Naiara S. Barbosa, MD

Clinical images are integral to dermatologic care, research, and education. Studies have highlighted the underrepresentation of images of skin of color (SOC) in educational materials,¹ clinical trials,² and research publications.³ Recognition of this disparity has ignited a call to action by dermatologists and dermatologic organizations to address the gap by improving the collection and use of SOC images.⁴ It is critical to remind dermatologists of the importance of properly obtaining informed consent and ensuring images are not used without a patient’s permission, as images in journal articles, conference presentations, and educational materials can be widely distributed and shared. Herein, we summarize current practices of clinical image storage and make general recommendations on how dermatologists can better protect patient privacy. Certain cultural and social factors in patients with SOC should be considered when obtaining informed consent and collecting images.

Clinical Image Acquisition

Consenting procedures are crucial components of proper image usage. However, current consenting practices are inconsistent across various platforms, including academic journals, websites, printed text, social media, and educational presentations.⁵

Current regulations for use of patient health information in the United States are governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)of 1996. Although this act explicitly prohibits use of “full face photographic images and any comparable images” without consent from the patient or the patient’s representative, there is less restriction regarding the use of deidentified images.⁶ Some clinicians or researchers may consider using a black bar or a masking technique over the eyes or face, but this is not always a sufficient method of anonymizing an image.

One study investigating the different requirements listed by the top 20 dermatology journals (as determined by the Google Scholar h5-index) found that while 95% (19/20) of journals stated that written or signed consent or permission was a requirement for use of patient images, only 20% (4/20) instructed authors to inform the patient or the patient’s representative that images may become available on the internet.⁵ Once an article is accepted for publication by a medical journal, it eventually may be accessible online; however, patients may not be aware of this factor, which is particularly concerning for those with SOC due to the increased demand for diverse dermatologic resources and images as well as the highly digitalized manner in which we access and share media.

Furthermore, cultural and social factors exist that present challenges to informed decision-making during the consenting process for certain SOC populations such as a lack of trust in the medical and scientific research community, inadequate comprehension of the consent material, health illiteracy, language barriers, or use of complex terminology in consent documentation.^7,8 Studies also have shown that patients in ethnic minority groups have greater barriers to health literacy compared to other patient groups, and patients with limited health literacy are less likely to ask questions during their medical visits.^9,10 Therefore, when obtaining informed consent for images, it is important that measures are taken to ensure that the patient has full knowledge and understanding of what the consent covers, including the extent to which the images will be used and/or shared and whether the patient’s confidentiality and/or anonymity are at risk.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Encourage influential dermatology organizations such as the American Academy of Dermatology to establish standardized consenting procedures for image acquisition and use, including requirements to provide (a) written consent for all patient images and (b) specific details as to where and how the image may be used and/or shared.

2. Ensure that consent terminology is presented at a sixth-grade reading level or below, minimize the use of medical jargon and complex terms, and provide consent documentation in the patient’s preferred language.

3. Allow patients to take the consent document home so they can have additional time to comprehensively review the material or have it reviewed by family or friends.

4. Employ strategies such as teach-back methods and encourage questions to maximize the level of understanding during the consent process.

Clinical Image Storage

Clinical image storage procedures can have an impact on a patient’s health information remaining anonymous and confidential. In a survey evaluating medical photography use among 153 US board-certified dermatologists, 69.1% of respondents reported emailing or texting images between patients and colleagues. Additionally, 30.3% (46/152) reported having patient photographs stored on their personal phone at the time of the survey, and 39.1% (18/46) of those individuals had images that showed identifiable features, such as the patient’s face or a tattoo.¹¹

Although most providers state that their devices are password protected, it cannot be guaranteed that the device and consequently the images remain secure and inaccessible to unauthorized individuals. As sharing and viewing images continue to play an essential role in assessing disease state, progression, treatment response, and inclusion in research, we must establish and encourage clear guidelines for the storage and retention of such images.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Store clinical images exclusively on password-protected devices and in password-protected files.

2. Use work-related cameras or electronic devices rather than personal devices, unless the personal device is being used to upload directly into the patient’s medical record. In such cases, use a HIPAA-compliant electronic medical record mobile application that does not store images on the application or the device itself.

3. Avoid using text-messaging systems or unencrypted email to share identifying images without clear patient consent.

Clinical Image Use

Once a thorough consenting process has been completed, it is crucial that the use and distribution of the clinical image are in accordance with the terms specified in the original consent. With the current state of technologic advancement, widespread social media usage, and constant sharing of information, adherence to these terms can be challenging. For example, an image initially intended for use in an educational presentation at a professional conference can be shared on social media if an audience member captures a photo of it. In another example, a patient may consent to their image being shown on a dermatologic website but that image can be duplicated and shared on other unauthorized sites and locations. This situation can be particularly distressing to patients whose image may include all or most of their face, an intimate area, or other physical features that they did not wish to share widely.

Individuals identifying as Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, or Asian have been shown to express less comfort with providing permission for images of a nonidentifiable sensitive area to be taken (or obtained) or for use for teaching irrespective of identifiability compared to their White counterparts,¹² which may be due to the aforementioned lack of trust in medical providers and the health care system in general, both of which may contribute to concerns with how a clinical image is used and/or shared. Although consent from a patient or the patient’s representative can be granted, we must ensure that the use of these images adheres to the patient’s initial agreement. Ultimately, medical providers, researchers, and other parties involved in acquiring or sharing patient images have both an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure that anonymity, privacy, and confidentiality are preserved to the greatest extent possible.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Display a message on websites containing patient images stating that the sharing of the images outside the established guidelines and intended use is prohibited.

2. Place a watermark on images to discourage unauthorized duplication.

3. Issue explicit instructions to audiences prohibiting the copying or reproducing of any patient images during teaching events or presentations.

Final Thoughts

The use of clinical images is an essential component of dermatologic care, education, and research. Due to the higher demand for diverse and representative images and the dearth of images in the medical literature, many SOC images have been widely disseminated and utilized by dermatologists, raising concerns of the adequacy of informed consent for the storage and use of such material. Therefore, dermatologists should implement streamlined guidelines and consent procedures to ensure a patient’s informed consent is provided with full knowledge of how and where their images might be used and shared. Additional efforts should be made to protect patients’ privacy and unauthorized use of their images. Furthermore, we encourage our leading dermatology organizations to develop expert consensus on best practices for appropriate clinical image consent, storage, and use.

