend a similar amount of time in resident- and faculty-led instruction (38% vs 35% of their time); however, the majority of residents reported spending too little time in faculty-led instruction (53%). When residents ranked their preference for learning modes, faculty-led and self-study learning were ranked first and second by 48% and 45% of residents, respectively. Resident-led instruction was ranked last by 66% of residents. Likewise, a majority of residents (53%) described their amount of time in faculty-led instruction as too little.

When asked what subjects in dermatology were lacking at their programs, residents reported clinical trials (47%), skin of color (46%), cosmetic dermatology (34%), and aggressive skin cancer/multidisciplinary tumor board (32%). Although 11% of residents reported lacking inpatient dermatology in their curriculum, 0% of faculty reported the same. A notable percentage of faculty reported nothing was lacking compared to residents (25% vs 7%). Despite these different views between residents and faculty on their contributions to and structure of their curriculums, both faculty and residents claimed overall satisfaction (satisfied or very satisfied) with their program’s ability to optimally cover the field of dermatology in 3 years (100% and 91%, respectively).

Large Versus Small Residency Programs

When stratifying the resident responses for small versus large programs, both program sizes reported more time in resident-led instruction than faculty-led instruction. Likewise, residents in both program sizes equally preferred self-study or faculty-led instruction to resident-led instruction. Residents at small programs more often reported lacking instruction in rheumatology, immunobullous diseases, and basic science/skin biology compared to large-program residents. Compared to large-program faculty, small-program faculty reported lacking instruction in cosmetic dermatology.

Faculty at small programs reported spending too little time preparing for their faculty-led instruction compared to faculty at large programs (44% vs 12%). All (100%) of the faculty at small programs were likely to seek out study materials shared by top educators, while 77% of faculty at large programs were likely to do the same. When asked if faculty would translate what their program does well into an electronic format for sharing, 30% of large-program faculty were likely to do so compared to 11% of small-program faculty (Figure 1).

Use of Online Educational Materials and Interest in Collaboration

A majority of faculty and residents stated that they use online educational materials as supplements to traditional classroom lecture and print materials (81% vs 86%); however, almost twice as many residents stated that online educational materials were essential to their current study routines compared to faculty (39% vs 21%).

The majority of faculty (92%) and residents (84%) were either interested or very interested in a collaborative online curriculum. Both residents (85%) and faculty (81%) stated they would be likely to seek out online educational materials shared by top educators. Although both residents and faculty reported many aspects of their curriculums they thought could be beneficial to other dermatology programs (Table 1), only 27% of faculty and 19% of residents were likely to translate those strengths into a shareable electronic format. Several reasons were reported for not contributing to an online curriculum, with lack of time being the most common reason (Table 2).

Eighty percent of residents and 88% of faculty reported they were either interested or very interested in being more connected/interactive with their dermatology peers nationally (Figure 2). Likewise, 94% of residents and 87% of faculty agreed that the dermatology community could benefit from a social networking site for educational collaboration. Four times as many residents versus faculty currently use social networking sites (eg, Facebook, LinkedIn, Google Groups) as a primary mode of communication with distant professional peers. The majority of residents (52%) reported they would be likely to participate in a professional social networking site, while the majority of faculty (50%) stated they were neutral on their likelihood of participating. Both residents and faculty reported lack of time as a common reason for being unlikely to utilize a professional social networking site. Other barriers to participation are listed in Table 3.

Comment

This study showed how dermatology faculty and residents currently provide training and what online resources and social networking sites they currently use or would be willing to use. The generalizability of the conclusions is limited by the low response rate for the surveys. The results demonstrated the different views between faculty and residents and between large and small residency programs on various topics. This microcosm of dermatology training can likely be applied to other training scenarios in dermatology, including patient education; training of nurses, physician extenders, and office staff; continuing medical education for physicians; and peer-to-peer collaboration.

