Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

JEEHP : Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search
Advanced Search
mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > J Educ Eval Health Prof > Volume 12; 2015 > Article
Brief Report
 Assessment of medical students’ proficiency in dermatology: Are medical students adequately prepared to diagnose and treat common dermatologic conditions in the United States?
Catherine A. Ulman1*orcid, Stephen Bruce Binder2,3orcid, Nicole J. Borges2,4orcid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2015.12.18
Published online: May 17, 2015

1The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

2Office of Academic Affairs, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, OH, USA

3Department of Family Medicine, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, OH, USA

4Department of Community Health, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, OH, USA

* Corresponding email: catherine.ulman@osumc.edu

: 

• Received: September 15, 2014   • Accepted: May 16, 2015

© 2015, National Health Personnel Licensing Examination Board of the Republic of Korea

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next
  • 27,413 Views
  • 181 Download
  • 17 Web of Science
  • 19 Crossref
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • This study assessed whether a current medical school curriculum is adequately preparing medical students to diagnose and treat common dermatologic conditions. A 15-item anonymous multiple choice quiz covering fifteen diseases was developed to test students’ ability to diagnose and treat common dermatologic conditions. The quiz also contained five items that assessed students’ confidence in their ability to diagnose common dermatologic conditions, their perception of whether they were receiving adequate training in dermatology, and their preferences for additional training in dermatology. The survey was performed in 2014, and was completed by 85 students (79.4%). Many students (87.6%) felt that they received inadequate training in dermatology during medical school. On average, students scored 46.6% on the 15-item quiz. Proficiency at the medical school where the study was performed is considered an overall score of greater than or equal to 70.0%. Students received an average score of 49.9% on the diagnostic items and an average score of 43.2% on the treatment items. The findings of this study suggest that United States medical schools should consider testing their students and assessing whether they are being adequately trained in dermatology. Then schools can decide if they need to re-evaluate the timing and delivery of their current dermatology curriculum, or whether additional curriculum hours or clinical rotations should be assigned for dermatologic training.
  • Keywords: Curriculum; Dermatology; Medical students; United States
The majority of medical schools devote very few curriculum hours to training in dermatology. One study found that half of the medical schools surveyed provided 10 or fewer hours of instruction in dermatology, and 8% of the schools required no instruction in dermatology [1,2]. Additionally, not all residency programs require additional training in dermatology. The limited curriculum hours allotted to dermatology in medical training does not reflect the increasing prevalence of dermatologic conditions in the primary care outpatient setting [3]. Primary care physicians are often the initial contact for patients with dermatologic conditions. This raises the question of whether medical schools adequately prepare medical students to diagnose and treat common dermatologic conditions.
With institutional review board approval, a 15-item anonymous multiple-choice quiz covering fifteen diseases was developed to test students’ ability to diagnose and treat common dermatologic conditions. The content of the quiz was primarily based on The American Academy of Dermatology’s Medical Student Core Curriculum, which outlines diseases that academic dermatologists and primary care physicians deemed important for medical students to be able to diagnose and treat. Both a dermatologist and a primary care physician reviewed the content and difficulty of the quiz. The quiz also contained five items that assessed students’ confidence in their ability to diagnose common dermatologic conditions, their perception of whether they were receiving adequate training in dermatology, and their preferences for additional training in dermatology. In order to control for differences in the amount of exposure to dermatology, the quiz was administered at the very beginning of fourth year, before students’ schedules started to diverge. At Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, where the study was performed, students take the same courses for the first three years, so their curriculum until fourth year is almost completely identical and does not include a third year clerkship or elective in dermatology. Additionally, there is no required training in dermatology during fourth year. All 107 fourth-year students in the class of 2014 were invited to take the quiz, and 85 students completed the quiz (79.4%). To increase the response rate, the paper survey was completed after an academic exercise at which attendance was required. The five additional items were completed in 81 responses and the dermatology diagnosis and treatment items were entirely filled out in 74 responses. Incomplete responses were not included in the final average score calculations.