Clinical images are integral to dermatologic care, research, and education. Studies have highlighted the underrepresentation of images of skin of color (SOC) in educational materials,¹ clinical trials,² and research publications.³ Recognition of this disparity has ignited a call to action by dermatologists and dermatologic organizations to address the gap by improving the collection and use of SOC images.⁴ It is critical to remind dermatologists of the importance of properly obtaining informed consent and ensuring images are not used without a patient’s permission, as images in journal articles, conference presentations, and educational materials can be widely distributed and shared. Herein, we summarize current practices of clinical image storage and make general recommendations on how dermatologists can better protect patient privacy. Certain cultural and social factors in patients with SOC should be considered when obtaining informed consent and collecting images.

Clinical Image Acquisition

Consenting procedures are crucial components of proper image usage. However, current consenting practices are inconsistent across various platforms, including academic journals, websites, printed text, social media, and educational presentations.⁵

Current regulations for use of patient health information in the United States are governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)of 1996. Although this act explicitly prohibits use of “full face photographic images and any comparable images” without consent from the patient or the patient’s representative, there is less restriction regarding the use of deidentified images.⁶ Some clinicians or researchers may consider using a black bar or a masking technique over the eyes or face, but this is not always a sufficient method of anonymizing an image.

One study investigating the different requirements listed by the top 20 dermatology journals (as determined by the Google Scholar h5-index) found that while 95% (19/20) of journals stated that written or signed consent or permission was a requirement for use of patient images, only 20% (4/20) instructed authors to inform the patient or the patient’s representative that images may become available on the internet.⁵ Once an article is accepted for publication by a medical journal, it eventually may be accessible online; however, patients may not be aware of this factor, which is particularly concerning for those with SOC due to the increased demand for diverse dermatologic resources and images as well as the highly digitalized manner in which we access and share media.

Furthermore, cultural and social factors exist that present challenges to informed decision-making during the consenting process for certain SOC populations such as a lack of trust in the medical and scientific research community, inadequate comprehension of the consent material, health illiteracy, language barriers, or use of complex terminology in consent documentation.^7,8 Studies also have shown that patients in ethnic minority groups have greater barriers to health literacy compared to other patient groups, and patients with limited health literacy are less likely to ask questions during their medical visits.^9,10 Therefore, when obtaining informed consent for images, it is important that measures are taken to ensure that the patient has full knowledge and understanding of what the consent covers, including the extent to which the images will be used and/or shared and whether the patient’s confidentiality and/or anonymity are at risk.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Encourage influential dermatology organizations such as the American Academy of Dermatology to establish standardized consenting procedures for image acquisition and use, including requirements to provide (a) written consent for all patient images and (b) specific details as to where and how the image may be used and/or shared.

2. Ensure that consent terminology is presented at a sixth-grade reading level or below, minimize the use of medical jargon and complex terms, and provide consent documentation in the patient’s preferred language.

3. Allow patients to take the consent document home so they can have additional time to comprehensively review the material or have it reviewed by family or friends.

4. Employ strategies such as teach-back methods and encourage questions to maximize the level of understanding during the consent process.

Clinical Image Storage

Clinical image storage procedures can have an impact on a patient’s health information remaining anonymous and confidential. In a survey evaluating medical photography use among 153 US board-certified dermatologists, 69.1% of respondents reported emailing or texting images between patients and colleagues. Additionally, 30.3% (46/152) reported having patient photographs stored on their personal phone at the time of the survey, and 39.1% (18/46) of those individuals had images that showed identifiable features, such as the patient’s face or a tattoo.¹¹

Although most providers state that their devices are password protected, it cannot be guaranteed that the device and consequently the images remain secure and inaccessible to unauthorized individuals. As sharing and viewing images continue to play an essential role in assessing disease state, progression, treatment response, and inclusion in research, we must establish and encourage clear guidelines for the storage and retention of such images.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Store clinical images exclusively on password-protected devices and in password-protected files.

2. Use work-related cameras or electronic devices rather than personal devices, unless the personal device is being used to upload directly into the patient’s medical record. In such cases, use a HIPAA-compliant electronic medical record mobile application that does not store images on the application or the device itself.

3. Avoid using text-messaging systems or unencrypted email to share identifying images without clear patient consent.

Clinical Image Use

Once a thorough consenting process has been completed, it is crucial that the use and distribution of the clinical image are in accordance with the terms specified in the original consent. With the current state of technologic advancement, widespread social media usage, and constant sharing of information, adherence to these terms can be challenging. For example, an image initially intended for use in an educational presentation at a professional conference can be shared on social media if an audience member captures a photo of it. In another example, a patient may consent to their image being shown on a dermatologic website but that image can be duplicated and shared on other unauthorized sites and locations. This situation can be particularly distressing to patients whose image may include all or most of their face, an intimate area, or other physical features that they did not wish to share widely.

Individuals identifying as Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, or Asian have been shown to express less comfort with providing permission for images of a nonidentifiable sensitive area to be taken (or obtained) or for use for teaching irrespective of identifiability compared to their White counterparts,¹² which may be due to the aforementioned lack of trust in medical providers and the health care system in general, both of which may contribute to concerns with how a clinical image is used and/or shared. Although consent from a patient or the patient’s representative can be granted, we must ensure that the use of these images adheres to the patient’s initial agreement. Ultimately, medical providers, researchers, and other parties involved in acquiring or sharing patient images have both an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure that anonymity, privacy, and confidentiality are preserved to the greatest extent possible.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Display a message on websites containing patient images stating that the sharing of the images outside the established guidelines and intended use is prohibited.

2. Place a watermark on images to discourage unauthorized duplication.

3. Issue explicit instructions to audiences prohibiting the copying or reproducing of any patient images during teaching events or presentations.

Final Thoughts

The use of clinical images is an essential component of dermatologic care, education, and research. Due to the higher demand for diverse and representative images and the dearth of images in the medical literature, many SOC images have been widely disseminated and utilized by dermatologists, raising concerns of the adequacy of informed consent for the storage and use of such material. Therefore, dermatologists should implement streamlined guidelines and consent procedures to ensure a patient’s informed consent is provided with full knowledge of how and where their images might be used and shared. Additional efforts should be made to protect patients’ privacy and unauthorized use of their images. Furthermore, we encourage our leading dermatology organizations to develop expert consensus on best practices for appropriate clinical image consent, storage, and use.