Hypothesis 1: Partially Proven

We hypothesized that residents would report less satisfaction with their current curriculum and would report greater resident contributions to the curriculum relative to faculty. Overall, residents and faculty reported satisfaction with their curriculums to provide up-to-date information and breadth in the field of dermatology. Despite their overall satisfaction, more residents reported lacking instruction in several dermatology subtopics compared to faculty. Additionally, residents believed they spend twice as much time structuring their curriculum compared to faculty, with some residents reporting no faculty involvement. Although residents preferred faculty-led instruction, a majority of residents reported they do not have enough faculty-led didactics. The preference for faculty-led training is likely due to the expertise of faculty compared to residents.

Hypothesis 2: Partially Proven

We also hypothesized that both residents and faculty of smaller programs would be more interested in collaborative educational resources relative to larger programs. Although there was no difference in interest between residents at small versus large programs, there was a difference between faculty at small versus large programs. Small-program faculty were more interested in using shared materials than larger programs, while large-program faculty were more likely to share their educational materials. Small-program faculty reported spending too little time preparing their lectures, which is possibly due to a lack of time for preparation. Additionally, residents and faculty at smaller programs report their curriculum was lacking specific dermatology topics compared to large programs. These disparities between program sizes indicate a need for a social networking site for training collaboration in dermatology. Large programs have the ability to share what they do well, which small programs are eager to utilize.

Hypothesis 3: Not Proven

We hypothesized that residents would be more willing than faculty to participate in social networking for educational purposes. The majority of faculty and residents were interested in participating in a collaborative online curriculum and using the shared materials from top educators; however, even though such large majorities favored collaboration and sharing, only 27% of faculty and 19% of residents were likely to translate their own materials into a shareable format. Although lack of time was the most common reason for not sharing materials, electronic methods may have the potential to ultimately save time and remove the burden of content creation. The time it would take to translate selected personal training materials into a shareable form would be made up for by the time saved using another educators’ materials. Updating and customizing shared online educational materials can be much quicker and easier than educators creating materials on their own. Dermatologists would be more efficient facilitators of training via high-quality shared materials while decreasing the time burden associated with resident education.⁵ Another concern for not sharing or participating in a social networking site was skepticism of information security on such a network. The poor organization and information overload of online resources can compound the already existing time constraints on dermatologists, which may limit their ability to utilize such valuable resources. In addition, quality of online resources is not always guaranteed, and determining the sources that are high quality is sometimes a difficult task.⁶ For online materials to remain useful, there should be a peer-review process to evaluate quality and assess satisfaction.⁵

Solution: Create a Dermatology Task Force

A dermatology task force could facilitate the resolution of these challenges of online materials. In addition, a task force could cover the administrative support needed to ensure security and provide maintenance on social networks.

The main limitation to implementing a social network is the presence of the administrative infrastructure to jumpstart its creation. A task force incorporating the essential stakeholders in dermatology training is the first step. With inclusive representation from all of the smaller professional dermatology societies, the American Academy of Dermatology is optimally positioned to create this task force. With existing information technologies, a task force could address the concerns revealed in our survey as well as any future concerns that may arise.

The goal is a single social network for dermatologists that has the capability of improving communication and collaboration between professional peers regardless of their practice setting. Such a network is ideal for the practicing dermatologist for the purposes of staff training, patient education, and obtaining continuing medical education credit. Additionally, peer group collaboration would facilitate the understanding and completion of the evolving requirements for Maintenance of Certification from the American Board of Dermatology. The availability of quality shared materials would save time and increase efficiency of an entire dermatology practice. Materials that aid in patient education would allow office staff to dedicate their time to other tasks, thereby increasing productivity. Shared training materials would decrease the burden of staff education, providing more time for advanced hands-on training. This method of collaborative effort is capable of advancing the field of dermatology as a whole. It can overcome geographical and institutional barriers to connect dermatologists with similar interests worldwide; disseminate advances in diagnosis and treatment; and improve the quality of dermatology training of dermatologists, staff, and patients.

More than 1.8 billion individuals utilize social media, a number that continues to grow as the social media market expands.¹ Social media enables individuals, groups, and organizations to efficiently disperse and access information^2-4 and also provides a structure that encourages collaboration between patients, staff, and physicians that cannot be achieved by other communication modalities.^4-6 Expert opinions and related educational materials can be shared globally, improving collaboration between dermatologists.⁶ A structured social networking site for sharing training materials, research, and ideas can help bring the national dermatology community together in a new way.

