Mixed Topics

Dear Friends,

Since moving to Missouri a little over 2 years ago, I got involved with the Missouri GI Society. They held their inaugural in-person meeting in September, and it was exciting to see and meet gastroenterologists and associates from all over the state. The meeting sparked conversations about challenges in practices and ways to improve patient care. It was incredibly inspiring to see the beginnings and bright future of a society motivated to mobilize change in the community. On a national scale, AGA Advocacy Day 2025 this fall was another example of how to make an impact for the field. I am grateful that local and national GI communities can be a platform for our voices.

In this issue’s “In Focus,” Dr. Colleen R. Kelly discusses the approach for weight management for the gastroenterologist, including how to discuss lifestyle modifications, anti-obesity medications, endoscopic therapies, and bariatric surgeries. In the “Short Clinical Review,” Dr. Ekta Gupta, Dr. Carol Burke, and Dr. Carole Macaron review available non-invasive blood and stool tests for colorectal cancer screening, including guidelines recommendations and evidence supporting each modality.

In the “Early Career” section, Dr. Mayada Ismail shares her personal journey in making the difficult decision of leaving her first job as an early career gastroenterologist, outlining the challenges and lessons learned along the way.

Dr. Alicia Muratore, Dr. Emily V. Wechsler, and Dr. Eric D. Shah provide a practical guide to tech and device development in the “Finance/Legal” section of this issue, outlining everything from intellectual property ownership to building the right team, and selecting the right incubator.

If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]) or Danielle Kiefer ([email protected]), Communications/Managing Editor of TNG.

 

Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer was only first introduced in the mid-1990s with Medicare coverage for high-risk individuals starting in 1998, followed by coverage for average-risk patients in 2001.

Yours truly, 

Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH

Editor-in-Chief

Assistant Professor of Medicine

Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology

Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis

Dear Friends,

Since moving to Missouri a little over 2 years ago, I got involved with the Missouri GI Society. They held their inaugural in-person meeting in September, and it was exciting to see and meet gastroenterologists and associates from all over the state. The meeting sparked conversations about challenges in practices and ways to improve patient care. It was incredibly inspiring to see the beginnings and bright future of a society motivated to mobilize change in the community. On a national scale, AGA Advocacy Day 2025 this fall was another example of how to make an impact for the field. I am grateful that local and national GI communities can be a platform for our voices.

In this issue’s “In Focus,” Dr. Colleen R. Kelly discusses the approach for weight management for the gastroenterologist, including how to discuss lifestyle modifications, anti-obesity medications, endoscopic therapies, and bariatric surgeries. In the “Short Clinical Review,” Dr. Ekta Gupta, Dr. Carol Burke, and Dr. Carole Macaron review available non-invasive blood and stool tests for colorectal cancer screening, including guidelines recommendations and evidence supporting each modality.

In the “Early Career” section, Dr. Mayada Ismail shares her personal journey in making the difficult decision of leaving her first job as an early career gastroenterologist, outlining the challenges and lessons learned along the way.

Dr. Alicia Muratore, Dr. Emily V. Wechsler, and Dr. Eric D. Shah provide a practical guide to tech and device development in the “Finance/Legal” section of this issue, outlining everything from intellectual property ownership to building the right team, and selecting the right incubator.

If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]) or Danielle Kiefer ([email protected]), Communications/Managing Editor of TNG.

 

Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer was only first introduced in the mid-1990s with Medicare coverage for high-risk individuals starting in 1998, followed by coverage for average-risk patients in 2001.

Yours truly, 

Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH

Editor-in-Chief

Assistant Professor of Medicine

Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology

Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis

Dear Friends,

Since moving to Missouri a little over 2 years ago, I got involved with the Missouri GI Society. They held their inaugural in-person meeting in September, and it was exciting to see and meet gastroenterologists and associates from all over the state. The meeting sparked conversations about challenges in practices and ways to improve patient care. It was incredibly inspiring to see the beginnings and bright future of a society motivated to mobilize change in the community. On a national scale, AGA Advocacy Day 2025 this fall was another example of how to make an impact for the field. I am grateful that local and national GI communities can be a platform for our voices.

In this issue’s “In Focus,” Dr. Colleen R. Kelly discusses the approach for weight management for the gastroenterologist, including how to discuss lifestyle modifications, anti-obesity medications, endoscopic therapies, and bariatric surgeries. In the “Short Clinical Review,” Dr. Ekta Gupta, Dr. Carol Burke, and Dr. Carole Macaron review available non-invasive blood and stool tests for colorectal cancer screening, including guidelines recommendations and evidence supporting each modality.

In the “Early Career” section, Dr. Mayada Ismail shares her personal journey in making the difficult decision of leaving her first job as an early career gastroenterologist, outlining the challenges and lessons learned along the way.

Dr. Alicia Muratore, Dr. Emily V. Wechsler, and Dr. Eric D. Shah provide a practical guide to tech and device development in the “Finance/Legal” section of this issue, outlining everything from intellectual property ownership to building the right team, and selecting the right incubator.

If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]) or Danielle Kiefer ([email protected]), Communications/Managing Editor of TNG.

 

Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer was only first introduced in the mid-1990s with Medicare coverage for high-risk individuals starting in 1998, followed by coverage for average-risk patients in 2001.

Yours truly, 

Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH

Editor-in-Chief

Assistant Professor of Medicine

Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology

Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis

You are in the middle of a busy clinic day and think, “there has to be a better way to do this.” Suddenly, a better way to do something becomes obvious. Maybe it’s a tool that simplifies documentation, a device that improves patient comfort, or an app that bridges a clinical gap. Many physicians, especially early career gastroenterologists, have ideas like this, but few know what to do next.

This article is for the curious innovator at the beginning of their clinical career. It offers practical, real-world guidance on developing a clinical product: whether that be hardware, software, or a hybrid. It outlines what questions to ask, who to consult, and how to protect your work, using personal insights and business principles learned through lived experience.

1. Understand Intellectual Property (IP): Know Its Value and Ownership

What is IP?

Intellectual property refers to your original creations: inventions, designs, software, and more. This is what you want to protect legally through patents, trademarks, or copyrights.

Who owns your idea?

This is the first and most important question to ask. If you are employed (especially by a hospital or academic center), your contract may already give your employer rights to any inventions you create, even those developed in your personal time.

What to ask:

• Does my employment contract include an “assignment of inventions” clause?
• Does the institution claim rights to anything developed with institutional resources?
• Are there moonlighting or external activity policies that affect this?

If you are developing an idea on your personal time, with your own resources, and outside your scope of clinical duties, it might still be considered “theirs” under some contracts. Early legal consultation is critical. A specialized IP attorney can help you understand what you own and how to protect it. This should be done early, ideally before you start building anything. 
 

2. Lawyers Aren’t Optional: They’re Essential Early Partners

You do not need a full legal team, but you do need a lawyer early. An early consultation with an IP attorney can clarify your rights, guide your filing process (e.g. provisional patents), and help you avoid costly missteps.

Do this before sharing your idea publicly, including in academic presentations, pitch competitions, or even on social media. Public disclosure can start a clock ticking for application to protect your IP.
 

3. Build a Founding Team with Intent

Think of your startup team like a long-term relationship: you’re committing to build something together through uncertainty, tension, and change.

Strong early-stage teams often include:

• The Visionary – understands the clinical need and vision
• The Builder – engineer, developer, or designer
• The Doer – project manager or operations lead

Before forming a company, clearly define:

• Ownership (equity percentages)
• Roles and responsibilities
• Time commitments
• What happens if someone exits

Have these discussions early and document your agreements. Avoid informal “handshake” deals that can lead to serious disputes later.
 

4. You Don’t Need to Know Everything on Day One

You do not need to know how to write code, build a prototype, or get FDA clearance on day one. Successful innovators are humble learners. Use a Minimum Viable Product (MVP), a simple, functional version of your idea, to test assumptions and gather feedback. Iterate based on what you learn. Do not chase perfection; pursue progress. Consider using online accelerators like Y Combinator’s startup school or AGA’s Center for GI Innovation and Technology. 
 

5. Incubators: Use them Strategically

Incubators can offer mentorship, seed funding, legal support, and technical resources, but they vary widely in value (see Table 1). Many may want equity, and not all offer when you truly need. 


Ask Yourself:

• Do I need technical help, business mentorship, or just accountability?
• What does this incubator offer in terms of IP protection, exposure, and connections?
• Do I understand the equity trade-off?
• What services and funding do they provide?
• Do they take equity? How much and when?
• What’s their track record with similar ventures?
• Are their incentives aligned with your vision?
•  

6. Academic Institutions: Partners or Pitfalls?

Universities can provide credibility, resources, and early funding through their tech transfer office (TTO).


Key Questions to Ask:

• Will my IP be managed by the TTO?
• How much say do I have in licensing decisions?
• Are there royalty-sharing agreements in place?
• Can I form a startup while employed here?

You may need to negotiate if you want to commercialize your idea independently. 
 

7. Do it for Purpose, Not Payday

Most founders end up owning only a small percentage of their company by the time a product reaches the market. Do not expect to get rich. Do it because it solves a problem you care about. If it happens to come with a nice paycheck, then that is an added bonus.

Your clinical training and insight give you a unique edge. You already know what’s broken. Use that as your compass. 
 

Conclusion

Innovation isn’t about brilliance, it’s about curiosity, structure, and tenacity (see Table 2). Start small. Protect your work. Choose the right partners. Most importantly, stay anchored in your mission to make GI care better.

Dr. Muratore is based at UNC Rex Digestive Health, Raleigh, North Carolina. She has no conflicts related to this article. Dr. Wechsler is based at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. She holds a patent assigned to Trustees of Dartmouth College. Dr. Shah is based at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. He consults for Ardelyx, Laborie, Neuraxis, Salix, Sanofi, and Takeda and holds a patent with the Regents of the University of Michigan.

You are in the middle of a busy clinic day and think, “there has to be a better way to do this.” Suddenly, a better way to do something becomes obvious. Maybe it’s a tool that simplifies documentation, a device that improves patient comfort, or an app that bridges a clinical gap. Many physicians, especially early career gastroenterologists, have ideas like this, but few know what to do next.

This article is for the curious innovator at the beginning of their clinical career. It offers practical, real-world guidance on developing a clinical product: whether that be hardware, software, or a hybrid. It outlines what questions to ask, who to consult, and how to protect your work, using personal insights and business principles learned through lived experience.

1. Understand Intellectual Property (IP): Know Its Value and Ownership

What is IP?

Intellectual property refers to your original creations: inventions, designs, software, and more. This is what you want to protect legally through patents, trademarks, or copyrights.

Who owns your idea?

This is the first and most important question to ask. If you are employed (especially by a hospital or academic center), your contract may already give your employer rights to any inventions you create, even those developed in your personal time.

What to ask:

• Does my employment contract include an “assignment of inventions” clause?
• Does the institution claim rights to anything developed with institutional resources?
• Are there moonlighting or external activity policies that affect this?

If you are developing an idea on your personal time, with your own resources, and outside your scope of clinical duties, it might still be considered “theirs” under some contracts. Early legal consultation is critical. A specialized IP attorney can help you understand what you own and how to protect it. This should be done early, ideally before you start building anything. 
 

2. Lawyers Aren’t Optional: They’re Essential Early Partners

You do not need a full legal team, but you do need a lawyer early. An early consultation with an IP attorney can clarify your rights, guide your filing process (e.g. provisional patents), and help you avoid costly missteps.

Do this before sharing your idea publicly, including in academic presentations, pitch competitions, or even on social media. Public disclosure can start a clock ticking for application to protect your IP.
 

3. Build a Founding Team with Intent

Think of your startup team like a long-term relationship: you’re committing to build something together through uncertainty, tension, and change.

Strong early-stage teams often include:

• The Visionary – understands the clinical need and vision
• The Builder – engineer, developer, or designer
• The Doer – project manager or operations lead

Before forming a company, clearly define:

• Ownership (equity percentages)
• Roles and responsibilities
• Time commitments
• What happens if someone exits

Have these discussions early and document your agreements. Avoid informal “handshake” deals that can lead to serious disputes later.
 

4. You Don’t Need to Know Everything on Day One

You do not need to know how to write code, build a prototype, or get FDA clearance on day one. Successful innovators are humble learners. Use a Minimum Viable Product (MVP), a simple, functional version of your idea, to test assumptions and gather feedback. Iterate based on what you learn. Do not chase perfection; pursue progress. Consider using online accelerators like Y Combinator’s startup school or AGA’s Center for GI Innovation and Technology. 
 

5. Incubators: Use them Strategically

Incubators can offer mentorship, seed funding, legal support, and technical resources, but they vary widely in value (see Table 1). Many may want equity, and not all offer when you truly need. 


Ask Yourself:

• Do I need technical help, business mentorship, or just accountability?
• What does this incubator offer in terms of IP protection, exposure, and connections?
• Do I understand the equity trade-off?
• What services and funding do they provide?
• Do they take equity? How much and when?
• What’s their track record with similar ventures?
• Are their incentives aligned with your vision?
•  

6. Academic Institutions: Partners or Pitfalls?

Universities can provide credibility, resources, and early funding through their tech transfer office (TTO).


Key Questions to Ask:

• Will my IP be managed by the TTO?
• How much say do I have in licensing decisions?
• Are there royalty-sharing agreements in place?
• Can I form a startup while employed here?

You may need to negotiate if you want to commercialize your idea independently. 
 

7. Do it for Purpose, Not Payday

Most founders end up owning only a small percentage of their company by the time a product reaches the market. Do not expect to get rich. Do it because it solves a problem you care about. If it happens to come with a nice paycheck, then that is an added bonus.

Your clinical training and insight give you a unique edge. You already know what’s broken. Use that as your compass. 
 

Conclusion

Innovation isn’t about brilliance, it’s about curiosity, structure, and tenacity (see Table 2). Start small. Protect your work. Choose the right partners. Most importantly, stay anchored in your mission to make GI care better.

Dr. Muratore is based at UNC Rex Digestive Health, Raleigh, North Carolina. She has no conflicts related to this article. Dr. Wechsler is based at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. She holds a patent assigned to Trustees of Dartmouth College. Dr. Shah is based at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. He consults for Ardelyx, Laborie, Neuraxis, Salix, Sanofi, and Takeda and holds a patent with the Regents of the University of Michigan.

You are in the middle of a busy clinic day and think, “there has to be a better way to do this.” Suddenly, a better way to do something becomes obvious. Maybe it’s a tool that simplifies documentation, a device that improves patient comfort, or an app that bridges a clinical gap. Many physicians, especially early career gastroenterologists, have ideas like this, but few know what to do next.

This article is for the curious innovator at the beginning of their clinical career. It offers practical, real-world guidance on developing a clinical product: whether that be hardware, software, or a hybrid. It outlines what questions to ask, who to consult, and how to protect your work, using personal insights and business principles learned through lived experience.

1. Understand Intellectual Property (IP): Know Its Value and Ownership

What is IP?

Intellectual property refers to your original creations: inventions, designs, software, and more. This is what you want to protect legally through patents, trademarks, or copyrights.

Who owns your idea?

This is the first and most important question to ask. If you are employed (especially by a hospital or academic center), your contract may already give your employer rights to any inventions you create, even those developed in your personal time.

What to ask:

• Does my employment contract include an “assignment of inventions” clause?
• Does the institution claim rights to anything developed with institutional resources?
• Are there moonlighting or external activity policies that affect this?

If you are developing an idea on your personal time, with your own resources, and outside your scope of clinical duties, it might still be considered “theirs” under some contracts. Early legal consultation is critical. A specialized IP attorney can help you understand what you own and how to protect it. This should be done early, ideally before you start building anything. 
 