Clinical images are integral to dermatologic care, research, and education. Studies have highlighted the underrepresentation of images of skin of color (SOC) in educational materials,¹ clinical trials,² and research publications.³ Recognition of this disparity has ignited a call to action by dermatologists and dermatologic organizations to address the gap by improving the collection and use of SOC images.⁴ It is critical to remind dermatologists of the importance of properly obtaining informed consent and ensuring images are not used without a patient’s permission, as images in journal articles, conference presentations, and educational materials can be widely distributed and shared. Herein, we summarize current practices of clinical image storage and make general recommendations on how dermatologists can better protect patient privacy. Certain cultural and social factors in patients with SOC should be considered when obtaining informed consent and collecting images.

Clinical Image Acquisition

Consenting procedures are crucial components of proper image usage. However, current consenting practices are inconsistent across various platforms, including academic journals, websites, printed text, social media, and educational presentations.⁵

Current regulations for use of patient health information in the United States are governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)of 1996. Although this act explicitly prohibits use of “full face photographic images and any comparable images” without consent from the patient or the patient’s representative, there is less restriction regarding the use of deidentified images.⁶ Some clinicians or researchers may consider using a black bar or a masking technique over the eyes or face, but this is not always a sufficient method of anonymizing an image.

One study investigating the different requirements listed by the top 20 dermatology journals (as determined by the Google Scholar h5-index) found that while 95% (19/20) of journals stated that written or signed consent or permission was a requirement for use of patient images, only 20% (4/20) instructed authors to inform the patient or the patient’s representative that images may become available on the internet.⁵ Once an article is accepted for publication by a medical journal, it eventually may be accessible online; however, patients may not be aware of this factor, which is particularly concerning for those with SOC due to the increased demand for diverse dermatologic resources and images as well as the highly digitalized manner in which we access and share media.

Furthermore, cultural and social factors exist that present challenges to informed decision-making during the consenting process for certain SOC populations such as a lack of trust in the medical and scientific research community, inadequate comprehension of the consent material, health illiteracy, language barriers, or use of complex terminology in consent documentation.^7,8 Studies also have shown that patients in ethnic minority groups have greater barriers to health literacy compared to other patient groups, and patients with limited health literacy are less likely to ask questions during their medical visits.^9,10 Therefore, when obtaining informed consent for images, it is important that measures are taken to ensure that the patient has full knowledge and understanding of what the consent covers, including the extent to which the images will be used and/or shared and whether the patient’s confidentiality and/or anonymity are at risk.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Encourage influential dermatology organizations such as the American Academy of Dermatology to establish standardized consenting procedures for image acquisition and use, including requirements to provide (a) written consent for all patient images and (b) specific details as to where and how the image may be used and/or shared.

2. Ensure that consent terminology is presented at a sixth-grade reading level or below, minimize the use of medical jargon and complex terms, and provide consent documentation in the patient’s preferred language.

3. Allow patients to take the consent document home so they can have additional time to comprehensively review the material or have it reviewed by family or friends.

4. Employ strategies such as teach-back methods and encourage questions to maximize the level of understanding during the consent process.

Clinical Image Storage

Clinical image storage procedures can have an impact on a patient’s health information remaining anonymous and confidential. In a survey evaluating medical photography use among 153 US board-certified dermatologists, 69.1% of respondents reported emailing or texting images between patients and colleagues. Additionally, 30.3% (46/152) reported having patient photographs stored on their personal phone at the time of the survey, and 39.1% (18/46) of those individuals had images that showed identifiable features, such as the patient’s face or a tattoo.¹¹

Although most providers state that their devices are password protected, it cannot be guaranteed that the device and consequently the images remain secure and inaccessible to unauthorized individuals. As sharing and viewing images continue to play an essential role in assessing disease state, progression, treatment response, and inclusion in research, we must establish and encourage clear guidelines for the storage and retention of such images.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Store clinical images exclusively on password-protected devices and in password-protected files.

2. Use work-related cameras or electronic devices rather than personal devices, unless the personal device is being used to upload directly into the patient’s medical record. In such cases, use a HIPAA-compliant electronic medical record mobile application that does not store images on the application or the device itself.

3. Avoid using text-messaging systems or unencrypted email to share identifying images without clear patient consent.

Clinical Image Use

Once a thorough consenting process has been completed, it is crucial that the use and distribution of the clinical image are in accordance with the terms specified in the original consent. With the current state of technologic advancement, widespread social media usage, and constant sharing of information, adherence to these terms can be challenging. For example, an image initially intended for use in an educational presentation at a professional conference can be shared on social media if an audience member captures a photo of it. In another example, a patient may consent to their image being shown on a dermatologic website but that image can be duplicated and shared on other unauthorized sites and locations. This situation can be particularly distressing to patients whose image may include all or most of their face, an intimate area, or other physical features that they did not wish to share widely.

Individuals identifying as Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, or Asian have been shown to express less comfort with providing permission for images of a nonidentifiable sensitive area to be taken (or obtained) or for use for teaching irrespective of identifiability compared to their White counterparts,¹² which may be due to the aforementioned lack of trust in medical providers and the health care system in general, both of which may contribute to concerns with how a clinical image is used and/or shared. Although consent from a patient or the patient’s representative can be granted, we must ensure that the use of these images adheres to the patient’s initial agreement. Ultimately, medical providers, researchers, and other parties involved in acquiring or sharing patient images have both an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure that anonymity, privacy, and confidentiality are preserved to the greatest extent possible.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Display a message on websites containing patient images stating that the sharing of the images outside the established guidelines and intended use is prohibited.

2. Place a watermark on images to discourage unauthorized duplication.

3. Issue explicit instructions to audiences prohibiting the copying or reproducing of any patient images during teaching events or presentations.

Final Thoughts

The use of clinical images is an essential component of dermatologic care, education, and research. Due to the higher demand for diverse and representative images and the dearth of images in the medical literature, many SOC images have been widely disseminated and utilized by dermatologists, raising concerns of the adequacy of informed consent for the storage and use of such material. Therefore, dermatologists should implement streamlined guidelines and consent procedures to ensure a patient’s informed consent is provided with full knowledge of how and where their images might be used and shared. Additional efforts should be made to protect patients’ privacy and unauthorized use of their images. Furthermore, we encourage our leading dermatology organizations to develop expert consensus on best practices for appropriate clinical image consent, storage, and use.