Other professions have employed social networking tools to accomplish similar goals of organizing training resources; radiology has an electronic database that allows sharing of training materials and incorporates social networking capabilities.⁷ Their Web software provides functionality for individual file uploading and supports collaboration and sharing, all while maintaining the security of uploaded information. General surgery has already addressed similar concerns via a task force that incorporates all the essential organizations in surgical education.⁸ Increased satisfaction and academic abilities have been demonstrated with their collaborative curriculum.⁹ Gastroenterologists also utilize electronic resources; one study showed that using videos to educate patients prior to colonoscopies was superior to face-to-face education.¹⁰ In addition, video education may free up time for office staff to accomplish other tasks.

As a specialty, dermatology has not been a leader in the implementation of social networking for collaboration and training purposes. Every dermatologist is an educator. To maintain a successful practice, dermatologists must keep up-to-date on their own clinical knowledge, provide training to their staff, and educate their patients. Although there are numerous educational resources available to dermatologists, an informal survey of 30 dermatology faculty members revealed a practice gap in awareness and utilization of these expanding electronic resources.¹¹

To better understand the needs of the specialty as a whole, we chose to focus on one aspect of dermatology education: resident training. The goal of our study was to survey dermatology residents and faculty to gain a better understanding of how they currently provide education and what online resources and social networking sites they currently use or would be willing to use. The study included 3 central hypotheses: First, residents would be less satisfied with their current curriculum and residents would report greater contributions to the curriculum relative to faculty. Second, both residents and faculty of smaller programs would be more interested in collaborative educational resources relative to larger programs. Lastly, residents would be more willing than faculty to participate in social networking for educational purposes.

Methods

This study was granted institutional review board exemption. Two surveys were developed by the authors to assess the current structure and satisfaction of dermatology residency curriculum and the willingness to participate in social networking to use and share educational materials. The surveys were evaluated for relevance by the survey evaluation team of the Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD). The instrument was not pilot tested.

The surveys were electronically distributed using an online service to dermatology faculty via the APD listserve, which comprised the entirety of the APD membership in 2014. The resident survey was distributed to the dermatology residents via the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery listserve, which included all residents in training (2013-2014 academic year). Second and third invitations to complete the surveys were distributed 3 and 5 weeks later, respectively.

Resident and faculty responses were compared. Additionally, responses were stratified for large (>9 residents) and small programs (≤9 residents) for comparison. Descriptive statistics including means and medians for continuous variables and frequency tables for categorical variables were generated using research and spreadsheet software.

Results

There were 137 survey respondents; 52 of 426 (12.2%) dermatology faculty and 85 of 1539 (5.5%) dermatology residents responded to the survey. Small programs accounted for 24% of total survey responses and 76% were from large programs.

Current Curriculum

The majority of dermatology faculty (44%) and residents (35%) identified 1 to 2 faculty members as contributing to the creation and organization of their respective curricula; however, a notable percentage of residents (9%) reported that no faculty contributed to the organization of the curriculum. Residents noted that senior residents carry twice the responsibility for structuring the curriculum compared to faculty (61% vs 32% of the workload), but faculty described an even split between senior residents and faculty (47% vs 49% of the workload). Faculty believed their residents spend a similar amount of time in resident- and faculty-led instruction (38% vs 35% of their time); however, the majority of residents reported spending too little time in faculty-led instruction (53%). When residents ranked their preference for learning modes, faculty-led and self-study learning were ranked first and second by 48% and 45% of residents, respectively. Resident-led instruction was ranked last by 66% of residents. Likewise, a majority of residents (53%) described their amount of time in faculty-led instruction as too little.

When asked what subjects in dermatology were lacking at their programs, residents reported clinical trials (47%), skin of color (46%), cosmetic dermatology (34%), and aggressive skin cancer/multidisciplinary tumor board (32%). Although 11% of residents reported lacking inpatient dermatology in their curriculum, 0% of faculty reported the same. A notable percentage of faculty reported nothing was lacking compared to residents (25% vs 7%). Despite these different views between residents and faculty on their contributions to and structure of their curriculums, both faculty and residents claimed overall satisfaction (satisfied or very satisfied) with their program’s ability to optimally cover the field of dermatology in 3 years (100% and 91%, respectively).