2. Lawyers Aren’t Optional: They’re Essential Early Partners

You do not need a full legal team, but you do need a lawyer early. An early consultation with an IP attorney can clarify your rights, guide your filing process (e.g. provisional patents), and help you avoid costly missteps.

Do this before sharing your idea publicly, including in academic presentations, pitch competitions, or even on social media. Public disclosure can start a clock ticking for application to protect your IP.
 

3. Build a Founding Team with Intent

Think of your startup team like a long-term relationship: you’re committing to build something together through uncertainty, tension, and change.

Strong early-stage teams often include:

• The Visionary – understands the clinical need and vision
• The Builder – engineer, developer, or designer
• The Doer – project manager or operations lead

Before forming a company, clearly define:

• Ownership (equity percentages)
• Roles and responsibilities
• Time commitments
• What happens if someone exits

Have these discussions early and document your agreements. Avoid informal “handshake” deals that can lead to serious disputes later.
 

4. You Don’t Need to Know Everything on Day One

You do not need to know how to write code, build a prototype, or get FDA clearance on day one. Successful innovators are humble learners. Use a Minimum Viable Product (MVP), a simple, functional version of your idea, to test assumptions and gather feedback. Iterate based on what you learn. Do not chase perfection; pursue progress. Consider using online accelerators like Y Combinator’s startup school or AGA’s Center for GI Innovation and Technology. 
 

5. Incubators: Use them Strategically

Incubators can offer mentorship, seed funding, legal support, and technical resources, but they vary widely in value (see Table 1). Many may want equity, and not all offer when you truly need. 


Ask Yourself:

• Do I need technical help, business mentorship, or just accountability?
• What does this incubator offer in terms of IP protection, exposure, and connections?
• Do I understand the equity trade-off?
• What services and funding do they provide?
• Do they take equity? How much and when?
• What’s their track record with similar ventures?
• Are their incentives aligned with your vision?
•  

6. Academic Institutions: Partners or Pitfalls?

Universities can provide credibility, resources, and early funding through their tech transfer office (TTO).


Key Questions to Ask:

• Will my IP be managed by the TTO?
• How much say do I have in licensing decisions?
• Are there royalty-sharing agreements in place?
• Can I form a startup while employed here?

You may need to negotiate if you want to commercialize your idea independently. 
 

7. Do it for Purpose, Not Payday

Most founders end up owning only a small percentage of their company by the time a product reaches the market. Do not expect to get rich. Do it because it solves a problem you care about. If it happens to come with a nice paycheck, then that is an added bonus.

Your clinical training and insight give you a unique edge. You already know what’s broken. Use that as your compass. 
 

Conclusion

Innovation isn’t about brilliance, it’s about curiosity, structure, and tenacity (see Table 2). Start small. Protect your work. Choose the right partners. Most importantly, stay anchored in your mission to make GI care better.

Dr. Muratore is based at UNC Rex Digestive Health, Raleigh, North Carolina. She has no conflicts related to this article. Dr. Wechsler is based at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. She holds a patent assigned to Trustees of Dartmouth College. Dr. Shah is based at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. He consults for Ardelyx, Laborie, Neuraxis, Salix, Sanofi, and Takeda and holds a patent with the Regents of the University of Michigan.

Introduction

For many of us in gastroenterology, landing that first attending job feels like the ultimate victory lap — the reward for all those years of training. We sign the contract, relocate, and imagine this will be our “forever job.” Reality often plays out differently.

In fact, 43% of physicians change jobs within five years, while 83% changed employers at least once in their careers.¹ Even within our field — which is always in demand — turnover is high; 1 in 3 gastroenterologists are planning to leave their current role within two years.² Why does this happen? More importantly, how do we navigate this transition with clarity and confidence as an early-career GI?
 

My Story: When I Dared to Change My “Forever Job”

When I signed my first attending contract, I didn’t negotiate a single thing. My priorities were simple: family in Toronto and visa requirements. After a decade of medical school, residency, and fellowship, everything else felt secondary. I was happy to be back home.

The job itself was good — reasonable hours, flexible colleagues, and ample opportunity to enhance my procedural skills. As I started carving out my niche in endobariatrics, the support I needed to grow further was not there. I kept telling myself that this job fulfilled my values and I needed to be patient: “this is my forever job. I am close to my family and that’s what matters.”

Then, during a suturing course at the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, I had a casual chat with the course director (now my boss). It took me by surprise, but as the conversation continued, he offered me a job. It was tempting: the chance to build my own endobariatrics program with real institutional backing. The catch? It was in a city I had never been to, with no family or friends around. I politely said “no, thank you, I can’t.” He smiled, gave me his number, and said, “think about it.”

For the first time, I allowed myself to ask, “could I really leave my forever job?”
 

The Power of a Circle and a Spreadsheet

I leaned on my circle — a close group of fellowship friends who each took a turn being someone’s lifeline. We have monthly Zoom calls to talk about jobs, family, and career aspirations. When I shared my dilemma, I realized I wasn’t alone; one friend was also unhappy with her first job. Suddenly, we were asking one another, “can we really leave?”

I hired a career consultant familiar with physician visa issues — hands down, the best money I ever invested. The job search felt like dating: each interview was a first date; some needed a second or third date before I knew if it could be a match.

After every interview, I’d jump on Zoom with my circle. We’d screen-share my giant Excel spreadsheet — our decision matrix — with columns for everything I cared about:

• Institute
• Administrative Time
• Endobariatric support
• Director Title
• Salary
• On-call
• Vacation
• Proximity to airport
• Cost of living
• RVU percentage
• Endoscopy center buy-in
• Contract duration
• Support staff
• CME

We scored each job, line by line, and not a single job checked all the boxes. As I sat there in a state of decision paralysis, it became clear that this was not a simple decision.
 

The GI Community: A Small, Supportive World

The GI community is incredibly close-knit and kind-hearted. At every conference, I made a point to chat with as many colleagues as I could, to hear their perspectives on jobs and how they made tough career moves. Those conversations were real — no Google search or Excel sheet could offer the perspective and insight I gained by simply asking and leaning on the GI community.

Meanwhile, the person who had first offered me that job kept checking in, catching up at conferences, and bonding over our love for food and baking. With him, I never felt like I was being ‘interviewed’ — I felt valued. It did not feel like he was trying to fill a position with just anyone to improve the call pool. He genuinely wanted to understand what my goals were and how I envisioned my future. Through those conversations, he reminded me of my original passions, which were sidelined when so immersed in the daily routine. 

I’ve learned that feeling valued doesn’t come from grand gestures in recruitment. It’s in the quiet signs of respect, trust, and being seen. He wasn’t looking for just anyone; he was looking for someone whose goals aligned with his group’s and someone in whom he wanted to invest. While others might chase the highest salary, the most flexible schedule, or the strongest ancillary support, I realized I valued something I did not realize that I was lacking until then: mentorship.
 

What I Learned: There is No Such Thing As “The Perfect Job”

After a full year of spreadsheets, Zoom calls, conference chats, and overthinking, I came to a big realization: there’s no perfect job — there’s no such thing as an ideal “forever job.” The only constant for humans is change. Our circumstances change, our priorities shift, our interests shuffle, and our finances evolve. The best job is simply the one that fits the stage of life you’re in at that given moment. For me, mentorship and growth became my top priorities, even if it meant moving away from family.

What Physicians Value Most in a Second Job

After their first job, early-career gastroenterologists often reevaluate what really matters. Recent surveys highlight four key priorities:

• Work-life balance:

In a 2022 CompHealth Group healthcare survey, 85% of physicians ranked work-life balance as their top job priority.³

• Mentorship and growth:

Nearly 1 in 3 physicians cited lack of mentorship or career advancement as their reason for leaving a first job, per the 2023 MGMA/Jackson Physician Search report.⁴

• Compensation:

While not always the main reason for leaving, 77% of physicians now list compensation as a top priority — a big jump from prior years.³

• Practice support:

Poor infrastructure, administrative overload, or understaffed teams are common dealbreakers. In the second job, physicians look for well-run practices with solid support staff and reduced burnout risk.⁵

Conclusion

Your first job doesn’t have to be your last. What matters is knowing when it’s time to evolve. Welcome the uncertainty, talk to your circle, lean on your community, and use a spreadsheet if you need to — but don’t forget to trust your gut. There’s no forever job or the perfect path, only the next move that feels most true to who you are in that moment.

Dr. Ismail (@mayyismail) is Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine (Gastroenterology) at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She declares no conflicts of interest.

References

1. CHG Healthcare. Survey: 62% of physicians made a career change in the last two years. CHG Healthcare blog. June 10, 2024. Accessed August 5, 2025.


2. Berg S. Physicians in these 10 specialties are less likely to quit. AMA News. Published June 24, 2025. Accessed July 2025. 


3. Saley C. Survey: Work/life balance is #1 priority in physicians’ job search. CHG Healthcare Insights. March 10, 2022. Accessed August 2025. 


4. Medical Group Management Association; Jackson Physician Search. Early‑Career Physician Recruiting & Retention Playbook. October 23, 2023. Accessed August 2025. 


5. Von Rosenvinge EC, et al. A crisis in scope: Recruitment and retention challenges reported by VA gastroenterology section chiefs. Fed Pract. 2024 Aug. doi:10.12788/fp.0504.

Introduction

For many of us in gastroenterology, landing that first attending job feels like the ultimate victory lap — the reward for all those years of training. We sign the contract, relocate, and imagine this will be our “forever job.” Reality often plays out differently.

In fact, 43% of physicians change jobs within five years, while 83% changed employers at least once in their careers.¹ Even within our field — which is always in demand — turnover is high; 1 in 3 gastroenterologists are planning to leave their current role within two years.² Why does this happen? More importantly, how do we navigate this transition with clarity and confidence as an early-career GI?
 

My Story: When I Dared to Change My “Forever Job”

When I signed my first attending contract, I didn’t negotiate a single thing. My priorities were simple: family in Toronto and visa requirements. After a decade of medical school, residency, and fellowship, everything else felt secondary. I was happy to be back home.

The job itself was good — reasonable hours, flexible colleagues, and ample opportunity to enhance my procedural skills. As I started carving out my niche in endobariatrics, the support I needed to grow further was not there. I kept telling myself that this job fulfilled my values and I needed to be patient: “this is my forever job. I am close to my family and that’s what matters.”

Then, during a suturing course at the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, I had a casual chat with the course director (now my boss). It took me by surprise, but as the conversation continued, he offered me a job. It was tempting: the chance to build my own endobariatrics program with real institutional backing. The catch? It was in a city I had never been to, with no family or friends around. I politely said “no, thank you, I can’t.” He smiled, gave me his number, and said, “think about it.”

For the first time, I allowed myself to ask, “could I really leave my forever job?”
 

The Power of a Circle and a Spreadsheet

I leaned on my circle — a close group of fellowship friends who each took a turn being someone’s lifeline. We have monthly Zoom calls to talk about jobs, family, and career aspirations. When I shared my dilemma, I realized I wasn’t alone; one friend was also unhappy with her first job. Suddenly, we were asking one another, “can we really leave?”

I hired a career consultant familiar with physician visa issues — hands down, the best money I ever invested. The job search felt like dating: each interview was a first date; some needed a second or third date before I knew if it could be a match.

After every interview, I’d jump on Zoom with my circle. We’d screen-share my giant Excel spreadsheet — our decision matrix — with columns for everything I cared about:

• Institute
• Administrative Time
• Endobariatric support
• Director Title
• Salary
• On-call
• Vacation
• Proximity to airport
• Cost of living
• RVU percentage
• Endoscopy center buy-in
• Contract duration
• Support staff
• CME

We scored each job, line by line, and not a single job checked all the boxes. As I sat there in a state of decision paralysis, it became clear that this was not a simple decision.
 

The GI Community: A Small, Supportive World

The GI community is incredibly close-knit and kind-hearted. At every conference, I made a point to chat with as many colleagues as I could, to hear their perspectives on jobs and how they made tough career moves. Those conversations were real — no Google search or Excel sheet could offer the perspective and insight I gained by simply asking and leaning on the GI community.

Meanwhile, the person who had first offered me that job kept checking in, catching up at conferences, and bonding over our love for food and baking. With him, I never felt like I was being ‘interviewed’ — I felt valued. It did not feel like he was trying to fill a position with just anyone to improve the call pool. He genuinely wanted to understand what my goals were and how I envisioned my future. Through those conversations, he reminded me of my original passions, which were sidelined when so immersed in the daily routine. 

I’ve learned that feeling valued doesn’t come from grand gestures in recruitment. It’s in the quiet signs of respect, trust, and being seen. He wasn’t looking for just anyone; he was looking for someone whose goals aligned with his group’s and someone in whom he wanted to invest. While others might chase the highest salary, the most flexible schedule, or the strongest ancillary support, I realized I valued something I did not realize that I was lacking until then: mentorship.
 

What I Learned: There is No Such Thing As “The Perfect Job”

After a full year of spreadsheets, Zoom calls, conference chats, and overthinking, I came to a big realization: there’s no perfect job — there’s no such thing as an ideal “forever job.” The only constant for humans is change. Our circumstances change, our priorities shift, our interests shuffle, and our finances evolve. The best job is simply the one that fits the stage of life you’re in at that given moment. For me, mentorship and growth became my top priorities, even if it meant moving away from family.

What Physicians Value Most in a Second Job

After their first job, early-career gastroenterologists often reevaluate what really matters. Recent surveys highlight four key priorities:

• Work-life balance:

In a 2022 CompHealth Group healthcare survey, 85% of physicians ranked work-life balance as their top job priority.³

• Mentorship and growth:

Nearly 1 in 3 physicians cited lack of mentorship or career advancement as their reason for leaving a first job, per the 2023 MGMA/Jackson Physician Search report.⁴

• Compensation:

While not always the main reason for leaving, 77% of physicians now list compensation as a top priority — a big jump from prior years.³

• Practice support:

Poor infrastructure, administrative overload, or understaffed teams are common dealbreakers. In the second job, physicians look for well-run practices with solid support staff and reduced burnout risk.⁵

Conclusion

Your first job doesn’t have to be your last. What matters is knowing when it’s time to evolve. Welcome the uncertainty, talk to your circle, lean on your community, and use a spreadsheet if you need to — but don’t forget to trust your gut. There’s no forever job or the perfect path, only the next move that feels most true to who you are in that moment.

Dr. Ismail (@mayyismail) is Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine (Gastroenterology) at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She declares no conflicts of interest.

References

1. CHG Healthcare. Survey: 62% of physicians made a career change in the last two years. CHG Healthcare blog. June 10, 2024. Accessed August 5, 2025.


2. Berg S. Physicians in these 10 specialties are less likely to quit. AMA News. Published June 24, 2025. Accessed July 2025. 


3. Saley C. Survey: Work/life balance is #1 priority in physicians’ job search. CHG Healthcare Insights. March 10, 2022. Accessed August 2025. 


4. Medical Group Management Association; Jackson Physician Search. Early‑Career Physician Recruiting & Retention Playbook. October 23, 2023. Accessed August 2025. 


5. Von Rosenvinge EC, et al. A crisis in scope: Recruitment and retention challenges reported by VA gastroenterology section chiefs. Fed Pract. 2024 Aug. doi:10.12788/fp.0504.

Introduction

For many of us in gastroenterology, landing that first attending job feels like the ultimate victory lap — the reward for all those years of training. We sign the contract, relocate, and imagine this will be our “forever job.” Reality often plays out differently.

In fact, 43% of physicians change jobs within five years, while 83% changed employers at least once in their careers.¹ Even within our field — which is always in demand — turnover is high; 1 in 3 gastroenterologists are planning to leave their current role within two years.² Why does this happen? More importantly, how do we navigate this transition with clarity and confidence as an early-career GI?
 