The COVID-19 pandemic has markedly changed the dermatology residency application process. As medical students head into this application cycle, the impacts of systemic racism and deeply rooted structural barriers continue to be exacerbated for students who identify as an underrepresented minority (URM) in medicine—historically defined as those who self-identify as Hispanic or Latinx; Black or African American; American Indian or Alaska Native; or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) defines URMs as racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in medicine relative to their numbers in the general population.¹ Although these groups account for approximately 34% of the population of the United States, they constitute only 11% of the country’s physician workforce.^2,3

Of the total physician workforce in the United States, Black and African American physicians account for 5% of practicing physicians; Hispanic physicians, 5.8%; American Indian and Alaska Native physicians, 0.3%; and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander physicians, 0.1%.² In competitive medical specialties, the disproportionality of these numbers compared to our current demographics in the United States as shown above is even more staggering. In 2018, for example, 10% of practicing dermatologists identified as female URM physicians; 6%, as male URM physicians.² In this article, we discuss some of the challenges and considerations for URM students applying to dermatology residency in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Barriers for URM Students in Dermatology

Multiple studies have attempted to identify some of the barriers faced by URM students in medicine that might explain the lack of diversity in competitive specialties. Vasquez and colleagues⁴ identified 4 major factors that play a role in dermatology: lack of equitable resources, lack of support, financial limitations, and the lack of group identity. More than half of URM students surveyed (1) identified lack of support as a barrier and (2) reported having been encouraged to seek a specialty more reflective of their community.⁴

Soliman et al⁵ reported that URM barriers in dermatology extend to include lack of diversity in the field, socioeconomic factors, lack of mentorship, and a negative perception of minority students by residency programs. Dermatology is the second least diverse specialty in medicine after orthopedic surgery, which, in and of itself, might further discourage URM students from applying to dermatology.⁵

With the minimal exposure that URM students have to the field of dermatology, the lack of pipeline programs, and reports that URMs often are encouraged to pursue primary care, the current diversity deficiency in dermatology comes as no surprise. In addition, the substantial disadvantage for URM students is perpetuated by the traditional highly selective process that favors grades, board scores, and honor society status over holistic assessment of the individual student and their unique experiences and potential for contribution.

Looking Beyond Test Scores

The US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) traditionally has been used to select dermatology residency applicants, with high cutoff scores often excluding outstanding URM students. Research has suggested that the use of USMLE examination test scores for residency recruitment lacks validity because it has poor predictability of residency performance.⁶ Although the USMLE Step 1 examination is transitioning to pass/fail scoring, applicants for the next cycle will still have a 3-digit numerical score.

We strongly recommend that dermatology programs transition from emphasizing scores of residency candidates to reviewing each candidate holistically. The AAMC defines “holistic review” as a “flexible, individualized way of assessing an applicant’s capabilities, by which balanced consideration is given to experiences, attributes, competencies, and academic or scholarly metrics and, when considered in combination, how the individual might contribute value to the institution’s mission.”⁷ Furthermore, we recommend that dermatology residency programs have multiple faculty members review each application, including a representative of the diversity, inclusion, and equity committee.

In the COVID-19 era, dermatology externship opportunities that would have allowed URM students to work directly with potential residency programs, showcase their abilities, and network have been limited. Virtual residency interviews could make it more challenging to evaluate candidates, especially URM students from less prestigious programs or unusual socioeconomic backgrounds, or with lower board scores. In addition, virtual interviews can more easily become one-dimensional, depriving URM students of the opportunity to gauge their personal fit in a specific dermatology residency program and its community. Questions and concerns of URM students might include: Will I be appropriately supported and mentored? Will my cultural preferences, religion, sexual preference, hairstyle, and beliefs be accepted? Can I advocate for minorities and support antiracism and diversity and inclusion initiatives? To that end, we recommend that dermatology programs continue to host virtual meet-and-greet events for potential students to meet faculty and learn more about the program. In addition, programs should consider having current residents interact virtually with candidates to allow students to better understand the culture of the department and residents’ experiences as trainees in such an environment. For URM students, this is highly important because diversity, inclusion, and antiracism policies and initiatives might not be explicitly available on the institution’s website or residency information page.

Organizations Championing Diversity

Recently, multiple dermatology societies and organizations have been emphasizing the need for diversity and inclusion as well as promoting holistic application review. The American Academy of Dermatology pioneered the Diversity Champion Workshop in 2019 and continues to offer the Diversity Mentorship program, connecting URM students to mentors nationally. The Skin of Color Society offers yearly grants and awards to medical students to develop mentorship and research, and recently hosted webinars to guide medical students and residency programs on diversity and inclusion, residency application and review, and COVID-19 virtual interviews. Other national societies, such as the Student National Medical Association and Latino Medical Student Association, have been promoting workshops and interview mentoring for URM students, including dermatology-specific events. Although it is estimated that more than 90% of medical schools in the United States already perform holistic application review and that such review has been adopted by many dermatology programs nationwide, data regarding dermatology residency programs’ implementation of holistic application review are lacking.⁸

In addition, we encourage continuation of the proposed coordinated interview invite release from the Association of Professors of Dermatology, which was implemented in the 2020-2021 cycle. In light of the recent AAMC letter⁹ on the maldistribution of interview invitations to highest-tier applicants, coordination of interview release dates and other similar initiatives to prevent programs from offering more invites than their available slots and improve transparency about interview days are needed. Furthermore, continuing to offer optional virtual interviews for applicants in future cycles could make the process less cost-prohibitive for many URM students.^4,5

Final Thoughts

Dermatology residency programs must intentionally guard against falling back to traditional standards of assessment as the only means of student evaluation, especially in this virtual era. It is our responsibility to remove artificial barriers that continue to stall progress in diversity, inclusion, equity, and belonging in dermatology.