Large Versus Small Residency Programs

When stratifying the resident responses for small versus large programs, both program sizes reported more time in resident-led instruction than faculty-led instruction. Likewise, residents in both program sizes equally preferred self-study or faculty-led instruction to resident-led instruction. Residents at small programs more often reported lacking instruction in rheumatology, immunobullous diseases, and basic science/skin biology compared to large-program residents. Compared to large-program faculty, small-program faculty reported lacking instruction in cosmetic dermatology.

Faculty at small programs reported spending too little time preparing for their faculty-led instruction compared to faculty at large programs (44% vs 12%). All (100%) of the faculty at small programs were likely to seek out study materials shared by top educators, while 77% of faculty at large programs were likely to do the same. When asked if faculty would translate what their program does well into an electronic format for sharing, 30% of large-program faculty were likely to do so compared to 11% of small-program faculty (Figure 1).

Use of Online Educational Materials and Interest in Collaboration

A majority of faculty and residents stated that they use online educational materials as supplements to traditional classroom lecture and print materials (81% vs 86%); however, almost twice as many residents stated that online educational materials were essential to their current study routines compared to faculty (39% vs 21%).

The majority of faculty (92%) and residents (84%) were either interested or very interested in a collaborative online curriculum. Both residents (85%) and faculty (81%) stated they would be likely to seek out online educational materials shared by top educators. Although both residents and faculty reported many aspects of their curriculums they thought could be beneficial to other dermatology programs (Table 1), only 27% of faculty and 19% of residents were likely to translate those strengths into a shareable electronic format. Several reasons were reported for not contributing to an online curriculum, with lack of time being the most common reason (Table 2).

Eighty percent of residents and 88% of faculty reported they were either interested or very interested in being more connected/interactive with their dermatology peers nationally (Figure 2). Likewise, 94% of residents and 87% of faculty agreed that the dermatology community could benefit from a social networking site for educational collaboration. Four times as many residents versus faculty currently use social networking sites (eg, Facebook, LinkedIn, Google Groups) as a primary mode of communication with distant professional peers. The majority of residents (52%) reported they would be likely to participate in a professional social networking site, while the majority of faculty (50%) stated they were neutral on their likelihood of participating. Both residents and faculty reported lack of time as a common reason for being unlikely to utilize a professional social networking site. Other barriers to participation are listed in Table 3.

Comment

This study showed how dermatology faculty and residents currently provide training and what online resources and social networking sites they currently use or would be willing to use. The generalizability of the conclusions is limited by the low response rate for the surveys. The results demonstrated the different views between faculty and residents and between large and small residency programs on various topics. This microcosm of dermatology training can likely be applied to other training scenarios in dermatology, including patient education; training of nurses, physician extenders, and office staff; continuing medical education for physicians; and peer-to-peer collaboration.

Hypothesis 1: Partially Proven

We hypothesized that residents would report less satisfaction with their current curriculum and would report greater resident contributions to the curriculum relative to faculty. Overall, residents and faculty reported satisfaction with their curriculums to provide up-to-date information and breadth in the field of dermatology. Despite their overall satisfaction, more residents reported lacking instruction in several dermatology subtopics compared to faculty. Additionally, residents believed they spend twice as much time structuring their curriculum compared to faculty, with some residents reporting no faculty involvement. Although residents preferred faculty-led instruction, a majority of residents reported they do not have enough faculty-led didactics. The preference for faculty-led training is likely due to the expertise of faculty compared to residents.

Hypothesis 2: Partially Proven

We also hypothesized that both residents and faculty of smaller programs would be more interested in collaborative educational resources relative to larger programs. Although there was no difference in interest between residents at small versus large programs, there was a difference between faculty at small versus large programs. Small-program faculty were more interested in using shared materials than larger programs, while large-program faculty were more likely to share their educational materials. Small-program faculty reported spending too little time preparing their lectures, which is possibly due to a lack of time for preparation. Additionally, residents and faculty at smaller programs report their curriculum was lacking specific dermatology topics compared to large programs. These disparities between program sizes indicate a need for a social networking site for training collaboration in dermatology. Large programs have the ability to share what they do well, which small programs are eager to utilize.