My Story: When I Dared to Change My “Forever Job”

When I signed my first attending contract, I didn’t negotiate a single thing. My priorities were simple: family in Toronto and visa requirements. After a decade of medical school, residency, and fellowship, everything else felt secondary. I was happy to be back home.

The job itself was good — reasonable hours, flexible colleagues, and ample opportunity to enhance my procedural skills. As I started carving out my niche in endobariatrics, the support I needed to grow further was not there. I kept telling myself that this job fulfilled my values and I needed to be patient: “this is my forever job. I am close to my family and that’s what matters.”

Then, during a suturing course at the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, I had a casual chat with the course director (now my boss). It took me by surprise, but as the conversation continued, he offered me a job. It was tempting: the chance to build my own endobariatrics program with real institutional backing. The catch? It was in a city I had never been to, with no family or friends around. I politely said “no, thank you, I can’t.” He smiled, gave me his number, and said, “think about it.”

For the first time, I allowed myself to ask, “could I really leave my forever job?”
 

The Power of a Circle and a Spreadsheet

I leaned on my circle — a close group of fellowship friends who each took a turn being someone’s lifeline. We have monthly Zoom calls to talk about jobs, family, and career aspirations. When I shared my dilemma, I realized I wasn’t alone; one friend was also unhappy with her first job. Suddenly, we were asking one another, “can we really leave?”

I hired a career consultant familiar with physician visa issues — hands down, the best money I ever invested. The job search felt like dating: each interview was a first date; some needed a second or third date before I knew if it could be a match.

After every interview, I’d jump on Zoom with my circle. We’d screen-share my giant Excel spreadsheet — our decision matrix — with columns for everything I cared about:

• Institute
• Administrative Time
• Endobariatric support
• Director Title
• Salary
• On-call
• Vacation
• Proximity to airport
• Cost of living
• RVU percentage
• Endoscopy center buy-in
• Contract duration
• Support staff
• CME

We scored each job, line by line, and not a single job checked all the boxes. As I sat there in a state of decision paralysis, it became clear that this was not a simple decision.
 

The GI Community: A Small, Supportive World

The GI community is incredibly close-knit and kind-hearted. At every conference, I made a point to chat with as many colleagues as I could, to hear their perspectives on jobs and how they made tough career moves. Those conversations were real — no Google search or Excel sheet could offer the perspective and insight I gained by simply asking and leaning on the GI community.

Meanwhile, the person who had first offered me that job kept checking in, catching up at conferences, and bonding over our love for food and baking. With him, I never felt like I was being ‘interviewed’ — I felt valued. It did not feel like he was trying to fill a position with just anyone to improve the call pool. He genuinely wanted to understand what my goals were and how I envisioned my future. Through those conversations, he reminded me of my original passions, which were sidelined when so immersed in the daily routine. 

I’ve learned that feeling valued doesn’t come from grand gestures in recruitment. It’s in the quiet signs of respect, trust, and being seen. He wasn’t looking for just anyone; he was looking for someone whose goals aligned with his group’s and someone in whom he wanted to invest. While others might chase the highest salary, the most flexible schedule, or the strongest ancillary support, I realized I valued something I did not realize that I was lacking until then: mentorship.
 

What I Learned: There is No Such Thing As “The Perfect Job”

After a full year of spreadsheets, Zoom calls, conference chats, and overthinking, I came to a big realization: there’s no perfect job — there’s no such thing as an ideal “forever job.” The only constant for humans is change. Our circumstances change, our priorities shift, our interests shuffle, and our finances evolve. The best job is simply the one that fits the stage of life you’re in at that given moment. For me, mentorship and growth became my top priorities, even if it meant moving away from family.

What Physicians Value Most in a Second Job

After their first job, early-career gastroenterologists often reevaluate what really matters. Recent surveys highlight four key priorities:

• Work-life balance:

In a 2022 CompHealth Group healthcare survey, 85% of physicians ranked work-life balance as their top job priority.³

• Mentorship and growth:

Nearly 1 in 3 physicians cited lack of mentorship or career advancement as their reason for leaving a first job, per the 2023 MGMA/Jackson Physician Search report.⁴

• Compensation:

While not always the main reason for leaving, 77% of physicians now list compensation as a top priority — a big jump from prior years.³

• Practice support:

Poor infrastructure, administrative overload, or understaffed teams are common dealbreakers. In the second job, physicians look for well-run practices with solid support staff and reduced burnout risk.⁵

Conclusion

Your first job doesn’t have to be your last. What matters is knowing when it’s time to evolve. Welcome the uncertainty, talk to your circle, lean on your community, and use a spreadsheet if you need to — but don’t forget to trust your gut. There’s no forever job or the perfect path, only the next move that feels most true to who you are in that moment.

Dr. Ismail (@mayyismail) is Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine (Gastroenterology) at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She declares no conflicts of interest.

References

1. CHG Healthcare. Survey: 62% of physicians made a career change in the last two years. CHG Healthcare blog. June 10, 2024. Accessed August 5, 2025.


2. Berg S. Physicians in these 10 specialties are less likely to quit. AMA News. Published June 24, 2025. Accessed July 2025. 


3. Saley C. Survey: Work/life balance is #1 priority in physicians’ job search. CHG Healthcare Insights. March 10, 2022. Accessed August 2025. 


4. Medical Group Management Association; Jackson Physician Search. Early‑Career Physician Recruiting & Retention Playbook. October 23, 2023. Accessed August 2025. 


5. Von Rosenvinge EC, et al. A crisis in scope: Recruitment and retention challenges reported by VA gastroenterology section chiefs. Fed Pract. 2024 Aug. doi:10.12788/fp.0504.

Beth Cavanaugh, 79, was starting a new medication when she ran into a modern hurdle: Her doctor’s office required all follow–up questions, even those about side effects of the drug, to go through the patient portal.

Cavanaugh said she did not know how to set up or use the system.

“I tried to explain that, but the receptionist said that was the only way to contact the doctor. I felt lost,” said Cavanaugh, a retired psychotherapist near Albany, New York.

Cavanaugh is far from alone. Many older people balk at the idea of communicating with their physicians over the internet. They may have limited digital skills, have physical challenges, or simply prefer human connection.

As medicine leans harder on electronic portals and telehealth, these patients are finding themselves shut out of their own care. Experts warn this approach deepens inequities in access to care and can worsen health outcomes.

Clinicians should “offer options for various types of communication, such as phone calls or texts, because whenever an older adult — or anyone, for that matter — is given a choice, they feel more empowered and more committed to their care,” said Susan Wehry, MD, associate clinical professor at the University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine in Biddeford, Maine.
 

Tech Support

Use of medical communication tools varies among older adults. One study in JAMA Network Open found nearly two thirds of those older than 65 years who filled out surveys via phone or internet had used a patient portal, while a little under half used telehealth, and only 44% used a medical health application.

Older patients tend to fall into two camps, said Neela Patel, MD, MPH, CMD, chief of the Division of Geriatrics and Supportive Care at the UT Health San Antonio.

Her patients “are at two extremes of the spectrum — some technologically savvy and others with limited digital literacy or limited or no access to the Internet,” Patel, who is also the vice chair of the Health Systems Innovations and Technology Committee of the American Geriatric Society, said.

Patel’s practice has dedicated staff to help patients master certain technologies. For example, a pharmacist teaches patients how to use a glucometer and a blood pressure cuff. Other staff teach them how to use smartphone apps that track blood pressure or glucose.

She usually sees patients in person before offering telehealth as an option, ensuring the person has “enough digital literacy to utilize them and that the patient can see and hear the visit.”

If technological limitations impede a telehealth appointment, clinicians can help patients navigate their computer screen. Patel recounted the story of an older woman who was unable to come to the clinic in person, so had a telehealth visit instead.

“She had trouble hearing me, so I asked her to share her screen with me. I walked her through how to do that. Then I showed her where the ‘volume’ button was located. It turns out her volume was at zero,” Patel said. “Once that was adjusted, we were able to proceed with the appointment.”

Educating older adults on how to use health technology does not have to fall upon clinicians and their staff, according to Wehry. She routinely refers her patients to community resources to help them develop digital skills.

Local libraries and community centers often offer digital education. Some retirement communities and assisted living facilities also have tech support personnel or classes available to residents.

Wehry refers some of her patients to the National Digital Equity Center which teaches older adults how to hold a telehealth visit.

Roughly 90% of Patel’s patients are signed up for the patient portal, but they may not be operating the technology, she said. She advises these patients to ask their children or caregivers for help as appropriate. 

Teaching patients to use the communication technology early on can also be helpful in other ways. If patients who have been technologically proficient start having difficulty, “it’s a clue there may be cognitive changes, and we follow up on those,” Patel said.

Additional resources to help older adults develop digital competence include Cyber Seniors, Older Adults Technology Services, AARP, AARP Find Digital Courses, Area Agencies on Aging, and Senior Navigator.
 

Human Touch

Some older adults may simply want a more traditional means of communicating with their clinician. A review of 29 papers, encompassing over 6200 adults older than 60 years, identified several domains affecting the adoption of healthcare technology, two of which were resistance to new technology and having family or friends that could help with.

Wehry said many older adults “don’t resist this technology because they’re unable to figure out how to use it. Instead, they see the technology as too impersonal.”

One study found many older adults fear technologies may end up replacing face-to-face contact.

“I’m beginning to encourage primary care providers to take a step back and refocus on the doctor-patient relationship. When communication is limited to the technological approach, it can erode trust in that relationship,” Wehry said.

The American Medical Association recommends clinicians “provide a method other than electronic communication for patients who are without technological proficiency or access.”

Some busy clinicians might be concerned phone calls will be too time-consuming, Wehry said. Patients should be informed of hours of phone availability, how much time is allotted to calls, and how many days or hours a response may take. Clinicians might also use tools that allow patients to use their cell phone to text their practice with medical questions.

Cavanaugh ended up finding technological help from a professional organizer whom she hired to help rearrange her closets.

“She’s knowledgeable and patient, and she’s helping me with the portal,” she said. “If I hadn’t serendipitously found the organizer, I’d still be struggling and unable to access proper medical care.”

Wehry and Patel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Beth Cavanaugh, 79, was starting a new medication when she ran into a modern hurdle: Her doctor’s office required all follow–up questions, even those about side effects of the drug, to go through the patient portal.

Cavanaugh said she did not know how to set up or use the system.

“I tried to explain that, but the receptionist said that was the only way to contact the doctor. I felt lost,” said Cavanaugh, a retired psychotherapist near Albany, New York.

Cavanaugh is far from alone. Many older people balk at the idea of communicating with their physicians over the internet. They may have limited digital skills, have physical challenges, or simply prefer human connection.

As medicine leans harder on electronic portals and telehealth, these patients are finding themselves shut out of their own care. Experts warn this approach deepens inequities in access to care and can worsen health outcomes.

Clinicians should “offer options for various types of communication, such as phone calls or texts, because whenever an older adult — or anyone, for that matter — is given a choice, they feel more empowered and more committed to their care,” said Susan Wehry, MD, associate clinical professor at the University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine in Biddeford, Maine.
 

Tech Support

Use of medical communication tools varies among older adults. One study in JAMA Network Open found nearly two thirds of those older than 65 years who filled out surveys via phone or internet had used a patient portal, while a little under half used telehealth, and only 44% used a medical health application.

Older patients tend to fall into two camps, said Neela Patel, MD, MPH, CMD, chief of the Division of Geriatrics and Supportive Care at the UT Health San Antonio.

Her patients “are at two extremes of the spectrum — some technologically savvy and others with limited digital literacy or limited or no access to the Internet,” Patel, who is also the vice chair of the Health Systems Innovations and Technology Committee of the American Geriatric Society, said.

Patel’s practice has dedicated staff to help patients master certain technologies. For example, a pharmacist teaches patients how to use a glucometer and a blood pressure cuff. Other staff teach them how to use smartphone apps that track blood pressure or glucose.

She usually sees patients in person before offering telehealth as an option, ensuring the person has “enough digital literacy to utilize them and that the patient can see and hear the visit.”

If technological limitations impede a telehealth appointment, clinicians can help patients navigate their computer screen. Patel recounted the story of an older woman who was unable to come to the clinic in person, so had a telehealth visit instead.

“She had trouble hearing me, so I asked her to share her screen with me. I walked her through how to do that. Then I showed her where the ‘volume’ button was located. It turns out her volume was at zero,” Patel said. “Once that was adjusted, we were able to proceed with the appointment.”

Educating older adults on how to use health technology does not have to fall upon clinicians and their staff, according to Wehry. She routinely refers her patients to community resources to help them develop digital skills.

Local libraries and community centers often offer digital education. Some retirement communities and assisted living facilities also have tech support personnel or classes available to residents.

Wehry refers some of her patients to the National Digital Equity Center which teaches older adults how to hold a telehealth visit.

Roughly 90% of Patel’s patients are signed up for the patient portal, but they may not be operating the technology, she said. She advises these patients to ask their children or caregivers for help as appropriate. 

Teaching patients to use the communication technology early on can also be helpful in other ways. If patients who have been technologically proficient start having difficulty, “it’s a clue there may be cognitive changes, and we follow up on those,” Patel said.

Additional resources to help older adults develop digital competence include Cyber Seniors, Older Adults Technology Services, AARP, AARP Find Digital Courses, Area Agencies on Aging, and Senior Navigator.
 

Human Touch

Some older adults may simply want a more traditional means of communicating with their clinician. A review of 29 papers, encompassing over 6200 adults older than 60 years, identified several domains affecting the adoption of healthcare technology, two of which were resistance to new technology and having family or friends that could help with.

Wehry said many older adults “don’t resist this technology because they’re unable to figure out how to use it. Instead, they see the technology as too impersonal.”

One study found many older adults fear technologies may end up replacing face-to-face contact.

“I’m beginning to encourage primary care providers to take a step back and refocus on the doctor-patient relationship. When communication is limited to the technological approach, it can erode trust in that relationship,” Wehry said.

The American Medical Association recommends clinicians “provide a method other than electronic communication for patients who are without technological proficiency or access.”

Some busy clinicians might be concerned phone calls will be too time-consuming, Wehry said. Patients should be informed of hours of phone availability, how much time is allotted to calls, and how many days or hours a response may take. Clinicians might also use tools that allow patients to use their cell phone to text their practice with medical questions.

Cavanaugh ended up finding technological help from a professional organizer whom she hired to help rearrange her closets.

“She’s knowledgeable and patient, and she’s helping me with the portal,” she said. “If I hadn’t serendipitously found the organizer, I’d still be struggling and unable to access proper medical care.”

Wehry and Patel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Beth Cavanaugh, 79, was starting a new medication when she ran into a modern hurdle: Her doctor’s office required all follow–up questions, even those about side effects of the drug, to go through the patient portal.

Cavanaugh said she did not know how to set up or use the system.

“I tried to explain that, but the receptionist said that was the only way to contact the doctor. I felt lost,” said Cavanaugh, a retired psychotherapist near Albany, New York.

Cavanaugh is far from alone. Many older people balk at the idea of communicating with their physicians over the internet. They may have limited digital skills, have physical challenges, or simply prefer human connection.

As medicine leans harder on electronic portals and telehealth, these patients are finding themselves shut out of their own care. Experts warn this approach deepens inequities in access to care and can worsen health outcomes.

Clinicians should “offer options for various types of communication, such as phone calls or texts, because whenever an older adult — or anyone, for that matter — is given a choice, they feel more empowered and more committed to their care,” said Susan Wehry, MD, associate clinical professor at the University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine in Biddeford, Maine.
 

Tech Support

Use of medical communication tools varies among older adults. One study in JAMA Network Open found nearly two thirds of those older than 65 years who filled out surveys via phone or internet had used a patient portal, while a little under half used telehealth, and only 44% used a medical health application.