The COVID-19 pandemic has markedly changed the dermatology residency application process. As medical students head into this application cycle, the impacts of systemic racism and deeply rooted structural barriers continue to be exacerbated for students who identify as an underrepresented minority (URM) in medicine—historically defined as those who self-identify as Hispanic or Latinx; Black or African American; American Indian or Alaska Native; or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) defines URMs as racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in medicine relative to their numbers in the general population.¹ Although these groups account for approximately 34% of the population of the United States, they constitute only 11% of the country’s physician workforce.^2,3

Of the total physician workforce in the United States, Black and African American physicians account for 5% of practicing physicians; Hispanic physicians, 5.8%; American Indian and Alaska Native physicians, 0.3%; and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander physicians, 0.1%.² In competitive medical specialties, the disproportionality of these numbers compared to our current demographics in the United States as shown above is even more staggering. In 2018, for example, 10% of practicing dermatologists identified as female URM physicians; 6%, as male URM physicians.² In this article, we discuss some of the challenges and considerations for URM students applying to dermatology residency in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Barriers for URM Students in Dermatology

Multiple studies have attempted to identify some of the barriers faced by URM students in medicine that might explain the lack of diversity in competitive specialties. Vasquez and colleagues⁴ identified 4 major factors that play a role in dermatology: lack of equitable resources, lack of support, financial limitations, and the lack of group identity. More than half of URM students surveyed (1) identified lack of support as a barrier and (2) reported having been encouraged to seek a specialty more reflective of their community.⁴

Soliman et al⁵ reported that URM barriers in dermatology extend to include lack of diversity in the field, socioeconomic factors, lack of mentorship, and a negative perception of minority students by residency programs. Dermatology is the second least diverse specialty in medicine after orthopedic surgery, which, in and of itself, might further discourage URM students from applying to dermatology.⁵

With the minimal exposure that URM students have to the field of dermatology, the lack of pipeline programs, and reports that URMs often are encouraged to pursue primary care, the current diversity deficiency in dermatology comes as no surprise. In addition, the substantial disadvantage for URM students is perpetuated by the traditional highly selective process that favors grades, board scores, and honor society status over holistic assessment of the individual student and their unique experiences and potential for contribution.

Looking Beyond Test Scores

The US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) traditionally has been used to select dermatology residency applicants, with high cutoff scores often excluding outstanding URM students. Research has suggested that the use of USMLE examination test scores for residency recruitment lacks validity because it has poor predictability of residency performance.⁶ Although the USMLE Step 1 examination is transitioning to pass/fail scoring, applicants for the next cycle will still have a 3-digit numerical score.

We strongly recommend that dermatology programs transition from emphasizing scores of residency candidates to reviewing each candidate holistically. The AAMC defines “holistic review” as a “flexible, individualized way of assessing an applicant’s capabilities, by which balanced consideration is given to experiences, attributes, competencies, and academic or scholarly metrics and, when considered in combination, how the individual might contribute value to the institution’s mission.”⁷ Furthermore, we recommend that dermatology residency programs have multiple faculty members review each application, including a representative of the diversity, inclusion, and equity committee.

In the COVID-19 era, dermatology externship opportunities that would have allowed URM students to work directly with potential residency programs, showcase their abilities, and network have been limited. Virtual residency interviews could make it more challenging to evaluate candidates, especially URM students from less prestigious programs or unusual socioeconomic backgrounds, or with lower board scores. In addition, virtual interviews can more easily become one-dimensional, depriving URM students of the opportunity to gauge their personal fit in a specific dermatology residency program and its community. Questions and concerns of URM students might include: Will I be appropriately supported and mentored? Will my cultural preferences, religion, sexual preference, hairstyle, and beliefs be accepted? Can I advocate for minorities and support antiracism and diversity and inclusion initiatives? To that end, we recommend that dermatology programs continue to host virtual meet-and-greet events for potential students to meet faculty and learn more about the program. In addition, programs should consider having current residents interact virtually with candidates to allow students to better understand the culture of the department and residents’ experiences as trainees in such an environment. For URM students, this is highly important because diversity, inclusion, and antiracism policies and initiatives might not be explicitly available on the institution’s website or residency information page.

Organizations Championing Diversity

Recently, multiple dermatology societies and organizations have been emphasizing the need for diversity and inclusion as well as promoting holistic application review. The American Academy of Dermatology pioneered the Diversity Champion Workshop in 2019 and continues to offer the Diversity Mentorship program, connecting URM students to mentors nationally. The Skin of Color Society offers yearly grants and awards to medical students to develop mentorship and research, and recently hosted webinars to guide medical students and residency programs on diversity and inclusion, residency application and review, and COVID-19 virtual interviews. Other national societies, such as the Student National Medical Association and Latino Medical Student Association, have been promoting workshops and interview mentoring for URM students, including dermatology-specific events. Although it is estimated that more than 90% of medical schools in the United States already perform holistic application review and that such review has been adopted by many dermatology programs nationwide, data regarding dermatology residency programs’ implementation of holistic application review are lacking.⁸

In addition, we encourage continuation of the proposed coordinated interview invite release from the Association of Professors of Dermatology, which was implemented in the 2020-2021 cycle. In light of the recent AAMC letter⁹ on the maldistribution of interview invitations to highest-tier applicants, coordination of interview release dates and other similar initiatives to prevent programs from offering more invites than their available slots and improve transparency about interview days are needed. Furthermore, continuing to offer optional virtual interviews for applicants in future cycles could make the process less cost-prohibitive for many URM students.^4,5

Final Thoughts

Dermatology residency programs must intentionally guard against falling back to traditional standards of assessment as the only means of student evaluation, especially in this virtual era. It is our responsibility to remove artificial barriers that continue to stall progress in diversity, inclusion, equity, and belonging in dermatology.