Hypothesis 3: Not Proven

We hypothesized that residents would be more willing than faculty to participate in social networking for educational purposes. The majority of faculty and residents were interested in participating in a collaborative online curriculum and using the shared materials from top educators; however, even though such large majorities favored collaboration and sharing, only 27% of faculty and 19% of residents were likely to translate their own materials into a shareable format. Although lack of time was the most common reason for not sharing materials, electronic methods may have the potential to ultimately save time and remove the burden of content creation. The time it would take to translate selected personal training materials into a shareable form would be made up for by the time saved using another educators’ materials. Updating and customizing shared online educational materials can be much quicker and easier than educators creating materials on their own. Dermatologists would be more efficient facilitators of training via high-quality shared materials while decreasing the time burden associated with resident education.⁵ Another concern for not sharing or participating in a social networking site was skepticism of information security on such a network. The poor organization and information overload of online resources can compound the already existing time constraints on dermatologists, which may limit their ability to utilize such valuable resources. In addition, quality of online resources is not always guaranteed, and determining the sources that are high quality is sometimes a difficult task.⁶ For online materials to remain useful, there should be a peer-review process to evaluate quality and assess satisfaction.⁵

Solution: Create a Dermatology Task Force

A dermatology task force could facilitate the resolution of these challenges of online materials. In addition, a task force could cover the administrative support needed to ensure security and provide maintenance on social networks.

The main limitation to implementing a social network is the presence of the administrative infrastructure to jumpstart its creation. A task force incorporating the essential stakeholders in dermatology training is the first step. With inclusive representation from all of the smaller professional dermatology societies, the American Academy of Dermatology is optimally positioned to create this task force. With existing information technologies, a task force could address the concerns revealed in our survey as well as any future concerns that may arise.

The goal is a single social network for dermatologists that has the capability of improving communication and collaboration between professional peers regardless of their practice setting. Such a network is ideal for the practicing dermatologist for the purposes of staff training, patient education, and obtaining continuing medical education credit. Additionally, peer group collaboration would facilitate the understanding and completion of the evolving requirements for Maintenance of Certification from the American Board of Dermatology. The availability of quality shared materials would save time and increase efficiency of an entire dermatology practice. Materials that aid in patient education would allow office staff to dedicate their time to other tasks, thereby increasing productivity. Shared training materials would decrease the burden of staff education, providing more time for advanced hands-on training. This method of collaborative effort is capable of advancing the field of dermatology as a whole. It can overcome geographical and institutional barriers to connect dermatologists with similar interests worldwide; disseminate advances in diagnosis and treatment; and improve the quality of dermatology training of dermatologists, staff, and patients.

ORLANDO – An extended-release human growth hormone formulation proved safe and effective in both children and adults, offering the prospect of a less-rigorous dosing schedule and potentially better patient compliance with treatment.

The two phase II studies examined somavaratan, which is being developed by Versartis of Menlo Park, Calif. Kevin Yuen, MD, an endocrinologist at the Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, and Wayne V. Moore, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo., presented the data at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“Despite the fact that human growth hormone is a proven treatment for growth hormone deficiency, daily use of our current formulations can be a factor that affects compliance,” said Dr. Yuen. He cited a 2008 study of 158 men taking growth hormone, which found that only one-third were highly compliant (Endocr Pract. 2008 Mar;14[2]:143-54). “And even among this group, there were 21 doses missed over just a 3-month period.”

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_Gal

ORLANDO – An extended-release human growth hormone formulation proved safe and effective in both children and adults, offering the prospect of a less-rigorous dosing schedule and potentially better patient compliance with treatment.

The two phase II studies examined somavaratan, which is being developed by Versartis of Menlo Park, Calif. Kevin Yuen, MD, an endocrinologist at the Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, and Wayne V. Moore, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo., presented the data at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“Despite the fact that human growth hormone is a proven treatment for growth hormone deficiency, daily use of our current formulations can be a factor that affects compliance,” said Dr. Yuen. He cited a 2008 study of 158 men taking growth hormone, which found that only one-third were highly compliant (Endocr Pract. 2008 Mar;14[2]:143-54). “And even among this group, there were 21 doses missed over just a 3-month period.”