Older patients tend to fall into two camps, said Neela Patel, MD, MPH, CMD, chief of the Division of Geriatrics and Supportive Care at the UT Health San Antonio.

Her patients “are at two extremes of the spectrum — some technologically savvy and others with limited digital literacy or limited or no access to the Internet,” Patel, who is also the vice chair of the Health Systems Innovations and Technology Committee of the American Geriatric Society, said.

Patel’s practice has dedicated staff to help patients master certain technologies. For example, a pharmacist teaches patients how to use a glucometer and a blood pressure cuff. Other staff teach them how to use smartphone apps that track blood pressure or glucose.

She usually sees patients in person before offering telehealth as an option, ensuring the person has “enough digital literacy to utilize them and that the patient can see and hear the visit.”

If technological limitations impede a telehealth appointment, clinicians can help patients navigate their computer screen. Patel recounted the story of an older woman who was unable to come to the clinic in person, so had a telehealth visit instead.

“She had trouble hearing me, so I asked her to share her screen with me. I walked her through how to do that. Then I showed her where the ‘volume’ button was located. It turns out her volume was at zero,” Patel said. “Once that was adjusted, we were able to proceed with the appointment.”

Educating older adults on how to use health technology does not have to fall upon clinicians and their staff, according to Wehry. She routinely refers her patients to community resources to help them develop digital skills.

Local libraries and community centers often offer digital education. Some retirement communities and assisted living facilities also have tech support personnel or classes available to residents.

Wehry refers some of her patients to the National Digital Equity Center which teaches older adults how to hold a telehealth visit.

Roughly 90% of Patel’s patients are signed up for the patient portal, but they may not be operating the technology, she said. She advises these patients to ask their children or caregivers for help as appropriate. 

Teaching patients to use the communication technology early on can also be helpful in other ways. If patients who have been technologically proficient start having difficulty, “it’s a clue there may be cognitive changes, and we follow up on those,” Patel said.

Additional resources to help older adults develop digital competence include Cyber Seniors, Older Adults Technology Services, AARP, AARP Find Digital Courses, Area Agencies on Aging, and Senior Navigator.
 

Human Touch

Some older adults may simply want a more traditional means of communicating with their clinician. A review of 29 papers, encompassing over 6200 adults older than 60 years, identified several domains affecting the adoption of healthcare technology, two of which were resistance to new technology and having family or friends that could help with.

Wehry said many older adults “don’t resist this technology because they’re unable to figure out how to use it. Instead, they see the technology as too impersonal.”

One study found many older adults fear technologies may end up replacing face-to-face contact.

“I’m beginning to encourage primary care providers to take a step back and refocus on the doctor-patient relationship. When communication is limited to the technological approach, it can erode trust in that relationship,” Wehry said.

The American Medical Association recommends clinicians “provide a method other than electronic communication for patients who are without technological proficiency or access.”

Some busy clinicians might be concerned phone calls will be too time-consuming, Wehry said. Patients should be informed of hours of phone availability, how much time is allotted to calls, and how many days or hours a response may take. Clinicians might also use tools that allow patients to use their cell phone to text their practice with medical questions.

Cavanaugh ended up finding technological help from a professional organizer whom she hired to help rearrange her closets.

“She’s knowledgeable and patient, and she’s helping me with the portal,” she said. “If I hadn’t serendipitously found the organizer, I’d still be struggling and unable to access proper medical care.”

Wehry and Patel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The patient was diagnosed with erythema ab igne based on characteristic skin findings on physical examination along with a convincing history of chronic localized heat exposure. Erythema ab igne manifests as a persistent reticulated, erythematous, or hyperpigmented rash at sites of chronic heat exposure.¹ Commonplace items that emit heat such as electric heaters, car heaters, heating pads, hot water bottles, and, in our case, laptops also emit infrared radiation, which can lead to changes in the skin with long-term exposure.² Because exposure to these sources often is limited to one area of the body, erythema ab igne usually manifests locally, as exemplified in this case. Chronic heat exposure and infrared radiation from these sources are thought to induce hyperthermia below the threshold for a thermal burn, and the cutaneous findings correspond with the dermal venous plexus.³

Diagnosis of erythema ab igne primarily is made clinically based on characteristic skin findings and exposure history. Relevant history may include occupations with prolonged heat exposure, such as baking, silversmithing, or foundry work. Heat exposure also may result from cultural practices such as cupping with moxibustion.⁴ Additionally, repeated use of heating pads or hot water bottles for pain relief by patients diagnosed with chronic pain or an underlying illness may contribute to development of erythema ab igne.^1,4

Biopsy was not needed for diagnosis of this patient, but if the presentation is equivocal and history of potential exposures is unclear, a biopsy may be taken. A hematoxylin and eosin stain would reveal dilation of small vascular channels in the superficial dermis, contributing to the classic reticulated appearance. Biopsy findings also would reveal either an interface dermatitis or pigment incontinence containing melanin-laden macrophages correlating to either the erythema or hyperpigmentation, respectively.⁴

The prognosis for erythema ab igne is excellent, especially if diagnosed early. Treatment involves removal of the inciting heat source.¹ The discoloration may resolve within a few months to years or may persist. If the hyperpigmentation is persistent, patients may consider laser treatments or lightening agents such as topical hydroquinone or topical tretinoin.⁴ However, if undiagnosed, patients may be at risk for development of a cutaneous malignancy, such as squamous cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated carcinoma, or cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma.^2,4 Malignant transformation has been reported to occur decades after the initial skin eruption, although the risk is rare⁵; however, due to this risk, patients with erythema ab igne should be followed regularly and screened for new lesions in the affected areas.

The patient was diagnosed with erythema ab igne based on characteristic skin findings on physical examination along with a convincing history of chronic localized heat exposure. Erythema ab igne manifests as a persistent reticulated, erythematous, or hyperpigmented rash at sites of chronic heat exposure.¹ Commonplace items that emit heat such as electric heaters, car heaters, heating pads, hot water bottles, and, in our case, laptops also emit infrared radiation, which can lead to changes in the skin with long-term exposure.² Because exposure to these sources often is limited to one area of the body, erythema ab igne usually manifests locally, as exemplified in this case. Chronic heat exposure and infrared radiation from these sources are thought to induce hyperthermia below the threshold for a thermal burn, and the cutaneous findings correspond with the dermal venous plexus.³

Diagnosis of erythema ab igne primarily is made clinically based on characteristic skin findings and exposure history. Relevant history may include occupations with prolonged heat exposure, such as baking, silversmithing, or foundry work. Heat exposure also may result from cultural practices such as cupping with moxibustion.⁴ Additionally, repeated use of heating pads or hot water bottles for pain relief by patients diagnosed with chronic pain or an underlying illness may contribute to development of erythema ab igne.^1,4

Biopsy was not needed for diagnosis of this patient, but if the presentation is equivocal and history of potential exposures is unclear, a biopsy may be taken. A hematoxylin and eosin stain would reveal dilation of small vascular channels in the superficial dermis, contributing to the classic reticulated appearance. Biopsy findings also would reveal either an interface dermatitis or pigment incontinence containing melanin-laden macrophages correlating to either the erythema or hyperpigmentation, respectively.⁴

The prognosis for erythema ab igne is excellent, especially if diagnosed early. Treatment involves removal of the inciting heat source.¹ The discoloration may resolve within a few months to years or may persist. If the hyperpigmentation is persistent, patients may consider laser treatments or lightening agents such as topical hydroquinone or topical tretinoin.⁴ However, if undiagnosed, patients may be at risk for development of a cutaneous malignancy, such as squamous cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated carcinoma, or cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma.^2,4 Malignant transformation has been reported to occur decades after the initial skin eruption, although the risk is rare⁵; however, due to this risk, patients with erythema ab igne should be followed regularly and screened for new lesions in the affected areas.

The patient was diagnosed with erythema ab igne based on characteristic skin findings on physical examination along with a convincing history of chronic localized heat exposure. Erythema ab igne manifests as a persistent reticulated, erythematous, or hyperpigmented rash at sites of chronic heat exposure.¹ Commonplace items that emit heat such as electric heaters, car heaters, heating pads, hot water bottles, and, in our case, laptops also emit infrared radiation, which can lead to changes in the skin with long-term exposure.² Because exposure to these sources often is limited to one area of the body, erythema ab igne usually manifests locally, as exemplified in this case. Chronic heat exposure and infrared radiation from these sources are thought to induce hyperthermia below the threshold for a thermal burn, and the cutaneous findings correspond with the dermal venous plexus.³

Diagnosis of erythema ab igne primarily is made clinically based on characteristic skin findings and exposure history. Relevant history may include occupations with prolonged heat exposure, such as baking, silversmithing, or foundry work. Heat exposure also may result from cultural practices such as cupping with moxibustion.⁴ Additionally, repeated use of heating pads or hot water bottles for pain relief by patients diagnosed with chronic pain or an underlying illness may contribute to development of erythema ab igne.^1,4

Biopsy was not needed for diagnosis of this patient, but if the presentation is equivocal and history of potential exposures is unclear, a biopsy may be taken. A hematoxylin and eosin stain would reveal dilation of small vascular channels in the superficial dermis, contributing to the classic reticulated appearance. Biopsy findings also would reveal either an interface dermatitis or pigment incontinence containing melanin-laden macrophages correlating to either the erythema or hyperpigmentation, respectively.⁴

The prognosis for erythema ab igne is excellent, especially if diagnosed early. Treatment involves removal of the inciting heat source.¹ The discoloration may resolve within a few months to years or may persist. If the hyperpigmentation is persistent, patients may consider laser treatments or lightening agents such as topical hydroquinone or topical tretinoin.⁴ However, if undiagnosed, patients may be at risk for development of a cutaneous malignancy, such as squamous cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated carcinoma, or cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma.^2,4 Malignant transformation has been reported to occur decades after the initial skin eruption, although the risk is rare⁵; however, due to this risk, patients with erythema ab igne should be followed regularly and screened for new lesions in the affected areas.

The practice of medicine is evolving rapidly, with clinicians facing enhanced pressure to maximize productivity while managing increasingly complex patients and related clinical documentation. Indeed, clinicians are spending less time seeing patients, and more time in front of a computer screen.

Despite the many rewards of clinical medicine, rates of clinical practice attrition have increased among physicians in all specialties since 2013 with enhanced administrative burdens identified as a prominent driver. Among its many applications, artificial intelligence (AI) has immense potential to reduce the administrative and cognitive burdens that contribute to clinician burnout and attrition through tools such as AI scribes – these technologies have been rapidly adopted across healthcare systems and are already in use by ~30% of physician practices. The hope is that AI scribes will significantly reduce documentation time, leading to improvements in clinician wellbeing and expanding capacity for patient care. Indeed, some studies have shown up to a 20-30% improvement in documentation efficiency. 

So, is AI a cure for physician burnout? The answer depends on what is done with these efficiency gains. If healthcare organizations respond to this enhanced efficiency by increasing patient volume expectations rather than allowing clinicians to recapture some of this time for meaningful work and professional wellbeing, it could create a so-called “workload paradox” where modest time savings are offset by greater productivity demands and the cognitive burden of reviewing AI-generated errors. While AI offers substantial promise as a tool to reduce administrative burdens, its success will depend on thoughtful and responsible implementation that prioritizes clinician well-being and patient safety in addition to productivity.

In our final issue of 2025, we highlight a recent RCT from Annals of Internal Medicine finding that fecal microbiota transplantation is at least as effective as vancomycin in treating primary C. difficile infection. In this month’s Member Spotlight, we feature Andrew Ofosu, MD, MPH (University of Cincinnati Health), who stresses the importance of transparency and compassion in communicating effectively with patients, particularly around complex diagnoses. We hope you enjoy this and all the exciting content in our December issue.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc 

Editor in Chief

The practice of medicine is evolving rapidly, with clinicians facing enhanced pressure to maximize productivity while managing increasingly complex patients and related clinical documentation. Indeed, clinicians are spending less time seeing patients, and more time in front of a computer screen.

Despite the many rewards of clinical medicine, rates of clinical practice attrition have increased among physicians in all specialties since 2013 with enhanced administrative burdens identified as a prominent driver. Among its many applications, artificial intelligence (AI) has immense potential to reduce the administrative and cognitive burdens that contribute to clinician burnout and attrition through tools such as AI scribes – these technologies have been rapidly adopted across healthcare systems and are already in use by ~30% of physician practices. The hope is that AI scribes will significantly reduce documentation time, leading to improvements in clinician wellbeing and expanding capacity for patient care. Indeed, some studies have shown up to a 20-30% improvement in documentation efficiency. 

So, is AI a cure for physician burnout? The answer depends on what is done with these efficiency gains. If healthcare organizations respond to this enhanced efficiency by increasing patient volume expectations rather than allowing clinicians to recapture some of this time for meaningful work and professional wellbeing, it could create a so-called “workload paradox” where modest time savings are offset by greater productivity demands and the cognitive burden of reviewing AI-generated errors. While AI offers substantial promise as a tool to reduce administrative burdens, its success will depend on thoughtful and responsible implementation that prioritizes clinician well-being and patient safety in addition to productivity.

In our final issue of 2025, we highlight a recent RCT from Annals of Internal Medicine finding that fecal microbiota transplantation is at least as effective as vancomycin in treating primary C. difficile infection. In this month’s Member Spotlight, we feature Andrew Ofosu, MD, MPH (University of Cincinnati Health), who stresses the importance of transparency and compassion in communicating effectively with patients, particularly around complex diagnoses. We hope you enjoy this and all the exciting content in our December issue.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc 

Editor in Chief

The practice of medicine is evolving rapidly, with clinicians facing enhanced pressure to maximize productivity while managing increasingly complex patients and related clinical documentation. Indeed, clinicians are spending less time seeing patients, and more time in front of a computer screen.

Despite the many rewards of clinical medicine, rates of clinical practice attrition have increased among physicians in all specialties since 2013 with enhanced administrative burdens identified as a prominent driver. Among its many applications, artificial intelligence (AI) has immense potential to reduce the administrative and cognitive burdens that contribute to clinician burnout and attrition through tools such as AI scribes – these technologies have been rapidly adopted across healthcare systems and are already in use by ~30% of physician practices. The hope is that AI scribes will significantly reduce documentation time, leading to improvements in clinician wellbeing and expanding capacity for patient care. Indeed, some studies have shown up to a 20-30% improvement in documentation efficiency. 

So, is AI a cure for physician burnout? The answer depends on what is done with these efficiency gains. If healthcare organizations respond to this enhanced efficiency by increasing patient volume expectations rather than allowing clinicians to recapture some of this time for meaningful work and professional wellbeing, it could create a so-called “workload paradox” where modest time savings are offset by greater productivity demands and the cognitive burden of reviewing AI-generated errors. While AI offers substantial promise as a tool to reduce administrative burdens, its success will depend on thoughtful and responsible implementation that prioritizes clinician well-being and patient safety in addition to productivity.

In our final issue of 2025, we highlight a recent RCT from Annals of Internal Medicine finding that fecal microbiota transplantation is at least as effective as vancomycin in treating primary C. difficile infection. In this month’s Member Spotlight, we feature Andrew Ofosu, MD, MPH (University of Cincinnati Health), who stresses the importance of transparency and compassion in communicating effectively with patients, particularly around complex diagnoses. We hope you enjoy this and all the exciting content in our December issue.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc 

Editor in Chief

Are you seeing any increase or trends in cutaneous adverse effects related to the use of GLP-1 agonists in your practice?