The COVID-19 pandemic has markedly changed the dermatology residency application process. As medical students head into this application cycle, the impacts of systemic racism and deeply rooted structural barriers continue to be exacerbated for students who identify as an underrepresented minority (URM) in medicine—historically defined as those who self-identify as Hispanic or Latinx; Black or African American; American Indian or Alaska Native; or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) defines URMs as racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in medicine relative to their numbers in the general population.¹ Although these groups account for approximately 34% of the population of the United States, they constitute only 11% of the country’s physician workforce.^2,3

Of the total physician workforce in the United States, Black and African American physicians account for 5% of practicing physicians; Hispanic physicians, 5.8%; American Indian and Alaska Native physicians, 0.3%; and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander physicians, 0.1%.² In competitive medical specialties, the disproportionality of these numbers compared to our current demographics in the United States as shown above is even more staggering. In 2018, for example, 10% of practicing dermatologists identified as female URM physicians; 6%, as male URM physicians.² In this article, we discuss some of the challenges and considerations for URM students applying to dermatology residency in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Barriers for URM Students in Dermatology

Multiple studies have attempted to identify some of the barriers faced by URM students in medicine that might explain the lack of diversity in competitive specialties. Vasquez and colleagues⁴ identified 4 major factors that play a role in dermatology: lack of equitable resources, lack of support, financial limitations, and the lack of group identity. More than half of URM students surveyed (1) identified lack of support as a barrier and (2) reported having been encouraged to seek a specialty more reflective of their community.⁴

Soliman et al⁵ reported that URM barriers in dermatology extend to include lack of diversity in the field, socioeconomic factors, lack of mentorship, and a negative perception of minority students by residency programs. Dermatology is the second least diverse specialty in medicine after orthopedic surgery, which, in and of itself, might further discourage URM students from applying to dermatology.⁵

With the minimal exposure that URM students have to the field of dermatology, the lack of pipeline programs, and reports that URMs often are encouraged to pursue primary care, the current diversity deficiency in dermatology comes as no surprise. In addition, the substantial disadvantage for URM students is perpetuated by the traditional highly selective process that favors grades, board scores, and honor society status over holistic assessment of the individual student and their unique experiences and potential for contribution.

Looking Beyond Test Scores

The US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) traditionally has been used to select dermatology residency applicants, with high cutoff scores often excluding outstanding URM students. Research has suggested that the use of USMLE examination test scores for residency recruitment lacks validity because it has poor predictability of residency performance.⁶ Although the USMLE Step 1 examination is transitioning to pass/fail scoring, applicants for the next cycle will still have a 3-digit numerical score.

We strongly recommend that dermatology programs transition from emphasizing scores of residency candidates to reviewing each candidate holistically. The AAMC defines “holistic review” as a “flexible, individualized way of assessing an applicant’s capabilities, by which balanced consideration is given to experiences, attributes, competencies, and academic or scholarly metrics and, when considered in combination, how the individual might contribute value to the institution’s mission.”⁷ Furthermore, we recommend that dermatology residency programs have multiple faculty members review each application, including a representative of the diversity, inclusion, and equity committee.

In the COVID-19 era, dermatology externship opportunities that would have allowed URM students to work directly with potential residency programs, showcase their abilities, and network have been limited. Virtual residency interviews could make it more challenging to evaluate candidates, especially URM students from less prestigious programs or unusual socioeconomic backgrounds, or with lower board scores. In addition, virtual interviews can more easily become one-dimensional, depriving URM students of the opportunity to gauge their personal fit in a specific dermatology residency program and its community. Questions and concerns of URM students might include: Will I be appropriately supported and mentored? Will my cultural preferences, religion, sexual preference, hairstyle, and beliefs be accepted? Can I advocate for minorities and support antiracism and diversity and inclusion initiatives? To that end, we recommend that dermatology programs continue to host virtual meet-and-greet events for potential students to meet faculty and learn more about the program. In addition, programs should consider having current residents interact virtually with candidates to allow students to better understand the culture of the department and residents’ experiences as trainees in such an environment. For URM students, this is highly important because diversity, inclusion, and antiracism policies and initiatives might not be explicitly available on the institution’s website or residency information page.

Organizations Championing Diversity

Recently, multiple dermatology societies and organizations have been emphasizing the need for diversity and inclusion as well as promoting holistic application review. The American Academy of Dermatology pioneered the Diversity Champion Workshop in 2019 and continues to offer the Diversity Mentorship program, connecting URM students to mentors nationally. The Skin of Color Society offers yearly grants and awards to medical students to develop mentorship and research, and recently hosted webinars to guide medical students and residency programs on diversity and inclusion, residency application and review, and COVID-19 virtual interviews. Other national societies, such as the Student National Medical Association and Latino Medical Student Association, have been promoting workshops and interview mentoring for URM students, including dermatology-specific events. Although it is estimated that more than 90% of medical schools in the United States already perform holistic application review and that such review has been adopted by many dermatology programs nationwide, data regarding dermatology residency programs’ implementation of holistic application review are lacking.⁸

In addition, we encourage continuation of the proposed coordinated interview invite release from the Association of Professors of Dermatology, which was implemented in the 2020-2021 cycle. In light of the recent AAMC letter⁹ on the maldistribution of interview invitations to highest-tier applicants, coordination of interview release dates and other similar initiatives to prevent programs from offering more invites than their available slots and improve transparency about interview days are needed. Furthermore, continuing to offer optional virtual interviews for applicants in future cycles could make the process less cost-prohibitive for many URM students.^4,5

Final Thoughts

Dermatology residency programs must intentionally guard against falling back to traditional standards of assessment as the only means of student evaluation, especially in this virtual era. It is our responsibility to remove artificial barriers that continue to stall progress in diversity, inclusion, equity, and belonging in dermatology.

Guidelines on Skin Cancer Surgeries During the COVID-19 Pandemic

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued recommendations to decrease the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and optimize the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for frontline workers.¹ In the field of dermatologic surgery, the American College of Mohs Surgery, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and the American Academy of Dermatology made recommendations to postpone nonessential and nonurgent procedures.^2-4 The initial guidelines of the American College of Mohs Surgery advised cancellation of all elective surgeries and deferred treatment of most cases of basal cell carcinoma for as long as 3 months; low-risk squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and melanoma in situ treatment was deferred for as long as 2 or 3 months.³ Additional recommendations were made to reserve inpatient visits for suspicious lesions and high-risk cancers, postpone other nonessential and nonurgent appointments, and utilize telemedicine whenever possible.⁵

These recommendations led to great uncertainty and stress for patients and providers. Although numerous important variables, such as patient risk factors, severity of disease, availability of PPE and staff, and patient-to-provider transmission were considered when creating these guidelines, the patient’s experience likely was not a contributing factor.

COVID-19 Transmission During Mohs Surgery

There have been concerns that surgeons performing Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) might be at an increased risk for COVID-19, given their close contact with high-risk sites (ie, nose, mouth) and cautery-generated aerosols; most of the estimated transmission risk associated with MMS has been based on head and neck surgery experience and publications.^6-8 Tee and colleagues⁹ recently published their institution’s MMS COVID-19 preventive measures, which, to their knowledge, have prevented all intraoperative transmission of SARS-CoV-2, even in disease-positive patients. Currently, evidence is lacking to support a high risk for SARS-CoV-2 transmission during MMS when proper PPE and personal hygiene measures as well as strict infection control protocols—presurgical COVID-19 testing in high-risk cases, COVID-19 screening optimization, visitor restrictions, and appropriate disinfection between patients—are in place.