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_Gal

ORLANDO – An extended-release human growth hormone formulation proved safe and effective in both children and adults, offering the prospect of a less-rigorous dosing schedule and potentially better patient compliance with treatment.

The two phase II studies examined somavaratan, which is being developed by Versartis of Menlo Park, Calif. Kevin Yuen, MD, an endocrinologist at the Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, and Wayne V. Moore, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo., presented the data at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“Despite the fact that human growth hormone is a proven treatment for growth hormone deficiency, daily use of our current formulations can be a factor that affects compliance,” said Dr. Yuen. He cited a 2008 study of 158 men taking growth hormone, which found that only one-third were highly compliant (Endocr Pract. 2008 Mar;14[2]:143-54). “And even among this group, there were 21 doses missed over just a 3-month period.”

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_Gal

Clinical question: Can alarm fatigue in pediatric inpatient settings be safely mitigated by modifying alarm limits with data-driven vital sign reference ranges?

Background: The management of patient alarms in the hospital is a significant safety issue, with the large majority of alarms (85%-99%) either false or not clinically significant. This leads to provider desensitization or alarm fatigue, which has been shown to contribute to adverse events.

In 2014, the Joint Commission made the issue of alarm system safety and alarm fatigue a priority for hospitals.¹ Multiple studies have been published addressing alarm fatigue in hospitalized adult patients, but this issue is less well studied in pediatrics, including little guidance on optimizing alarm parameters. Widely used reference ranges and guides are based on limited evidence, primarily based on observational data in healthy outpatients or consensus data.

Study Design: Retrospective, cross-sectional study.

Setting: Single-site, 311-bed quaternary-care academic hospital, both general medical and surgical units.

Synopsis: Vital signs were extracted from the institution’s electronic health record (EHR) for all general medical and surgical patients discharged between Jan. 1, 3013, and May 3, 2014, excluding critically ill children and physiologically implausible vital signs. Two different sets were used, a training set (patients discharged between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2013) and a validation set (Jan. 1, 2014-May 3, 2014). One HR and RR pair was randomly selected for each 4-hour interval during hospitalization, with a maximum of 10 HR and RR pairs per patient. Age-stratified percentiles were calculated using this data. The 5th and 95th percentile limits using the study data were compared with the 5th and 95th percentile values in the 2013 study, and the reference ranges currently in use at the institution (2004 National Institutes of Health ranges).²

The training set used 62,508 vital sign measurements for 7,202 patients to calculate percentiles for HR and RR among 14 different age groups. The validation set consisted of 82,993 vital sign measurements for 2,287 patients. Using the 5th and 95th percentiles for HR and RR resulted in 24,045 (55.6%) fewer out-of-range measurements in the validation set compared to NIH reference ranges (45% fewer HR values, 61% fewer RR values). This finding, as well as the vital sign percentile ranges, was consistent with the data published in the 2013 study.²

Data for all 148 out-of-ICU RRT and CRA events during the same time period were reviewed using manual chart review. Evaluating vital signs within the 12 hours preceding the events, 144 patients had out-of-range HR or RR measurements using NIH ranges. One hundred thirty-six (94.4%) of these 144 patients also had out-of-range measurements using the study-derived 5th and 95th percentile values.

Manual chart review of the remaining eight patients who had normal HR or RR demonstrated that the RRT or CRA interventions occurred for clinical indications that did no rely on HR or RR measurement (for example, desaturations, difficulty breathing, hematemesis), so the data-driven parameters did not miss any of these events.

Bottom line: In this retrospective study, using data-driven HR and RR parameters was at least as safe as the NIH-published reference ranges currently in use in this hospital. In addition to maintaining safety related to RRT and CRA events, use of the data-driven parameters resulted in 55.6% fewer out-of-range vital sign measurements in the studied population. This may reduce the frequency of false alarms and improve alarm fatigue, and should be studied prospectively in the future.

Citation: Goel VV, Poole SF, Longhurst CA, et al. Safety analysis of proposed data-driven physiologic alarm parameters for hospitalized children. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(12):817-823.
 