DR. SHIELDS: The use of GLP-1 agonists is increasing substantially across numerous populations. Patients are using these medications not only for weight management and diabetes control but also for blood pressure modulation and cardiovascular risk reduction. The market size is expected to grow at a rate of about 6% until 2027. While severe cutaneous adverse effects still are considered relatively rare with GLP-1 agonist use, mild adverse effects are quite common. Dermatologists should be familiar with these effects and how to manage them. Rare but serious cutaneous reactions include morbilliform drug eruptions, dermal hypersensitivity reactions, panniculitis, and bullous pemphigoid. It is thought that some GLP-1 agonists may cause more skin reactions than others; for example, exenatide extended-release has been associated with cutaneous adverse events more frequently than other GLP-1 agonists in a recent comprehensive literature review.

Do you see a role for dermatologists in monitoring or managing the downstream dermatologic effects of GLP-1 agonists over the next few years?

DR. SHIELDS: Absolutely. When patients develop a drug eruption, bullous pemphigoid, or eosinophilic panniculitis, dermatologists are going to be the ones to diagnose and manage therapy. Awareness of these adverse effects is crucial to timely and thoughtful discussions surrounding medication discontinuation vs a “treat through” approach.

Do you recommend coordinating with endocrinologists or obesity medicine specialists when managing shared patients on GLP-1s (particularly if skin concerns arise)?

DR. SHIELDS: Yes. This is crucial to patient success. Co-management can provide clarity around the indication for therapy and allow for a thoughtful risk-benefit discussion with the patient, primary care physician, endocrinologist, cardiologist, etc. In my practice, I have found that many patients do not want to stop therapy even when they develop cutaneous adverse effects. There are options to transition therapy or treat through in some cases, but having a comprehensive monitoring and therapy plan is critical.

Have you encountered cases in which rapid weight loss from GLP-1s worsened conditions such as loose skin, cellulite, or facial lipoatrophy, leading to new aesthetic concerns? How would you recommend counseling and/or treating affected patients?

DR. SHIELDS: Accelerated facial aging is a noticeable adverse effect in patients who undergo treatment with GLP-1 agonists, especially when used off-label for weight loss. Localized loss of facial fat can result in altered facial proportions and excess skin. There are multiple additional mechanisms that may underlie accelerated facial aging in patients on GLP-1s, and really we are just beginning to scratch the surface of why and how this happens. Understanding these mechanisms will open the door to downstream preventive and therapeutic options. If patients experience new aesthetic concerns, I currently work with them to adjust their medication to slow weight loss, recommend improved nutrition and hydration, encourage exercise and weight training to maintain muscle mass, and engage my cosmetic dermatology colleagues to discuss procedures such as dermal fillers.

All patients starting GLP-1 agonists should be thoroughly counseled on risks and adverse effects of their medication. These are well reported and should be considered carefully. Starting with lower medication dosing in conjunction with slow escalation and careful monitoring can be helpful in combatting these adverse effects.

Are you seeing any increase or trends in cutaneous adverse effects related to the use of GLP-1 agonists in your practice?

DR. SHIELDS: The use of GLP-1 agonists is increasing substantially across numerous populations. Patients are using these medications not only for weight management and diabetes control but also for blood pressure modulation and cardiovascular risk reduction. The market size is expected to grow at a rate of about 6% until 2027. While severe cutaneous adverse effects still are considered relatively rare with GLP-1 agonist use, mild adverse effects are quite common. Dermatologists should be familiar with these effects and how to manage them. Rare but serious cutaneous reactions include morbilliform drug eruptions, dermal hypersensitivity reactions, panniculitis, and bullous pemphigoid. It is thought that some GLP-1 agonists may cause more skin reactions than others; for example, exenatide extended-release has been associated with cutaneous adverse events more frequently than other GLP-1 agonists in a recent comprehensive literature review.

Do you see a role for dermatologists in monitoring or managing the downstream dermatologic effects of GLP-1 agonists over the next few years?

DR. SHIELDS: Absolutely. When patients develop a drug eruption, bullous pemphigoid, or eosinophilic panniculitis, dermatologists are going to be the ones to diagnose and manage therapy. Awareness of these adverse effects is crucial to timely and thoughtful discussions surrounding medication discontinuation vs a “treat through” approach.

Do you recommend coordinating with endocrinologists or obesity medicine specialists when managing shared patients on GLP-1s (particularly if skin concerns arise)?

DR. SHIELDS: Yes. This is crucial to patient success. Co-management can provide clarity around the indication for therapy and allow for a thoughtful risk-benefit discussion with the patient, primary care physician, endocrinologist, cardiologist, etc. In my practice, I have found that many patients do not want to stop therapy even when they develop cutaneous adverse effects. There are options to transition therapy or treat through in some cases, but having a comprehensive monitoring and therapy plan is critical.

Have you encountered cases in which rapid weight loss from GLP-1s worsened conditions such as loose skin, cellulite, or facial lipoatrophy, leading to new aesthetic concerns? How would you recommend counseling and/or treating affected patients?

DR. SHIELDS: Accelerated facial aging is a noticeable adverse effect in patients who undergo treatment with GLP-1 agonists, especially when used off-label for weight loss. Localized loss of facial fat can result in altered facial proportions and excess skin. There are multiple additional mechanisms that may underlie accelerated facial aging in patients on GLP-1s, and really we are just beginning to scratch the surface of why and how this happens. Understanding these mechanisms will open the door to downstream preventive and therapeutic options. If patients experience new aesthetic concerns, I currently work with them to adjust their medication to slow weight loss, recommend improved nutrition and hydration, encourage exercise and weight training to maintain muscle mass, and engage my cosmetic dermatology colleagues to discuss procedures such as dermal fillers.

All patients starting GLP-1 agonists should be thoroughly counseled on risks and adverse effects of their medication. These are well reported and should be considered carefully. Starting with lower medication dosing in conjunction with slow escalation and careful monitoring can be helpful in combatting these adverse effects.

Are you seeing any increase or trends in cutaneous adverse effects related to the use of GLP-1 agonists in your practice?

DR. SHIELDS: The use of GLP-1 agonists is increasing substantially across numerous populations. Patients are using these medications not only for weight management and diabetes control but also for blood pressure modulation and cardiovascular risk reduction. The market size is expected to grow at a rate of about 6% until 2027. While severe cutaneous adverse effects still are considered relatively rare with GLP-1 agonist use, mild adverse effects are quite common. Dermatologists should be familiar with these effects and how to manage them. Rare but serious cutaneous reactions include morbilliform drug eruptions, dermal hypersensitivity reactions, panniculitis, and bullous pemphigoid. It is thought that some GLP-1 agonists may cause more skin reactions than others; for example, exenatide extended-release has been associated with cutaneous adverse events more frequently than other GLP-1 agonists in a recent comprehensive literature review.

Do you see a role for dermatologists in monitoring or managing the downstream dermatologic effects of GLP-1 agonists over the next few years?

DR. SHIELDS: Absolutely. When patients develop a drug eruption, bullous pemphigoid, or eosinophilic panniculitis, dermatologists are going to be the ones to diagnose and manage therapy. Awareness of these adverse effects is crucial to timely and thoughtful discussions surrounding medication discontinuation vs a “treat through” approach.

Do you recommend coordinating with endocrinologists or obesity medicine specialists when managing shared patients on GLP-1s (particularly if skin concerns arise)?

DR. SHIELDS: Yes. This is crucial to patient success. Co-management can provide clarity around the indication for therapy and allow for a thoughtful risk-benefit discussion with the patient, primary care physician, endocrinologist, cardiologist, etc. In my practice, I have found that many patients do not want to stop therapy even when they develop cutaneous adverse effects. There are options to transition therapy or treat through in some cases, but having a comprehensive monitoring and therapy plan is critical.

Have you encountered cases in which rapid weight loss from GLP-1s worsened conditions such as loose skin, cellulite, or facial lipoatrophy, leading to new aesthetic concerns? How would you recommend counseling and/or treating affected patients?

DR. SHIELDS: Accelerated facial aging is a noticeable adverse effect in patients who undergo treatment with GLP-1 agonists, especially when used off-label for weight loss. Localized loss of facial fat can result in altered facial proportions and excess skin. There are multiple additional mechanisms that may underlie accelerated facial aging in patients on GLP-1s, and really we are just beginning to scratch the surface of why and how this happens. Understanding these mechanisms will open the door to downstream preventive and therapeutic options. If patients experience new aesthetic concerns, I currently work with them to adjust their medication to slow weight loss, recommend improved nutrition and hydration, encourage exercise and weight training to maintain muscle mass, and engage my cosmetic dermatology colleagues to discuss procedures such as dermal fillers.

All patients starting GLP-1 agonists should be thoroughly counseled on risks and adverse effects of their medication. These are well reported and should be considered carefully. Starting with lower medication dosing in conjunction with slow escalation and careful monitoring can be helpful in combatting these adverse effects.

Use of artificial intelligence (AI) in dermatology has increased over the past decade, likely driven by advances in deep learning algorithms, computing hardware, and machine learning.¹ Studies comparing the performance of AI algorithms to dermatologists in classifying skin disorders have shown conflicting results.^2,3 In this study, we aimed to analyze AI tools used for diagnosing and classifying skin disease and evaluate the role of dermatologists in the creation of AI technology. We also investigated the number of clinical images used in datasets to train AI programs and compared tools that were created with dermatologist input to those created without dermatologist/clinician involvement.

Methods

A search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms machine learning, artificial intelligence, and dermatology was conducted on September 18, 2022. Articles were included if they described full-length trials; used machine learning for diagnosis of or screening for dermatologic conditions; and used dermoscopic or gross image datasets of the skin, hair, or nails. Articles were categorized into 4 groups based on the conditions covered: chronic wounds, inflammatory skin diseases, mixed conditions, and pigmented skin lesions. Algorithms were sorted into 4 categories: convolutional/convoluted neural network, deep learning model/deep neural network, AI/artificial neural network, and other. Details regarding Fitzpatrick skin type and skin of color (SoC) inclusion in the articles or AI algorithm datasets were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel and SAS Studio 3.8. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for all included AI technology. Sensitivity, specificity, and the number of clinical images were compared among the included articles using analysis of variance and t tests (α=0.05; P<.05 indicated statistical significance).

Results

Our search yielded 1016 articles, 58 of which met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 25.9% (15/58) of the articles utilized AI to diagnose or classify mixed skin diseases; 22.4% (13/58) for pigmented skin lesions; 19.0% (11/58) for wounds; 17.2% (10/58) for inflammatory skin diseases; and 5.2% (3/58) each for acne, psoriasis, and onychomycosis. Overall, 24.0% (14/58) of articles provided information about Fitzpatrick skin type, and 58.7% (34/58) included clinical images depicting SoC. Furthermore, we found that only 20.7% (12/58) of articles on deep learning models included descriptions of patient ethnicity or race in at least 1 dataset, and only 10.3% (6/58) of studies included any information about skin tone in the dataset. Studies with a dermatologist as the last author (most likely to be supervising the project) were more likely to include clinical images depicting SoC than those without (82.6% [19/23] and 16.7% [3/18], respectively [P=.0411]).

The mean (SD) number of clinical images in the study articles was 28,422 (84,050). Thirty-seven (63.8%) of the study articles included gross images, 17 (29.3%) used dermoscopic images, and 4 (6.9%) used both. Twenty-seven (46.6%) articles used convolutional/convoluted neural networks, 15 (25.9%) used deep learning model/deep neural networks, 8 (13.8%) used other algorithms, 6 (10.3%) used AI/artificial neural network, and 2 (3.4%) used fuzzy algorithms. Most studies were conducted in China (29.3% [17/58]), Germany (12.1% [7/58]), India (10.3% [6/58]), multiple nations (10.3% [6/58]), and the United States (10.3% [6/58]). Overall, 82.8% (48/58) of articles included at least 1 dermatologist coauthor. Sensitivity of the AI models was 0.85, and specificity was 0.85. The average percentage of images in the dataset correctly identified by a physician was 76.87% vs 81.62% of images correctly identified by AI. Average agreement between AI and physician assessment was 77.98%, defined as AI and physician both having the same diagnosis. 

Articles authored by dermatologists contained more clinical images than those without dermatologists in key authorship roles (P<.0001)(eTable). Psoriasis-related algorithms had the fewest (mean [SD]: 3173 [4203]), and pigmented skin lesions had the most clinical images (mean [SD]: 53,19l [155,579]).

Comment

Our results indicated that AI studies with dermatologist authors had significantly more images in their datasets (ie, the set of clinical images of skin lesions used to train AI algorithms in diagnosing or classifying lesions) than those with nondermatologist authors (P<.0001)(eTable). Similarly, in a study of AI technology for skin cancer diagnosis, AI studies with dermatologist authors (ie, included in the development of the AI algorithm) had more images than studies without dermatologist authors.¹ Deep learning textbooks have suggested that 5000 clinical images or training input per output category are needed to produce acceptable algorithm performance, and more than 10 million are needed to produce results superior to human performance.^4-10 Despite advances in AI for dermatologic image analysis, the creation of these models often has been directed by nondermatologists¹; therefore, dermatologist involvement in AI development is necessary to facilitate collection of larger image datasets and optimal performance for image diagnosis/classification tasks.

We found that 20.7% of articles on deep learning models included descriptions of patient ethnicity or race, and only 10.3% of studies included any information about skin tone in the dataset. Furthermore, American investigators primarily trained models using clinical images of patients with lighter skin tones, whereas Chinese investigators exclusively included images depicting darker skin tones. Similarly, in a study of 52 cutaneous imaging deep learning articles, only 17.3% (9/52) reported race and/or Fitzpatrick skin type, and only 7.7% (4/52) of articles included both.^2,6,8 Therefore, dermatologists are needed to contribute images representing diverse populations and collaborate in AI research studies, as their involvement is necessary to ensure the accuracy of AI models in classifying lesions or diagnosing skin lesions across all skin types.

Our search was limited to PubMed, and real-world applications could not be evaluated.

Conclusion

In summary, we found that AI studies with dermatologist authors used larger numbers of clinical images in their datasets and more images representing diverse skin types than studies without. Therefore, we advocate for greater involvement of dermatologists in AI research, which might result in better patient outcomes by improving diagnostic accuracy.

Use of artificial intelligence (AI) in dermatology has increased over the past decade, likely driven by advances in deep learning algorithms, computing hardware, and machine learning.¹ Studies comparing the performance of AI algorithms to dermatologists in classifying skin disorders have shown conflicting results.^2,3 In this study, we aimed to analyze AI tools used for diagnosing and classifying skin disease and evaluate the role of dermatologists in the creation of AI technology. We also investigated the number of clinical images used in datasets to train AI programs and compared tools that were created with dermatologist input to those created without dermatologist/clinician involvement.

Methods

A search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms machine learning, artificial intelligence, and dermatology was conducted on September 18, 2022. Articles were included if they described full-length trials; used machine learning for diagnosis of or screening for dermatologic conditions; and used dermoscopic or gross image datasets of the skin, hair, or nails. Articles were categorized into 4 groups based on the conditions covered: chronic wounds, inflammatory skin diseases, mixed conditions, and pigmented skin lesions. Algorithms were sorted into 4 categories: convolutional/convoluted neural network, deep learning model/deep neural network, AI/artificial neural network, and other. Details regarding Fitzpatrick skin type and skin of color (SoC) inclusion in the articles or AI algorithm datasets were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel and SAS Studio 3.8. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for all included AI technology. Sensitivity, specificity, and the number of clinical images were compared among the included articles using analysis of variance and t tests (α=0.05; P<.05 indicated statistical significance).