The Impact of Postponing Treatment on Patients

Although studies have focused on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on physicians practicing MMS,¹⁰ little is known about the effects of delays in skin cancer treatment on patients. A survey conducted in the United Kingdom investigating the patient’s perspective found that patients expressed worry and concern about the possibility that their MMS would be postponed and greatly appreciated continuation of treatment during the pandemic.¹¹

Other medical specialties have reported their patient experiences during the pandemic. In a study examining patient perception of postponed surgical treatment of pelvic floor disorders due to COVID-19, nearly half of survey respondents were unhappy with the delay in receiving care. Furthermore, patients who reported being unhappy were more likely to report feelings of isolation and anxiety because their surgery was postponed.¹² In another study involving patients with lung cancer, 9.1% (N=15) of patients postponed their treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic because of pandemic-related anxiety.¹³

With the goal of improving care at our institution, we conducted a brief institutional review board–approved survey to evaluate how postponing MMS treatment due to the COVID-19 pandemic affected patients. All MMS patients undergoing surgery in June 2020 and July 2020 (N=99) were asked to complete our voluntary and anonymous 23-question survey in person during their procedure. We obtained 88 responses (response rate, 89%). Twenty percent of surveyed patients (n=18) reported that their MMS had been postponed; 78% of those whose MMS was postponed (n=14) indicated some level of anxiety during the waiting period. It was unclear which patients had their treatment postponed based on national guidelines and which ones elected to postpone surgery.

Tips for Health Care Providers

Patient-provider communication highlighting specific skin cancer risk and the risk vs benefit of postponing treatment might reduce anxiety and stress during the waiting period.¹⁴ A study found that COVID-19 posed a bigger threat than most noninvasive skin cancers; therefore, the authors of that study concluded that treatment for most skin cancers could be safely postponed.¹⁵ Specifically, those authors recommended prioritizing treatment for Merkel cell carcinoma, invasive SCC, and melanoma with positive margins or macroscopic residual disease. They proposed that all other skin cancers, including basal cell carcinoma, SCC in situ, and melanoma with negative margins and no macroscopic residual disease, could be safely delayed for as long as 3 months.¹⁵

For patients with multiple risk factors for COVID-19–related morbidity or mortality, delaying skin cancer treatment likely has less risk than contracting the virus.¹⁵ This information should be communicated with patients. Investigation of specific patient concerns is warranted, and case-by-case evaluation of patients’ risk factors and skin cancer risk should be considered.

Based on the current, though limited, literature, delaying medical treatment can have a negative impact on the patient experience. Furthermore, proper precautions have been shown to limit intraoperative transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during MMS, but research is lacking. Practitioners should utilize shared decision-making and evaluate a given patient’s risk factors and concerns when deciding whether to postpone treatment. We encourage other institutions to evaluate the effects that delaying MMS has had on their patients, as further studies would improve understanding of patients’ experiences during a pandemic and potentially influence future dermatology guidelines.

Guidelines on Skin Cancer Surgeries During the COVID-19 Pandemic

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued recommendations to decrease the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and optimize the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for frontline workers.¹ In the field of dermatologic surgery, the American College of Mohs Surgery, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and the American Academy of Dermatology made recommendations to postpone nonessential and nonurgent procedures.^2-4 The initial guidelines of the American College of Mohs Surgery advised cancellation of all elective surgeries and deferred treatment of most cases of basal cell carcinoma for as long as 3 months; low-risk squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and melanoma in situ treatment was deferred for as long as 2 or 3 months.³ Additional recommendations were made to reserve inpatient visits for suspicious lesions and high-risk cancers, postpone other nonessential and nonurgent appointments, and utilize telemedicine whenever possible.⁵

These recommendations led to great uncertainty and stress for patients and providers. Although numerous important variables, such as patient risk factors, severity of disease, availability of PPE and staff, and patient-to-provider transmission were considered when creating these guidelines, the patient’s experience likely was not a contributing factor.

COVID-19 Transmission During Mohs Surgery

There have been concerns that surgeons performing Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) might be at an increased risk for COVID-19, given their close contact with high-risk sites (ie, nose, mouth) and cautery-generated aerosols; most of the estimated transmission risk associated with MMS has been based on head and neck surgery experience and publications.^6-8 Tee and colleagues⁹ recently published their institution’s MMS COVID-19 preventive measures, which, to their knowledge, have prevented all intraoperative transmission of SARS-CoV-2, even in disease-positive patients. Currently, evidence is lacking to support a high risk for SARS-CoV-2 transmission during MMS when proper PPE and personal hygiene measures as well as strict infection control protocols—presurgical COVID-19 testing in high-risk cases, COVID-19 screening optimization, visitor restrictions, and appropriate disinfection between patients—are in place.

The Impact of Postponing Treatment on Patients

Although studies have focused on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on physicians practicing MMS,¹⁰ little is known about the effects of delays in skin cancer treatment on patients. A survey conducted in the United Kingdom investigating the patient’s perspective found that patients expressed worry and concern about the possibility that their MMS would be postponed and greatly appreciated continuation of treatment during the pandemic.¹¹

Other medical specialties have reported their patient experiences during the pandemic. In a study examining patient perception of postponed surgical treatment of pelvic floor disorders due to COVID-19, nearly half of survey respondents were unhappy with the delay in receiving care. Furthermore, patients who reported being unhappy were more likely to report feelings of isolation and anxiety because their surgery was postponed.¹² In another study involving patients with lung cancer, 9.1% (N=15) of patients postponed their treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic because of pandemic-related anxiety.¹³

With the goal of improving care at our institution, we conducted a brief institutional review board–approved survey to evaluate how postponing MMS treatment due to the COVID-19 pandemic affected patients. All MMS patients undergoing surgery in June 2020 and July 2020 (N=99) were asked to complete our voluntary and anonymous 23-question survey in person during their procedure. We obtained 88 responses (response rate, 89%). Twenty percent of surveyed patients (n=18) reported that their MMS had been postponed; 78% of those whose MMS was postponed (n=14) indicated some level of anxiety during the waiting period. It was unclear which patients had their treatment postponed based on national guidelines and which ones elected to postpone surgery.