Dr. Galloway is a pediatric hospitalist at Sanford Children’s Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D., assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine, and vice chief of the division of hospital pediatrics at USD SSOM and Sanford Children’s Hospital.

References

1. The Joint Commission. Alarm system safety. Available at: https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/R3_Report_Issue_5_12_2_13_Final.pdf. Published December 11, 2013.

2. Bonafide CP, Brady PW, Keren R, Conway PH, Marsolo K, Daymont C. Development of heart and respiratory rate percentile curves for hospitalized children. Pediatrics. 2013;131(4):e1150-1157.

Clinical question: Can alarm fatigue in pediatric inpatient settings be safely mitigated by modifying alarm limits with data-driven vital sign reference ranges?

Background: The management of patient alarms in the hospital is a significant safety issue, with the large majority of alarms (85%-99%) either false or not clinically significant. This leads to provider desensitization or alarm fatigue, which has been shown to contribute to adverse events.

In 2014, the Joint Commission made the issue of alarm system safety and alarm fatigue a priority for hospitals.¹ Multiple studies have been published addressing alarm fatigue in hospitalized adult patients, but this issue is less well studied in pediatrics, including little guidance on optimizing alarm parameters. Widely used reference ranges and guides are based on limited evidence, primarily based on observational data in healthy outpatients or consensus data.

Study Design: Retrospective, cross-sectional study.

Setting: Single-site, 311-bed quaternary-care academic hospital, both general medical and surgical units.

Synopsis: Vital signs were extracted from the institution’s electronic health record (EHR) for all general medical and surgical patients discharged between Jan. 1, 3013, and May 3, 2014, excluding critically ill children and physiologically implausible vital signs. Two different sets were used, a training set (patients discharged between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2013) and a validation set (Jan. 1, 2014-May 3, 2014). One HR and RR pair was randomly selected for each 4-hour interval during hospitalization, with a maximum of 10 HR and RR pairs per patient. Age-stratified percentiles were calculated using this data. The 5th and 95th percentile limits using the study data were compared with the 5th and 95th percentile values in the 2013 study, and the reference ranges currently in use at the institution (2004 National Institutes of Health ranges).²

The training set used 62,508 vital sign measurements for 7,202 patients to calculate percentiles for HR and RR among 14 different age groups. The validation set consisted of 82,993 vital sign measurements for 2,287 patients. Using the 5th and 95th percentiles for HR and RR resulted in 24,045 (55.6%) fewer out-of-range measurements in the validation set compared to NIH reference ranges (45% fewer HR values, 61% fewer RR values). This finding, as well as the vital sign percentile ranges, was consistent with the data published in the 2013 study.²

Data for all 148 out-of-ICU RRT and CRA events during the same time period were reviewed using manual chart review. Evaluating vital signs within the 12 hours preceding the events, 144 patients had out-of-range HR or RR measurements using NIH ranges. One hundred thirty-six (94.4%) of these 144 patients also had out-of-range measurements using the study-derived 5th and 95th percentile values.

Manual chart review of the remaining eight patients who had normal HR or RR demonstrated that the RRT or CRA interventions occurred for clinical indications that did no rely on HR or RR measurement (for example, desaturations, difficulty breathing, hematemesis), so the data-driven parameters did not miss any of these events.

Bottom line: In this retrospective study, using data-driven HR and RR parameters was at least as safe as the NIH-published reference ranges currently in use in this hospital. In addition to maintaining safety related to RRT and CRA events, use of the data-driven parameters resulted in 55.6% fewer out-of-range vital sign measurements in the studied population. This may reduce the frequency of false alarms and improve alarm fatigue, and should be studied prospectively in the future.

Citation: Goel VV, Poole SF, Longhurst CA, et al. Safety analysis of proposed data-driven physiologic alarm parameters for hospitalized children. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(12):817-823.
 

Dr. Galloway is a pediatric hospitalist at Sanford Children’s Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D., assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine, and vice chief of the division of hospital pediatrics at USD SSOM and Sanford Children’s Hospital.