Results

Our search yielded 1016 articles, 58 of which met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 25.9% (15/58) of the articles utilized AI to diagnose or classify mixed skin diseases; 22.4% (13/58) for pigmented skin lesions; 19.0% (11/58) for wounds; 17.2% (10/58) for inflammatory skin diseases; and 5.2% (3/58) each for acne, psoriasis, and onychomycosis. Overall, 24.0% (14/58) of articles provided information about Fitzpatrick skin type, and 58.7% (34/58) included clinical images depicting SoC. Furthermore, we found that only 20.7% (12/58) of articles on deep learning models included descriptions of patient ethnicity or race in at least 1 dataset, and only 10.3% (6/58) of studies included any information about skin tone in the dataset. Studies with a dermatologist as the last author (most likely to be supervising the project) were more likely to include clinical images depicting SoC than those without (82.6% [19/23] and 16.7% [3/18], respectively [P=.0411]).

The mean (SD) number of clinical images in the study articles was 28,422 (84,050). Thirty-seven (63.8%) of the study articles included gross images, 17 (29.3%) used dermoscopic images, and 4 (6.9%) used both. Twenty-seven (46.6%) articles used convolutional/convoluted neural networks, 15 (25.9%) used deep learning model/deep neural networks, 8 (13.8%) used other algorithms, 6 (10.3%) used AI/artificial neural network, and 2 (3.4%) used fuzzy algorithms. Most studies were conducted in China (29.3% [17/58]), Germany (12.1% [7/58]), India (10.3% [6/58]), multiple nations (10.3% [6/58]), and the United States (10.3% [6/58]). Overall, 82.8% (48/58) of articles included at least 1 dermatologist coauthor. Sensitivity of the AI models was 0.85, and specificity was 0.85. The average percentage of images in the dataset correctly identified by a physician was 76.87% vs 81.62% of images correctly identified by AI. Average agreement between AI and physician assessment was 77.98%, defined as AI and physician both having the same diagnosis. 

Articles authored by dermatologists contained more clinical images than those without dermatologists in key authorship roles (P<.0001)(eTable). Psoriasis-related algorithms had the fewest (mean [SD]: 3173 [4203]), and pigmented skin lesions had the most clinical images (mean [SD]: 53,19l [155,579]).

Comment

Our results indicated that AI studies with dermatologist authors had significantly more images in their datasets (ie, the set of clinical images of skin lesions used to train AI algorithms in diagnosing or classifying lesions) than those with nondermatologist authors (P<.0001)(eTable). Similarly, in a study of AI technology for skin cancer diagnosis, AI studies with dermatologist authors (ie, included in the development of the AI algorithm) had more images than studies without dermatologist authors.¹ Deep learning textbooks have suggested that 5000 clinical images or training input per output category are needed to produce acceptable algorithm performance, and more than 10 million are needed to produce results superior to human performance.^4-10 Despite advances in AI for dermatologic image analysis, the creation of these models often has been directed by nondermatologists¹; therefore, dermatologist involvement in AI development is necessary to facilitate collection of larger image datasets and optimal performance for image diagnosis/classification tasks.

We found that 20.7% of articles on deep learning models included descriptions of patient ethnicity or race, and only 10.3% of studies included any information about skin tone in the dataset. Furthermore, American investigators primarily trained models using clinical images of patients with lighter skin tones, whereas Chinese investigators exclusively included images depicting darker skin tones. Similarly, in a study of 52 cutaneous imaging deep learning articles, only 17.3% (9/52) reported race and/or Fitzpatrick skin type, and only 7.7% (4/52) of articles included both.^2,6,8 Therefore, dermatologists are needed to contribute images representing diverse populations and collaborate in AI research studies, as their involvement is necessary to ensure the accuracy of AI models in classifying lesions or diagnosing skin lesions across all skin types.

Our search was limited to PubMed, and real-world applications could not be evaluated.

Conclusion

In summary, we found that AI studies with dermatologist authors used larger numbers of clinical images in their datasets and more images representing diverse skin types than studies without. Therefore, we advocate for greater involvement of dermatologists in AI research, which might result in better patient outcomes by improving diagnostic accuracy.

Use of artificial intelligence (AI) in dermatology has increased over the past decade, likely driven by advances in deep learning algorithms, computing hardware, and machine learning.¹ Studies comparing the performance of AI algorithms to dermatologists in classifying skin disorders have shown conflicting results.^2,3 In this study, we aimed to analyze AI tools used for diagnosing and classifying skin disease and evaluate the role of dermatologists in the creation of AI technology. We also investigated the number of clinical images used in datasets to train AI programs and compared tools that were created with dermatologist input to those created without dermatologist/clinician involvement.

Methods

A search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms machine learning, artificial intelligence, and dermatology was conducted on September 18, 2022. Articles were included if they described full-length trials; used machine learning for diagnosis of or screening for dermatologic conditions; and used dermoscopic or gross image datasets of the skin, hair, or nails. Articles were categorized into 4 groups based on the conditions covered: chronic wounds, inflammatory skin diseases, mixed conditions, and pigmented skin lesions. Algorithms were sorted into 4 categories: convolutional/convoluted neural network, deep learning model/deep neural network, AI/artificial neural network, and other. Details regarding Fitzpatrick skin type and skin of color (SoC) inclusion in the articles or AI algorithm datasets were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel and SAS Studio 3.8. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for all included AI technology. Sensitivity, specificity, and the number of clinical images were compared among the included articles using analysis of variance and t tests (α=0.05; P<.05 indicated statistical significance).

Results

Our search yielded 1016 articles, 58 of which met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 25.9% (15/58) of the articles utilized AI to diagnose or classify mixed skin diseases; 22.4% (13/58) for pigmented skin lesions; 19.0% (11/58) for wounds; 17.2% (10/58) for inflammatory skin diseases; and 5.2% (3/58) each for acne, psoriasis, and onychomycosis. Overall, 24.0% (14/58) of articles provided information about Fitzpatrick skin type, and 58.7% (34/58) included clinical images depicting SoC. Furthermore, we found that only 20.7% (12/58) of articles on deep learning models included descriptions of patient ethnicity or race in at least 1 dataset, and only 10.3% (6/58) of studies included any information about skin tone in the dataset. Studies with a dermatologist as the last author (most likely to be supervising the project) were more likely to include clinical images depicting SoC than those without (82.6% [19/23] and 16.7% [3/18], respectively [P=.0411]).

The mean (SD) number of clinical images in the study articles was 28,422 (84,050). Thirty-seven (63.8%) of the study articles included gross images, 17 (29.3%) used dermoscopic images, and 4 (6.9%) used both. Twenty-seven (46.6%) articles used convolutional/convoluted neural networks, 15 (25.9%) used deep learning model/deep neural networks, 8 (13.8%) used other algorithms, 6 (10.3%) used AI/artificial neural network, and 2 (3.4%) used fuzzy algorithms. Most studies were conducted in China (29.3% [17/58]), Germany (12.1% [7/58]), India (10.3% [6/58]), multiple nations (10.3% [6/58]), and the United States (10.3% [6/58]). Overall, 82.8% (48/58) of articles included at least 1 dermatologist coauthor. Sensitivity of the AI models was 0.85, and specificity was 0.85. The average percentage of images in the dataset correctly identified by a physician was 76.87% vs 81.62% of images correctly identified by AI. Average agreement between AI and physician assessment was 77.98%, defined as AI and physician both having the same diagnosis. 

Articles authored by dermatologists contained more clinical images than those without dermatologists in key authorship roles (P<.0001)(eTable). Psoriasis-related algorithms had the fewest (mean [SD]: 3173 [4203]), and pigmented skin lesions had the most clinical images (mean [SD]: 53,19l [155,579]).

Comment

Our results indicated that AI studies with dermatologist authors had significantly more images in their datasets (ie, the set of clinical images of skin lesions used to train AI algorithms in diagnosing or classifying lesions) than those with nondermatologist authors (P<.0001)(eTable). Similarly, in a study of AI technology for skin cancer diagnosis, AI studies with dermatologist authors (ie, included in the development of the AI algorithm) had more images than studies without dermatologist authors.¹ Deep learning textbooks have suggested that 5000 clinical images or training input per output category are needed to produce acceptable algorithm performance, and more than 10 million are needed to produce results superior to human performance.^4-10 Despite advances in AI for dermatologic image analysis, the creation of these models often has been directed by nondermatologists¹; therefore, dermatologist involvement in AI development is necessary to facilitate collection of larger image datasets and optimal performance for image diagnosis/classification tasks.

We found that 20.7% of articles on deep learning models included descriptions of patient ethnicity or race, and only 10.3% of studies included any information about skin tone in the dataset. Furthermore, American investigators primarily trained models using clinical images of patients with lighter skin tones, whereas Chinese investigators exclusively included images depicting darker skin tones. Similarly, in a study of 52 cutaneous imaging deep learning articles, only 17.3% (9/52) reported race and/or Fitzpatrick skin type, and only 7.7% (4/52) of articles included both.^2,6,8 Therefore, dermatologists are needed to contribute images representing diverse populations and collaborate in AI research studies, as their involvement is necessary to ensure the accuracy of AI models in classifying lesions or diagnosing skin lesions across all skin types.

Our search was limited to PubMed, and real-world applications could not be evaluated.

Conclusion

In summary, we found that AI studies with dermatologist authors used larger numbers of clinical images in their datasets and more images representing diverse skin types than studies without. Therefore, we advocate for greater involvement of dermatologists in AI research, which might result in better patient outcomes by improving diagnostic accuracy.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) often help provide dermatologic care but lack the same mandatory specialized postgraduate training required of board-certified dermatologists (BCDs), which includes at least 3 years of dermatology-focused education in an accredited residency program in addition to an intern year of general medicine, pediatrics, or surgery. Dermatology residency is followed by a certification examination administered by the American Board of Dermatology (ABD) or the American Osteopathic Board of Dermatology, leading to board certification. Some physicians choose to do a fellowship, which typically involves an additional 1 to 2 years of postresidency subspeciality training.

Optional postgraduate dermatology training programs for advanced practice providers (APPs) have been offered by some academic institutions and private practice groups since at least 2003, including Lahey Hospital and Medical Center (Burlington, Massachusetts) as well as the University of Rochester Medical Center (Rochester, New York). Despite a lack of accreditation or standardization, the programs can be beneficial for NPs and PAs to expand their dermatologic knowledge and skills and help bridge the care gap within the specialty. Didactics often are conducted in parallel with the educational activities of the parent institution’s traditional dermatology residency program (eg, lectures, grand rounds). While these programs often are managed by practicing dermatology NPs and PAs, dermatologists also may be involved in their education with didactic instruction, curriculum development, and clinical preceptorship. 

In this cross-sectional study, we identified and evaluated 10 postgraduate dermatology training programs for APPs across the United States. With the growing number of NPs and PAs in the dermatology workforce—both in academic and private practice—it is important for BCDs to be aware of the differences in the dermatology training received in order to ensure safe and effective care is provided through supervisory or collaborative roles (depending on state independent practice laws for APPs and to be aware of the implications these programs may have on the field of dermatology.

Methods

To identify postgraduate dermatology training programs for APPs in the United States, we conducted a cross-sectional study using data obtained via a Google search of various combinations of the following terms: nurse practitioner, NP, physician assistant, PA, advance practice provider, APP, dermatology, postgraduate training, residency, and fellowship. We excluded postgraduate dermatology training programs for APPs that required tuition and did not provide a stipend, as well as programs that lacked the formal structure and credibility needed to qualify as legitimate postgraduate training. Many of the excluded programs operate in a manner that raises ethical concerns, offering pay-to-play opportunities under the guise of education. Information collected on each program included the program name, location, parent institution, program length, class size, curriculum, and any associated salary and benefits.

Results

Ten academic and private practice organizations across the United States that offer postgraduate dermatologic training programs for APPs were identified (eTable). Four (40%) programs were advertised as fellowships. Six (60%) of the programs were offered at academic medical centers, and 4 (40%) were offered by private practices. Most programs were located east of the Mississippi River, and many institutions offered instruction at 1 or more locations within the same state (eFigure). The Advanced Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery private practice group offered training opportunities in multiple states.

Six programs required APPs to become board-certified NPs or PAs prior to enrolling. Most programs enrolled both NPs and PAs, while some only enrolled NPs (eTable). Only 1 (10%) program required NPs to be board certified as a family NP, while another (10%) recommended that applicants have experience in urgent care, emergency medicine, or trauma medicine. Lahey Hospital & Medical Center required experience as an NP in a general setting for 1 to 2 years prior to applying. No program required prior experience in the field of dermatology.

Program length varied from 6 to 24 months, and cohort size typically was limited to 1 to 2 providers (eTable). Although the exact numbers could not be ascertained, most curricula focused on medical dermatology, including clinical and didactic components, but many offered electives such as cosmetic and procedural dermatology. Two institutions (20%) required independent research. Work typically was limited to 40 hours per week, and most paid a full-time employee salary and provided benefits such as health insurance, retirement, and paid leave (eTable). Kansas Medical Clinic (Topeka, Kansas) required at least 3 years of employment in an underserved community following program completion. The Oasis Dermatology private practice group in Texas required a 1-year teaching commitment after program completion. The Advanced Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery group offered a full-time position upon program completion.

Comment

There is a large difference in the total number of training and credentialing hours when comparing graduate school training and postgraduate credentialing of medical and osteopathic physicians compared with APPs. A new graduate physician has at least twice as many clinical hours as a PA and 10 times as many clinical hours as an NP prior to starting residency. Physicians also typically complete at least 6 times the number of hours of certification examinations compared to NPs and PAs.¹

Nurse practitioner students typically complete the 500 hours of prelicensure clinical training required for NP school in 2 to 4 years.^2,3 The amount of time required for completion is dependent on the degree and experience of the student upon program entry (eg, bachelor of science in nursing vs master of science in nursing as a terminal degree). Physician assistant students are required to complete 2000 prelicensure clinical hours, and most PA programs are 3 years in duration.⁴ Many NP and PA programs require some degree of clinical experience prior to beginning graduate education.⁵

When comparing prelicensure examinations, questions assessing dermatologic knowledge comprise approximately 6% to 10% of the total questions on the United States Medical Licensing Examination Steps 1 and 2.⁶ The Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States Level 1 and Level 2-Cognitive Evaluation both have at least 5% of questions dedicated to dermatology.⁷ Approximately 5% of the questions on the Physician Assistant National Certifying Examination are dedicated to dermatology.⁸ The dermatology content on either of the NP certification examinations is unclear.^2,3 In the states of California, Indiana, and New York, national certification through the American Association of Nurse Practitioners or American Nurses Credentialing Center is not required for NPs to practice in their respective states.⁹

Regarding dermatologic board certification, a new graduate NP may obtain certification from the Dermatology Nurse Practitioner Certification Board with 3000 hours of general dermatology practice that may occur during normal working hours.¹⁰ These hours do not have to occur in one of the previously identified postgraduate APP training programs. The National Board of Dermatology Physician Assistants was founded in 2018 and has since dissolved. The National Board of Dermatology Physician Assistants was not accredited and required at least 3 years of training in dermatology with the same dermatologist in addition to completing a 125-question multiple-choice examination.¹¹ Of note, this examination was opposed by both the ABD and the Society for Dermatology Physician Associates.¹² A PA also may become a Diplomate Fellow with the Society of Dermatology Physician Associates after completion of 64.5 hours of online continuing education modules.⁴ Some PAs may choose to obtain a Certificate of Added Qualifications, which is a voluntary credential that helps document specialty experience and expertise in dermatology or other specialties.