Eighty-nine percent of respondents reported that they felt either ‘neutral,’ ‘slightly confident,’ or ‘not at all confident’ when asked how confident they feel in their ability to correctly diagnose skin lesions. Only 11.1% of respondents felt ‘fairly confident,’ and none felt ‘very confident.’ Additionally, 87.6% of respondents felt that they received inadequate training in dermatology during medical school, and 95.1% of respondents agreed that there should be a general dermatology lecture during third year. Students were also asked about their learning preferences for additional training in dermatology. A total of 61.7% of respondents preferred interactive lectures. Some respondents also chose online case-based modules (24.7%), online PowerPoint presentations (19.8%), and team based learning (21.0%). A few students even chose to write in additional answer choices (shadowing, clinical experience, clerkship experience, and Jeopardy games). Multiple respondents indicated that the family medicine and internal medicine clerkships would be the best place to include additional dermatology lectures.
The majority of respondents (77.8%) felt that additional training in dermatology should occur during third year. At Wright State University, 13 of the approximately 18 required curriculum hours in dermatology occur during second year. One hour is provided during first-year and four hours are presented in the third-year. Wright State University does not require any clinical training in dermatology. However, studies have shown that dermatology electives significantly increase primary care physicians’ confidence in their ability to diagnose and treat common skin conditions [3], which suggests that clinical hours may also improve medical students’ ability to diagnose and treat common dermatologic conditions.
Proficiency at Wright State University is considered an overall score of greater than or equal to 70.0%. Students received an average score of 49.9% on the diagnostic items, an average score of 43.2% on the treatment items, and an overall average score of 46.6% on the 15-item quiz. It was expected that students would be more proficient at diagnoses since the medical school curriculum tends to focus slightly more on diagnosis. Examination of responses to individual items based on the content being tested revealed that students were proficient in the diagnosis of only psoriasis, tinea versicolor, and melanoma, and students were proficient in the treatment of only verruca vulgaris and melanoma (Table 1).
Despite the students’ inadequate performance on the quiz, many of the mistakes students made would be fairly easy to teach in a one- to two-hour lecture on basic dermatologic conditions. For example, students were tested on their ability to diagnose and treat verrucae vulgaris on the dorsum of a person’s finger. Only 47.1% of students chose the correct answer. The incorrect distracter most commonly chose was condyloma acuminatum (41.2%), which is the name for warts located near the genitalia or rectum. The students were correct in the general diagnosis of warts, but were not sure how to classify the lesions correctly based on their location. This explains why 94.0% of students were correct in the treatment portion of the item because in many cases both types of warts can be treated
Closer study revealed that medical students often selected answers that suggested a tendency to over treat benign lesions. For example, 33.7% of students chose to excise seborrheic keratoses and another 33.7% chose ‘refer to a dermatologist,’ both of which would be unnecessarily expensive for patients. Students choose more expensive or invasive treatment choices such as referral and excision for benign lesions because they are unable to confidently diagnose common, benign dermatologic conditions that require no treatment. It is expected that additional lecture hours and clinical exposure to dermatology would increase students’ ability to confidently diagnose and treat dermatologic conditions that are commonly seen in primary care practice. This study prompted our medical school to consider adding an interactive basic dermatology lecture to the third year internal medicine clerkship. Retesting the medical students who receive the additional lecture hour would determine if dermatology knowledge and confidence among medical students is increased through this intervention.
When limited lecture time and competing interests make it impossible to expand dermatology lecture time, repurposing time allocated to dermatology may be necessary. For example, second year basic science lectures focused on dermatology could be condensed to permit interactive dermatology lectures in the third year that focus on clinical diagnoses and treatment. This content should be reinforced through third year clinical exposure. Grand round style dermatology teaching with live patients, small group problem-based learning, and on-line interactive learning sessions in dermatology are curricular methods that are already being utilized [4,5]. Finally, even a two-day rotation in a dermatology clinic could prove to be an effective intervention. Medical schools have a responsibility to provide effective dermatologic education for their students. The finding that our students were not proficient in dermatology despite a curriculum that contains 18 hours of training has caused us to re-evaluate the effectiveness of our curriculum. Since half of the medical schools in the United States provide less than 10 hours of required instruction in dermatology [2], we suggest that medical schools assess the effectiveness of their dermatology curriculum. If they find their current efforts to be ineffective, we recommend evaluating the timing and methods of delivery of their didactic curriculum and consider the introduction of required clinical rotations.