References

1. The Joint Commission. Alarm system safety. Available at: https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/R3_Report_Issue_5_12_2_13_Final.pdf. Published December 11, 2013.

2. Bonafide CP, Brady PW, Keren R, Conway PH, Marsolo K, Daymont C. Development of heart and respiratory rate percentile curves for hospitalized children. Pediatrics. 2013;131(4):e1150-1157.

Clinical question: Can alarm fatigue in pediatric inpatient settings be safely mitigated by modifying alarm limits with data-driven vital sign reference ranges?

Background: The management of patient alarms in the hospital is a significant safety issue, with the large majority of alarms (85%-99%) either false or not clinically significant. This leads to provider desensitization or alarm fatigue, which has been shown to contribute to adverse events.

In 2014, the Joint Commission made the issue of alarm system safety and alarm fatigue a priority for hospitals.¹ Multiple studies have been published addressing alarm fatigue in hospitalized adult patients, but this issue is less well studied in pediatrics, including little guidance on optimizing alarm parameters. Widely used reference ranges and guides are based on limited evidence, primarily based on observational data in healthy outpatients or consensus data.

Study Design: Retrospective, cross-sectional study.

Setting: Single-site, 311-bed quaternary-care academic hospital, both general medical and surgical units.

Synopsis: Vital signs were extracted from the institution’s electronic health record (EHR) for all general medical and surgical patients discharged between Jan. 1, 3013, and May 3, 2014, excluding critically ill children and physiologically implausible vital signs. Two different sets were used, a training set (patients discharged between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2013) and a validation set (Jan. 1, 2014-May 3, 2014). One HR and RR pair was randomly selected for each 4-hour interval during hospitalization, with a maximum of 10 HR and RR pairs per patient. Age-stratified percentiles were calculated using this data. The 5th and 95th percentile limits using the study data were compared with the 5th and 95th percentile values in the 2013 study, and the reference ranges currently in use at the institution (2004 National Institutes of Health ranges).²

The training set used 62,508 vital sign measurements for 7,202 patients to calculate percentiles for HR and RR among 14 different age groups. The validation set consisted of 82,993 vital sign measurements for 2,287 patients. Using the 5th and 95th percentiles for HR and RR resulted in 24,045 (55.6%) fewer out-of-range measurements in the validation set compared to NIH reference ranges (45% fewer HR values, 61% fewer RR values). This finding, as well as the vital sign percentile ranges, was consistent with the data published in the 2013 study.²

Data for all 148 out-of-ICU RRT and CRA events during the same time period were reviewed using manual chart review. Evaluating vital signs within the 12 hours preceding the events, 144 patients had out-of-range HR or RR measurements using NIH ranges. One hundred thirty-six (94.4%) of these 144 patients also had out-of-range measurements using the study-derived 5th and 95th percentile values.

Manual chart review of the remaining eight patients who had normal HR or RR demonstrated that the RRT or CRA interventions occurred for clinical indications that did no rely on HR or RR measurement (for example, desaturations, difficulty breathing, hematemesis), so the data-driven parameters did not miss any of these events.

Bottom line: In this retrospective study, using data-driven HR and RR parameters was at least as safe as the NIH-published reference ranges currently in use in this hospital. In addition to maintaining safety related to RRT and CRA events, use of the data-driven parameters resulted in 55.6% fewer out-of-range vital sign measurements in the studied population. This may reduce the frequency of false alarms and improve alarm fatigue, and should be studied prospectively in the future.

Citation: Goel VV, Poole SF, Longhurst CA, et al. Safety analysis of proposed data-driven physiologic alarm parameters for hospitalized children. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(12):817-823.
 

Dr. Galloway is a pediatric hospitalist at Sanford Children’s Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D., assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine, and vice chief of the division of hospital pediatrics at USD SSOM and Sanford Children’s Hospital.

References

1. The Joint Commission. Alarm system safety. Available at: https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/R3_Report_Issue_5_12_2_13_Final.pdf. Published December 11, 2013.

2. Bonafide CP, Brady PW, Keren R, Conway PH, Marsolo K, Daymont C. Development of heart and respiratory rate percentile curves for hospitalized children. Pediatrics. 2013;131(4):e1150-1157.