Dr. Meeks is from the Department of Dermatology, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. Mrs. McGuire is from the Department of Dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk. Dr. Carroll is from the Department of Dermatology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania.
The authors report no conflict of interest.
The study data were presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Professors of Dermatology; September 12-13, 2014; Chicago, Illinois.
Correspondence: Bryan T. Carroll, MD, PhD, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Department of Dermatology, 3601 Fifth Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (Carrollbt@upmc.edu).
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).
Figure 1. Responses of small- and large-program faculty regarding using and sharing educational materials.