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Audio recording of the abstract.
jeehp-12-18-abstract-recording.avi
Table 1.
Score breakdown by subject on 15-item dermatology proficiency quiz
Disease being tested Average diagnosis score (%) Average treatment score (%)
Verruca vulgaris 47.1 94.0a)
Psoriasis 74.1a) 41.7
Tinea versicolor 77.6a) 60.0
Basal cell carcinoma 50.6 17.6
Mycosis fungoides 67.9 48.2
Dermatofibroma 35.3 37.6
Seborrheic keratosis 32.5 4.8
Tinea corporis 50.6 51.2
Milia 25.9 49.4
Alopecia areata 47.1 10.6
Keratosis pilaris 38.8 40.0
Neurofibroma 27.7 50.0
Melanoma 77.6a) 70.2a)
Keratoacanthoma 38.8 10.6
Furuncle 44.7 57.6

a) Scores equal to greater than 70% are considered proficient.

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Adapting pediatric dermatology textbooks in South America: enhancing visual representation for skin of color patients
      Mariana Aparecida Pasa Morgan, Alice Andrade Gonçalves, Emanueli Cristini Souza da Costa, Lucero Noguera-Morel, Vânia Oliveira Carvalho
      Archives of Dermatological Research.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Beyond Skin Deep: case-based online modules to teach multidisciplinary care in dermatology among clerkship students
      Chaocheng Liu, Megan Chan, Vivienne Beard, Pamela Mathura, Marlene Dytoc
      BMC Medical Education.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Matching of advanced undergraduate medical students’ competence profiles with the required competence profiles of their specialty of choice for postgraduate training
      Lea Jebram, Sarah Prediger, Viktor Oubaid, Sigrid Harendza
      BMC Medical Education.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Efficacy of pediatric dermatology Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) sessions on augmenting primary care providers' confidence and abilities
      Haorui Sun, Brian Green, Andrea Zaenglein, Melissa Butt, Joslyn S. Kirby, Alexandra Flamm
      Pediatric Dermatology.2022; 39(3): 385.     CrossRef
    • Effects of using an abdominal simulator to develop palpatory competencies in 3rd year medical students
      Robert M. Hamm, David M. Kelley, Jose A. Medina, Noreen S. Syed, Geraint A. Harris, Frank J. Papa
      BMC Medical Education.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Medical Student Confidence in Diagnosis of Dermatologic Diseases in Skin of Color
      Kathren H Shango, Fouad A Abdole, Sarah M Gonzalez, Mehdi Farshchian, Meena Moossavi
      Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology.2022; Volume 15: 745.     CrossRef
    • Does walking improve diagnosis of skin conditions at varying levels of medical expertise?
      Malgorzata E. Kaminska, Remy M. J. P. Rikers
      Advances in Health Sciences Education.2021; 26(2): 405.     CrossRef
    • Atypical pityriasis rosea in a young Colombian woman. Case report
      Julián Felipe Porras-Villamil, Angela Catalina Hinestroza, Gabriela Andrea López-Moreno, Doris Juliana Parra-Sepúlveda
      Case reports.2021; 7(2): 8.     CrossRef
    • Evaluating the Use of Supplemental Training Technologies in Dermatology Education
      Mallory Aycock, Craig Marker, Philip Kellman
      Journal of Dermatology for Physician Assistants.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Evaluation and comparison of the dermatology program for medical students at the University of Chile with other national and foreign universities
      Camilo Rojas, Fernando Valenzuela, Hugo Folch
      Journal of Education and Health Promotion.2021; 10(1): 153.     CrossRef