In contrast, a dermatology resident physician requires nearly 11,000 to 13,000 hours of clinical training hours, which last 3 to 4 years following medical school.¹³ This training involves direct patient care under supervision in various settings, including hospitals, outpatient clinics, and surgical procedures. In addition to this clinical experience, dermatology residents must pass a 3-step certification examination process administered by the ABD.¹³ This process includes approximately 20 hours of examinations designed to assess both knowledge and practical skills. For those who wish to further specialize, additional fellowship training in areas such as pediatric dermatology, dermatopathology, or Mohs surgery may follow residency; such fellowships involve an extra 2500 to 3500 hours of training and culminate in another certification examination, further refining a resident’s expertise in a specific dermatologic field. Osteopathic physicians may opt out of the ABD 3-step pathway and obtain board certification through the American Osteopathic Board of Dermatology.¹⁴

Many of the programs we evaluated integrate APP trainees into resident education, allowing participation in equivalent didactic curricula, clinical rotations, and departmental academic activities. The salary and benefits associated with these programs are somewhat like those of resident physicians.^15,16 While most tuition-based programs were excluded from our study due to their lack of credibility and alignment with our study criteria, we identified 2 specific programs that stood out as credible despite requiring students to pay tuition. These programs demonstrated a structured and rigorous curriculum with a clear focus on comprehensive dermatologic training, meeting our standards for inclusion. These programs offer dermatologic training for graduates of NP and PA programs at a cost to the student.^15,16 The program at the Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, is largely online,¹⁵ and the program at the University of Miami, Florida, offers no direct clinical contact.¹⁶ These programs illustrate the variety of postgraduate dermatology curricula available nationally in comparison to resident salaries; however, they were not included in our formal analysis because they do not provide structured, in-person clinical training consistent with our inclusion criteria. Neither of these programs would enable participants to qualify for credentialing with the Dermatology Nurse Practitioner Certification Board after completion. While this study identified postgraduate training programs for APPs in dermatology advertised online, it is possible some were omitted or not advertised online.

While many of the postgraduate programs we evaluated provide unique educational opportunities for APPs, it is unknown if graduating providers are equipped to handle the care of patients with complex dermatologic needs. Regardless, the increased utilization of APPs by BCDs has been well documented over the past 2 decades.^17-20 It has been suggested that a higher ratio of APPs to dermatologists can decrease the time it takes for a patient to be seen in a clinic.^21-23 However, investigators have expressed concerns that APPs lack standardized surgical training and clinical hour requirements in the field of dermatology.²⁴ Despite these concerns, Medicare claims data show that APPs are performing advanced surgical and cosmetic procedures at increasing rates.^17,18 Other authors have questioned the cost-effectiveness of APPs, as multiple studies have shown that the number of biopsies needed to diagnose 1 case of skin cancer is higher for midlevel providers than for dermatologists.^25-27

Conclusion

With the anticipated expansion of private equity in dermatology and the growth of our Medicare-eligible population, we are likely to see increased utilization of APPs to address the shortage of BCDs.^28,29 Understanding the prelicensure and postlicensure clinical training requirements, examination hours, and extent of dermatology-focused education among APPs and BCDs can help dermatologists collaborate more effectively and ensure safe, high-quality patient care. Standardizing, improving, and providing high-quality education and promoting lifelong learning in the field of dermatology should be celebrated, and dermatologists are the skin experts best equipped to lead dermatologic education forward.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) often help provide dermatologic care but lack the same mandatory specialized postgraduate training required of board-certified dermatologists (BCDs), which includes at least 3 years of dermatology-focused education in an accredited residency program in addition to an intern year of general medicine, pediatrics, or surgery. Dermatology residency is followed by a certification examination administered by the American Board of Dermatology (ABD) or the American Osteopathic Board of Dermatology, leading to board certification. Some physicians choose to do a fellowship, which typically involves an additional 1 to 2 years of postresidency subspeciality training.

Optional postgraduate dermatology training programs for advanced practice providers (APPs) have been offered by some academic institutions and private practice groups since at least 2003, including Lahey Hospital and Medical Center (Burlington, Massachusetts) as well as the University of Rochester Medical Center (Rochester, New York). Despite a lack of accreditation or standardization, the programs can be beneficial for NPs and PAs to expand their dermatologic knowledge and skills and help bridge the care gap within the specialty. Didactics often are conducted in parallel with the educational activities of the parent institution’s traditional dermatology residency program (eg, lectures, grand rounds). While these programs often are managed by practicing dermatology NPs and PAs, dermatologists also may be involved in their education with didactic instruction, curriculum development, and clinical preceptorship. 

In this cross-sectional study, we identified and evaluated 10 postgraduate dermatology training programs for APPs across the United States. With the growing number of NPs and PAs in the dermatology workforce—both in academic and private practice—it is important for BCDs to be aware of the differences in the dermatology training received in order to ensure safe and effective care is provided through supervisory or collaborative roles (depending on state independent practice laws for APPs and to be aware of the implications these programs may have on the field of dermatology.

Methods

To identify postgraduate dermatology training programs for APPs in the United States, we conducted a cross-sectional study using data obtained via a Google search of various combinations of the following terms: nurse practitioner, NP, physician assistant, PA, advance practice provider, APP, dermatology, postgraduate training, residency, and fellowship. We excluded postgraduate dermatology training programs for APPs that required tuition and did not provide a stipend, as well as programs that lacked the formal structure and credibility needed to qualify as legitimate postgraduate training. Many of the excluded programs operate in a manner that raises ethical concerns, offering pay-to-play opportunities under the guise of education. Information collected on each program included the program name, location, parent institution, program length, class size, curriculum, and any associated salary and benefits.

Results

Ten academic and private practice organizations across the United States that offer postgraduate dermatologic training programs for APPs were identified (eTable). Four (40%) programs were advertised as fellowships. Six (60%) of the programs were offered at academic medical centers, and 4 (40%) were offered by private practices. Most programs were located east of the Mississippi River, and many institutions offered instruction at 1 or more locations within the same state (eFigure). The Advanced Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery private practice group offered training opportunities in multiple states.

Six programs required APPs to become board-certified NPs or PAs prior to enrolling. Most programs enrolled both NPs and PAs, while some only enrolled NPs (eTable). Only 1 (10%) program required NPs to be board certified as a family NP, while another (10%) recommended that applicants have experience in urgent care, emergency medicine, or trauma medicine. Lahey Hospital & Medical Center required experience as an NP in a general setting for 1 to 2 years prior to applying. No program required prior experience in the field of dermatology.

Program length varied from 6 to 24 months, and cohort size typically was limited to 1 to 2 providers (eTable). Although the exact numbers could not be ascertained, most curricula focused on medical dermatology, including clinical and didactic components, but many offered electives such as cosmetic and procedural dermatology. Two institutions (20%) required independent research. Work typically was limited to 40 hours per week, and most paid a full-time employee salary and provided benefits such as health insurance, retirement, and paid leave (eTable). Kansas Medical Clinic (Topeka, Kansas) required at least 3 years of employment in an underserved community following program completion. The Oasis Dermatology private practice group in Texas required a 1-year teaching commitment after program completion. The Advanced Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery group offered a full-time position upon program completion.

Comment

There is a large difference in the total number of training and credentialing hours when comparing graduate school training and postgraduate credentialing of medical and osteopathic physicians compared with APPs. A new graduate physician has at least twice as many clinical hours as a PA and 10 times as many clinical hours as an NP prior to starting residency. Physicians also typically complete at least 6 times the number of hours of certification examinations compared to NPs and PAs.¹

Nurse practitioner students typically complete the 500 hours of prelicensure clinical training required for NP school in 2 to 4 years.^2,3 The amount of time required for completion is dependent on the degree and experience of the student upon program entry (eg, bachelor of science in nursing vs master of science in nursing as a terminal degree). Physician assistant students are required to complete 2000 prelicensure clinical hours, and most PA programs are 3 years in duration.⁴ Many NP and PA programs require some degree of clinical experience prior to beginning graduate education.⁵

When comparing prelicensure examinations, questions assessing dermatologic knowledge comprise approximately 6% to 10% of the total questions on the United States Medical Licensing Examination Steps 1 and 2.⁶ The Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States Level 1 and Level 2-Cognitive Evaluation both have at least 5% of questions dedicated to dermatology.⁷ Approximately 5% of the questions on the Physician Assistant National Certifying Examination are dedicated to dermatology.⁸ The dermatology content on either of the NP certification examinations is unclear.^2,3 In the states of California, Indiana, and New York, national certification through the American Association of Nurse Practitioners or American Nurses Credentialing Center is not required for NPs to practice in their respective states.⁹

Regarding dermatologic board certification, a new graduate NP may obtain certification from the Dermatology Nurse Practitioner Certification Board with 3000 hours of general dermatology practice that may occur during normal working hours.¹⁰ These hours do not have to occur in one of the previously identified postgraduate APP training programs. The National Board of Dermatology Physician Assistants was founded in 2018 and has since dissolved. The National Board of Dermatology Physician Assistants was not accredited and required at least 3 years of training in dermatology with the same dermatologist in addition to completing a 125-question multiple-choice examination.¹¹ Of note, this examination was opposed by both the ABD and the Society for Dermatology Physician Associates.¹² A PA also may become a Diplomate Fellow with the Society of Dermatology Physician Associates after completion of 64.5 hours of online continuing education modules.⁴ Some PAs may choose to obtain a Certificate of Added Qualifications, which is a voluntary credential that helps document specialty experience and expertise in dermatology or other specialties.

In contrast, a dermatology resident physician requires nearly 11,000 to 13,000 hours of clinical training hours, which last 3 to 4 years following medical school.¹³ This training involves direct patient care under supervision in various settings, including hospitals, outpatient clinics, and surgical procedures. In addition to this clinical experience, dermatology residents must pass a 3-step certification examination process administered by the ABD.¹³ This process includes approximately 20 hours of examinations designed to assess both knowledge and practical skills. For those who wish to further specialize, additional fellowship training in areas such as pediatric dermatology, dermatopathology, or Mohs surgery may follow residency; such fellowships involve an extra 2500 to 3500 hours of training and culminate in another certification examination, further refining a resident’s expertise in a specific dermatologic field. Osteopathic physicians may opt out of the ABD 3-step pathway and obtain board certification through the American Osteopathic Board of Dermatology.¹⁴

Many of the programs we evaluated integrate APP trainees into resident education, allowing participation in equivalent didactic curricula, clinical rotations, and departmental academic activities. The salary and benefits associated with these programs are somewhat like those of resident physicians.^15,16 While most tuition-based programs were excluded from our study due to their lack of credibility and alignment with our study criteria, we identified 2 specific programs that stood out as credible despite requiring students to pay tuition. These programs demonstrated a structured and rigorous curriculum with a clear focus on comprehensive dermatologic training, meeting our standards for inclusion. These programs offer dermatologic training for graduates of NP and PA programs at a cost to the student.^15,16 The program at the Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, is largely online,¹⁵ and the program at the University of Miami, Florida, offers no direct clinical contact.¹⁶ These programs illustrate the variety of postgraduate dermatology curricula available nationally in comparison to resident salaries; however, they were not included in our formal analysis because they do not provide structured, in-person clinical training consistent with our inclusion criteria. Neither of these programs would enable participants to qualify for credentialing with the Dermatology Nurse Practitioner Certification Board after completion. While this study identified postgraduate training programs for APPs in dermatology advertised online, it is possible some were omitted or not advertised online.

While many of the postgraduate programs we evaluated provide unique educational opportunities for APPs, it is unknown if graduating providers are equipped to handle the care of patients with complex dermatologic needs. Regardless, the increased utilization of APPs by BCDs has been well documented over the past 2 decades.^17-20 It has been suggested that a higher ratio of APPs to dermatologists can decrease the time it takes for a patient to be seen in a clinic.^21-23 However, investigators have expressed concerns that APPs lack standardized surgical training and clinical hour requirements in the field of dermatology.²⁴ Despite these concerns, Medicare claims data show that APPs are performing advanced surgical and cosmetic procedures at increasing rates.^17,18 Other authors have questioned the cost-effectiveness of APPs, as multiple studies have shown that the number of biopsies needed to diagnose 1 case of skin cancer is higher for midlevel providers than for dermatologists.^25-27

Conclusion

With the anticipated expansion of private equity in dermatology and the growth of our Medicare-eligible population, we are likely to see increased utilization of APPs to address the shortage of BCDs.^28,29 Understanding the prelicensure and postlicensure clinical training requirements, examination hours, and extent of dermatology-focused education among APPs and BCDs can help dermatologists collaborate more effectively and ensure safe, high-quality patient care. Standardizing, improving, and providing high-quality education and promoting lifelong learning in the field of dermatology should be celebrated, and dermatologists are the skin experts best equipped to lead dermatologic education forward.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) often help provide dermatologic care but lack the same mandatory specialized postgraduate training required of board-certified dermatologists (BCDs), which includes at least 3 years of dermatology-focused education in an accredited residency program in addition to an intern year of general medicine, pediatrics, or surgery. Dermatology residency is followed by a certification examination administered by the American Board of Dermatology (ABD) or the American Osteopathic Board of Dermatology, leading to board certification. Some physicians choose to do a fellowship, which typically involves an additional 1 to 2 years of postresidency subspeciality training.

Optional postgraduate dermatology training programs for advanced practice providers (APPs) have been offered by some academic institutions and private practice groups since at least 2003, including Lahey Hospital and Medical Center (Burlington, Massachusetts) as well as the University of Rochester Medical Center (Rochester, New York). Despite a lack of accreditation or standardization, the programs can be beneficial for NPs and PAs to expand their dermatologic knowledge and skills and help bridge the care gap within the specialty. Didactics often are conducted in parallel with the educational activities of the parent institution’s traditional dermatology residency program (eg, lectures, grand rounds). While these programs often are managed by practicing dermatology NPs and PAs, dermatologists also may be involved in their education with didactic instruction, curriculum development, and clinical preceptorship. 

In this cross-sectional study, we identified and evaluated 10 postgraduate dermatology training programs for APPs across the United States. With the growing number of NPs and PAs in the dermatology workforce—both in academic and private practice—it is important for BCDs to be aware of the differences in the dermatology training received in order to ensure safe and effective care is provided through supervisory or collaborative roles (depending on state independent practice laws for APPs and to be aware of the implications these programs may have on the field of dermatology.

Methods

To identify postgraduate dermatology training programs for APPs in the United States, we conducted a cross-sectional study using data obtained via a Google search of various combinations of the following terms: nurse practitioner, NP, physician assistant, PA, advance practice provider, APP, dermatology, postgraduate training, residency, and fellowship. We excluded postgraduate dermatology training programs for APPs that required tuition and did not provide a stipend, as well as programs that lacked the formal structure and credibility needed to qualify as legitimate postgraduate training. Many of the excluded programs operate in a manner that raises ethical concerns, offering pay-to-play opportunities under the guise of education. Information collected on each program included the program name, location, parent institution, program length, class size, curriculum, and any associated salary and benefits.

Results

Ten academic and private practice organizations across the United States that offer postgraduate dermatologic training programs for APPs were identified (eTable). Four (40%) programs were advertised as fellowships. Six (60%) of the programs were offered at academic medical centers, and 4 (40%) were offered by private practices. Most programs were located east of the Mississippi River, and many institutions offered instruction at 1 or more locations within the same state (eFigure). The Advanced Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery private practice group offered training opportunities in multiple states.

Six programs required APPs to become board-certified NPs or PAs prior to enrolling. Most programs enrolled both NPs and PAs, while some only enrolled NPs (eTable). Only 1 (10%) program required NPs to be board certified as a family NP, while another (10%) recommended that applicants have experience in urgent care, emergency medicine, or trauma medicine. Lahey Hospital & Medical Center required experience as an NP in a general setting for 1 to 2 years prior to applying. No program required prior experience in the field of dermatology.

Program length varied from 6 to 24 months, and cohort size typically was limited to 1 to 2 providers (eTable). Although the exact numbers could not be ascertained, most curricula focused on medical dermatology, including clinical and didactic components, but many offered electives such as cosmetic and procedural dermatology. Two institutions (20%) required independent research. Work typically was limited to 40 hours per week, and most paid a full-time employee salary and provided benefits such as health insurance, retirement, and paid leave (eTable). Kansas Medical Clinic (Topeka, Kansas) required at least 3 years of employment in an underserved community following program completion. The Oasis Dermatology private practice group in Texas required a 1-year teaching commitment after program completion. The Advanced Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery group offered a full-time position upon program completion.