Tips for Health Care Providers

Patient-provider communication highlighting specific skin cancer risk and the risk vs benefit of postponing treatment might reduce anxiety and stress during the waiting period.¹⁴ A study found that COVID-19 posed a bigger threat than most noninvasive skin cancers; therefore, the authors of that study concluded that treatment for most skin cancers could be safely postponed.¹⁵ Specifically, those authors recommended prioritizing treatment for Merkel cell carcinoma, invasive SCC, and melanoma with positive margins or macroscopic residual disease. They proposed that all other skin cancers, including basal cell carcinoma, SCC in situ, and melanoma with negative margins and no macroscopic residual disease, could be safely delayed for as long as 3 months.¹⁵

For patients with multiple risk factors for COVID-19–related morbidity or mortality, delaying skin cancer treatment likely has less risk than contracting the virus.¹⁵ This information should be communicated with patients. Investigation of specific patient concerns is warranted, and case-by-case evaluation of patients’ risk factors and skin cancer risk should be considered.

Based on the current, though limited, literature, delaying medical treatment can have a negative impact on the patient experience. Furthermore, proper precautions have been shown to limit intraoperative transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during MMS, but research is lacking. Practitioners should utilize shared decision-making and evaluate a given patient’s risk factors and concerns when deciding whether to postpone treatment. We encourage other institutions to evaluate the effects that delaying MMS has had on their patients, as further studies would improve understanding of patients’ experiences during a pandemic and potentially influence future dermatology guidelines.

Guidelines on Skin Cancer Surgeries During the COVID-19 Pandemic

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued recommendations to decrease the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and optimize the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for frontline workers.¹ In the field of dermatologic surgery, the American College of Mohs Surgery, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and the American Academy of Dermatology made recommendations to postpone nonessential and nonurgent procedures.^2-4 The initial guidelines of the American College of Mohs Surgery advised cancellation of all elective surgeries and deferred treatment of most cases of basal cell carcinoma for as long as 3 months; low-risk squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and melanoma in situ treatment was deferred for as long as 2 or 3 months.³ Additional recommendations were made to reserve inpatient visits for suspicious lesions and high-risk cancers, postpone other nonessential and nonurgent appointments, and utilize telemedicine whenever possible.⁵

These recommendations led to great uncertainty and stress for patients and providers. Although numerous important variables, such as patient risk factors, severity of disease, availability of PPE and staff, and patient-to-provider transmission were considered when creating these guidelines, the patient’s experience likely was not a contributing factor.

COVID-19 Transmission During Mohs Surgery

There have been concerns that surgeons performing Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) might be at an increased risk for COVID-19, given their close contact with high-risk sites (ie, nose, mouth) and cautery-generated aerosols; most of the estimated transmission risk associated with MMS has been based on head and neck surgery experience and publications.^6-8 Tee and colleagues⁹ recently published their institution’s MMS COVID-19 preventive measures, which, to their knowledge, have prevented all intraoperative transmission of SARS-CoV-2, even in disease-positive patients. Currently, evidence is lacking to support a high risk for SARS-CoV-2 transmission during MMS when proper PPE and personal hygiene measures as well as strict infection control protocols—presurgical COVID-19 testing in high-risk cases, COVID-19 screening optimization, visitor restrictions, and appropriate disinfection between patients—are in place.

The Impact of Postponing Treatment on Patients

Although studies have focused on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on physicians practicing MMS,¹⁰ little is known about the effects of delays in skin cancer treatment on patients. A survey conducted in the United Kingdom investigating the patient’s perspective found that patients expressed worry and concern about the possibility that their MMS would be postponed and greatly appreciated continuation of treatment during the pandemic.¹¹

Other medical specialties have reported their patient experiences during the pandemic. In a study examining patient perception of postponed surgical treatment of pelvic floor disorders due to COVID-19, nearly half of survey respondents were unhappy with the delay in receiving care. Furthermore, patients who reported being unhappy were more likely to report feelings of isolation and anxiety because their surgery was postponed.¹² In another study involving patients with lung cancer, 9.1% (N=15) of patients postponed their treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic because of pandemic-related anxiety.¹³

With the goal of improving care at our institution, we conducted a brief institutional review board–approved survey to evaluate how postponing MMS treatment due to the COVID-19 pandemic affected patients. All MMS patients undergoing surgery in June 2020 and July 2020 (N=99) were asked to complete our voluntary and anonymous 23-question survey in person during their procedure. We obtained 88 responses (response rate, 89%). Twenty percent of surveyed patients (n=18) reported that their MMS had been postponed; 78% of those whose MMS was postponed (n=14) indicated some level of anxiety during the waiting period. It was unclear which patients had their treatment postponed based on national guidelines and which ones elected to postpone surgery.

Tips for Health Care Providers

Patient-provider communication highlighting specific skin cancer risk and the risk vs benefit of postponing treatment might reduce anxiety and stress during the waiting period.¹⁴ A study found that COVID-19 posed a bigger threat than most noninvasive skin cancers; therefore, the authors of that study concluded that treatment for most skin cancers could be safely postponed.¹⁵ Specifically, those authors recommended prioritizing treatment for Merkel cell carcinoma, invasive SCC, and melanoma with positive margins or macroscopic residual disease. They proposed that all other skin cancers, including basal cell carcinoma, SCC in situ, and melanoma with negative margins and no macroscopic residual disease, could be safely delayed for as long as 3 months.¹⁵

For patients with multiple risk factors for COVID-19–related morbidity or mortality, delaying skin cancer treatment likely has less risk than contracting the virus.¹⁵ This information should be communicated with patients. Investigation of specific patient concerns is warranted, and case-by-case evaluation of patients’ risk factors and skin cancer risk should be considered.

Based on the current, though limited, literature, delaying medical treatment can have a negative impact on the patient experience. Furthermore, proper precautions have been shown to limit intraoperative transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during MMS, but research is lacking. Practitioners should utilize shared decision-making and evaluate a given patient’s risk factors and concerns when deciding whether to postpone treatment. We encourage other institutions to evaluate the effects that delaying MMS has had on their patients, as further studies would improve understanding of patients’ experiences during a pandemic and potentially influence future dermatology guidelines.