    • Early Introduction of Dermatology Clinical Skills in Medical Training
      Kim Blakely, Bahar Bahrani, Philip Doiron, Erin Dahlke
      Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery.2020; 24(1): 47.     CrossRef
    • The Impact of Suspension of Dermatology On-Call Services
      Annie Langley, Mark G. Kirchhof
      Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery.2020; 24(4): 380.     CrossRef
    • COVID-19 and its effect on medical student education in dermatology
      Tiffany Y. Loh, Jennifer L. Hsiao, Vivian Y. Shi
      Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.2020; 83(2): e163.     CrossRef
    • Dermatologic Training and Practice in Canada: A Historical Overview
      P. Régine Mydlarski, Laurie M. Parsons, Tadeusz A. Pierscianowski, Shannon Humphrey, Mark G. Kirchhof, Julie Powell, Cheryl F. Rosen, Emma Huck, Josée Conway, Adam Kouri
      Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery.2019; 23(3): 307.     CrossRef
    • Undergraduate Dermatology Education in Canada: A National Survey
      Angela Hu, Ron Vender
      Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery.2018; 22(1): 31.     CrossRef
    • Development and Evaluation of a Web-Based Dermatology Teaching Tool for Preclinical Medical Students
      Moira Scaperotti, Nelson Gil, Ian Downs, Arthie Jeyakumar, Andy Liu, Jimmy Chan, Joseph Bonner, Mary S. Kelly, Joshua D. Nosanchuk, Hillel W. Cohen, Elina Jerschow
      MedEdPORTAL.2017;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Integration of Dermatology-Focused Physical Diagnosis Rounds and Case-Based Learning within the Internal Medicine Medical Student Clerkship
      Brian L. Scott, Blake Barker, Reeni Abraham, Heather W. Wickless
      Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development.2016;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Nuevas tecnologías de la información en la enseñanza de la dermatología: dermaconsulta. El paciente dermatológico virtual
      A. Guerra-Tapia, R. Segura-Rodríguez, E. González-Guerra
      Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas.2015; 106(10): 781.     CrossRef
    • New Information Technologies in Dermatology Education: Dermaconsulta—a Virtual Patient Tool
      A. Guerra-Tapia, R. Segura-Rodríguez, E. González-Guerra
      Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas (English Edition).2015; 106(10): 781.     CrossRef

    Assessment of medical students’ proficiency in dermatology: Are medical students adequately prepared to diagnose and treat common dermatologic conditions in the United States?
    Assessment of medical students’ proficiency in dermatology: Are medical students adequately prepared to diagnose and treat common dermatologic conditions in the United States?
    Disease being tested Average diagnosis score (%) Average treatment score (%)
    Verruca vulgaris 47.1 94.0a)
    Psoriasis 74.1a) 41.7
    Tinea versicolor 77.6a) 60.0
    Basal cell carcinoma 50.6 17.6
    Mycosis fungoides 67.9 48.2
    Dermatofibroma 35.3 37.6
    Seborrheic keratosis 32.5 4.8
    Tinea corporis 50.6 51.2
    Milia 25.9 49.4
    Alopecia areata 47.1 10.6
    Keratosis pilaris 38.8 40.0
    Neurofibroma 27.7 50.0
    Melanoma 77.6a) 70.2a)
    Keratoacanthoma 38.8 10.6
    Furuncle 44.7 57.6
    Table 1. Score breakdown by subject on 15-item dermatology proficiency quiz

    Scores equal to greater than 70% are considered proficient.

    Table 1.

    JEEHP : Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions
    © Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute.
    TOP