Comment

There is a large difference in the total number of training and credentialing hours when comparing graduate school training and postgraduate credentialing of medical and osteopathic physicians compared with APPs. A new graduate physician has at least twice as many clinical hours as a PA and 10 times as many clinical hours as an NP prior to starting residency. Physicians also typically complete at least 6 times the number of hours of certification examinations compared to NPs and PAs.¹

Nurse practitioner students typically complete the 500 hours of prelicensure clinical training required for NP school in 2 to 4 years.^2,3 The amount of time required for completion is dependent on the degree and experience of the student upon program entry (eg, bachelor of science in nursing vs master of science in nursing as a terminal degree). Physician assistant students are required to complete 2000 prelicensure clinical hours, and most PA programs are 3 years in duration.⁴ Many NP and PA programs require some degree of clinical experience prior to beginning graduate education.⁵

When comparing prelicensure examinations, questions assessing dermatologic knowledge comprise approximately 6% to 10% of the total questions on the United States Medical Licensing Examination Steps 1 and 2.⁶ The Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States Level 1 and Level 2-Cognitive Evaluation both have at least 5% of questions dedicated to dermatology.⁷ Approximately 5% of the questions on the Physician Assistant National Certifying Examination are dedicated to dermatology.⁸ The dermatology content on either of the NP certification examinations is unclear.^2,3 In the states of California, Indiana, and New York, national certification through the American Association of Nurse Practitioners or American Nurses Credentialing Center is not required for NPs to practice in their respective states.⁹

Regarding dermatologic board certification, a new graduate NP may obtain certification from the Dermatology Nurse Practitioner Certification Board with 3000 hours of general dermatology practice that may occur during normal working hours.¹⁰ These hours do not have to occur in one of the previously identified postgraduate APP training programs. The National Board of Dermatology Physician Assistants was founded in 2018 and has since dissolved. The National Board of Dermatology Physician Assistants was not accredited and required at least 3 years of training in dermatology with the same dermatologist in addition to completing a 125-question multiple-choice examination.¹¹ Of note, this examination was opposed by both the ABD and the Society for Dermatology Physician Associates.¹² A PA also may become a Diplomate Fellow with the Society of Dermatology Physician Associates after completion of 64.5 hours of online continuing education modules.⁴ Some PAs may choose to obtain a Certificate of Added Qualifications, which is a voluntary credential that helps document specialty experience and expertise in dermatology or other specialties.

In contrast, a dermatology resident physician requires nearly 11,000 to 13,000 hours of clinical training hours, which last 3 to 4 years following medical school.¹³ This training involves direct patient care under supervision in various settings, including hospitals, outpatient clinics, and surgical procedures. In addition to this clinical experience, dermatology residents must pass a 3-step certification examination process administered by the ABD.¹³ This process includes approximately 20 hours of examinations designed to assess both knowledge and practical skills. For those who wish to further specialize, additional fellowship training in areas such as pediatric dermatology, dermatopathology, or Mohs surgery may follow residency; such fellowships involve an extra 2500 to 3500 hours of training and culminate in another certification examination, further refining a resident’s expertise in a specific dermatologic field. Osteopathic physicians may opt out of the ABD 3-step pathway and obtain board certification through the American Osteopathic Board of Dermatology.¹⁴

Many of the programs we evaluated integrate APP trainees into resident education, allowing participation in equivalent didactic curricula, clinical rotations, and departmental academic activities. The salary and benefits associated with these programs are somewhat like those of resident physicians.^15,16 While most tuition-based programs were excluded from our study due to their lack of credibility and alignment with our study criteria, we identified 2 specific programs that stood out as credible despite requiring students to pay tuition. These programs demonstrated a structured and rigorous curriculum with a clear focus on comprehensive dermatologic training, meeting our standards for inclusion. These programs offer dermatologic training for graduates of NP and PA programs at a cost to the student.^15,16 The program at the Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, is largely online,¹⁵ and the program at the University of Miami, Florida, offers no direct clinical contact.¹⁶ These programs illustrate the variety of postgraduate dermatology curricula available nationally in comparison to resident salaries; however, they were not included in our formal analysis because they do not provide structured, in-person clinical training consistent with our inclusion criteria. Neither of these programs would enable participants to qualify for credentialing with the Dermatology Nurse Practitioner Certification Board after completion. While this study identified postgraduate training programs for APPs in dermatology advertised online, it is possible some were omitted or not advertised online.

While many of the postgraduate programs we evaluated provide unique educational opportunities for APPs, it is unknown if graduating providers are equipped to handle the care of patients with complex dermatologic needs. Regardless, the increased utilization of APPs by BCDs has been well documented over the past 2 decades.^17-20 It has been suggested that a higher ratio of APPs to dermatologists can decrease the time it takes for a patient to be seen in a clinic.^21-23 However, investigators have expressed concerns that APPs lack standardized surgical training and clinical hour requirements in the field of dermatology.²⁴ Despite these concerns, Medicare claims data show that APPs are performing advanced surgical and cosmetic procedures at increasing rates.^17,18 Other authors have questioned the cost-effectiveness of APPs, as multiple studies have shown that the number of biopsies needed to diagnose 1 case of skin cancer is higher for midlevel providers than for dermatologists.^25-27

Conclusion

With the anticipated expansion of private equity in dermatology and the growth of our Medicare-eligible population, we are likely to see increased utilization of APPs to address the shortage of BCDs.^28,29 Understanding the prelicensure and postlicensure clinical training requirements, examination hours, and extent of dermatology-focused education among APPs and BCDs can help dermatologists collaborate more effectively and ensure safe, high-quality patient care. Standardizing, improving, and providing high-quality education and promoting lifelong learning in the field of dermatology should be celebrated, and dermatologists are the skin experts best equipped to lead dermatologic education forward.

Social media is rife with content promoting colon cleansing as a way to shed toxins and fix everything from chronic fatigue and overweight to weak immunity and skin problems.

Even doctors who aren’t hip to the latest TikTok trends may not be able to avoid the hype. That’s because patients are bringing up colon cleansing during their office visit.

“Patients often raise questions about colonics or detox teas, especially when these gain traction on social media platforms like TikTok,” said Tauseef Ali, MD, AGAF, medical executive director of SSM Health Digestive Care at St. Anthony Hospital in Oklahoma City. “Interest typically comes in waves, closely tied to the latest online trends.”

That means gastroenterologists need to be prepared when they’re asked if the latest product — whether it’s colon hydrotherapy, a detox drink or pill, or an enema — being touted by influencers is good for their health. And it’s not just patients who are asking.

“Sometimes we’ll get a message from primary care,” Mohammad Bilal, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of Bariatric and Third Space Endoscopy at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colorado, told GI & Hepatology News. They’re getting the same questions from patients, and they want to know if colon cleansing that’s not connected with a colonoscopy exam has any benefits for overall health or specific health conditions.

The answer is no, and patients are more likely to believe that when physicians explain it using good information. Here is how Ali, Bilal, and professional organizations advise doctors to approach the issue.

 

What Exactly Is a Colon Cleanse?

Colon cleanses come in a variety of forms. Colonic irrigation, also called colon hydrotherapy, involves inserting a tube into the rectum and flushing out the colon with a large amount of fluid. Enemas do the same but use a small amount of liquid, and some product instructions tell the user to “hold it” for a designated amount of time before expelling colon contents.

Other cleanses, often called detoxing cleanses, are laxatives or herbal teas that users drink — and then stay close to the bathroom. Detox regimens and diets also are mentioned as a way to remove toxins from the body, improve health, and promote well-being.

 

Why Do Patients Use Them?

“Many patients describe a desire for ‘cleanliness,’ ‘detoxification,’ or to ‘feel lighter,’” Ali told GI & Hepatology News.

The claims on social media promote all of this and more — and well-known influencers make it all sound even more attractive.

“These motivations are often rooted in the cultural belief that the colon accumulates harmful toxins that must be flushed out,” Ali said. “This idea is not supported by scientific evidence. The body’s natural detox systems, primarily the liver and kidneys, already perform this function effectively.”

Bilal said that in recent years, he has noticed more awareness in general about the importance of gut health. “When there’s awareness, people often go to the other extreme,” he said.

Where Is the Evidence?

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), part of the National Institutes of Health, warns on an information page that both cleansing and detox programs can be unsafe and falsely advertised.

While searches of medical literature turn up few studies, the NCCIH information points to a 2014 review that concluded that there is no compelling research to support the use of detox diets for managing weight or eliminating toxins. A 2017 review found juicing and detox regimens can cause weight loss initially but then lead to weight gain once a normal diet is resumed.

A systematic review of research on the safety and effectiveness of self-administered coffee enemas found nine case reports describing adverse events: seven reported colitis after the enema, and two reported more critical adverse events. All nine reports warned against the procedure. The researchers found no study reporting the effectiveness of coffee enemas.

The NCCIH information also notes that there is “limited clinical evidence validating colonic irrigation and insufficient evidence for its prescribed uses.”

 

Are Cleanses Regulated?

Some over-the-counter colon cleansing products are viewed as dietary supplements, giving the FDA authority to regulate them and take action under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.

Certain products promoted as colon cleanses, such as laxatives, are regulated by the FDA as over-the-counter drugs and must meet safety and other requirements.

Colonic irrigation systems meant for cleansing before radiologic or endoscopic exams are class II devices — subject to 510(k) premarket notification requirements before marketing — whereas systems intended for other uses, such as routine colon cleansing for general well-being, are regarded as class III devices — subject to premarket approval requirements — according to an FDA spokesperson. To date, the FDA has not approved any colonic irrigation devices for the latter use, the spokesperson said.

For instance, the FDA warned consumers not to use a product promoted for colon cleansing after finding it contained tadalafil, the active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug for erectile dysfunction. The FDA has also issued numerous warning letters to the makers of colon cleansing devices, as they are not approved for this purpose.

The Federal Trade Commission can also take action specifically if the claims about the benefits and safety of products — including supplements, foods, over-the-counter drugs, or health equipment — are false, misleading, or not supported by science.

 

What Are the Dangers?

Cleanse and detox products come with many risks, including electrolyte imbalances, dehydration, and infections, Ali said. With colonic irrigation, there is a risk for rectal perforation. Products also may disrupt the gut microbiome, and some can interact with medications or worsen underlying health conditions, he added.

“It’s important for patients to be aware of these risks before considering nonmedical ‘cleaning’ methods,” he said.

At worst, patients risk fatality, Ali noted. He recalled a young patient who began using a vegetable enema as a detox. As it was being administered, the colon ruptured. The patient was admitted as a medical emergency and required surgery. Fortunately, the patient survived, but the incident could have proven fatal, Ali said.

 

Educating Patients

Because patients often don’t think of herbal cleanses, detox teas, and over-the-counter powders as supplements, Ali said it’s important to ask them about everything they take.

One way to frame this question is to ask if they are consuming any over-the-counter supplements or any other remedies, he said, and perhaps ask directly about any cleanses they are doing.

When patients ask him about colon cleanses, Ali explains the difference between evidence-based colonoscopy preparation and unregulated “cleanses.” Most patients respond to that approach, he said. Indeed, AGA and other GI societies updated their recommendations on optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy.

“Still, the appeal of quick fixes of social media trends can sometimes outweigh medical advice,” Ali said. He depends on building trusted relationships and reinforcing the message over time and finds that helps patients make informed and healthier choices.

Bilal, too, explains to patients that cleanses are unnecessary and educates them about what to do instead:

• Eat a  containing the recommended amount of  (22-34 g, depending on age and gender).
• For , follow a bowel regimen advised by your doctor.
• If gastrointestinal issues persist, get a medical checkup.
• Get any unexplained constipation or  checked out by a doctor.

Taking a careful history can pay off, Ali has found. He questioned a patient complaining of abdominal discomfort whose testing found unexpectedly elevated liver enzymes and found she had been using an herbal “cleanse tea” found online. Within 4 weeks of stopping it, her liver enzymes normalized. “Thankfully, she made a full recovery — and she never touched those remedies again,” he said.

Ali had no relevant disclosures. Bilal reported consulting for Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, and Steris.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Social media is rife with content promoting colon cleansing as a way to shed toxins and fix everything from chronic fatigue and overweight to weak immunity and skin problems.

Even doctors who aren’t hip to the latest TikTok trends may not be able to avoid the hype. That’s because patients are bringing up colon cleansing during their office visit.

“Patients often raise questions about colonics or detox teas, especially when these gain traction on social media platforms like TikTok,” said Tauseef Ali, MD, AGAF, medical executive director of SSM Health Digestive Care at St. Anthony Hospital in Oklahoma City. “Interest typically comes in waves, closely tied to the latest online trends.”

That means gastroenterologists need to be prepared when they’re asked if the latest product — whether it’s colon hydrotherapy, a detox drink or pill, or an enema — being touted by influencers is good for their health. And it’s not just patients who are asking.

“Sometimes we’ll get a message from primary care,” Mohammad Bilal, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of Bariatric and Third Space Endoscopy at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colorado, told GI & Hepatology News. They’re getting the same questions from patients, and they want to know if colon cleansing that’s not connected with a colonoscopy exam has any benefits for overall health or specific health conditions.

The answer is no, and patients are more likely to believe that when physicians explain it using good information. Here is how Ali, Bilal, and professional organizations advise doctors to approach the issue.

 

What Exactly Is a Colon Cleanse?

Colon cleanses come in a variety of forms. Colonic irrigation, also called colon hydrotherapy, involves inserting a tube into the rectum and flushing out the colon with a large amount of fluid. Enemas do the same but use a small amount of liquid, and some product instructions tell the user to “hold it” for a designated amount of time before expelling colon contents.

Other cleanses, often called detoxing cleanses, are laxatives or herbal teas that users drink — and then stay close to the bathroom. Detox regimens and diets also are mentioned as a way to remove toxins from the body, improve health, and promote well-being.

 

Why Do Patients Use Them?

“Many patients describe a desire for ‘cleanliness,’ ‘detoxification,’ or to ‘feel lighter,’” Ali told GI & Hepatology News.

The claims on social media promote all of this and more — and well-known influencers make it all sound even more attractive.

“These motivations are often rooted in the cultural belief that the colon accumulates harmful toxins that must be flushed out,” Ali said. “This idea is not supported by scientific evidence. The body’s natural detox systems, primarily the liver and kidneys, already perform this function effectively.”

Bilal said that in recent years, he has noticed more awareness in general about the importance of gut health. “When there’s awareness, people often go to the other extreme,” he said.

Where Is the Evidence?

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), part of the National Institutes of Health, warns on an information page that both cleansing and detox programs can be unsafe and falsely advertised.

While searches of medical literature turn up few studies, the NCCIH information points to a 2014 review that concluded that there is no compelling research to support the use of detox diets for managing weight or eliminating toxins. A 2017 review found juicing and detox regimens can cause weight loss initially but then lead to weight gain once a normal diet is resumed.

A systematic review of research on the safety and effectiveness of self-administered coffee enemas found nine case reports describing adverse events: seven reported colitis after the enema, and two reported more critical adverse events. All nine reports warned against the procedure. The researchers found no study reporting the effectiveness of coffee enemas.

The NCCIH information also notes that there is “limited clinical evidence validating colonic irrigation and insufficient evidence for its prescribed uses.”

 

Are Cleanses Regulated?

Some over-the-counter colon cleansing products are viewed as dietary supplements, giving the FDA authority to regulate them and take action under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.

Certain products promoted as colon cleanses, such as laxatives, are regulated by the FDA as over-the-counter drugs and must meet safety and other requirements.

Colonic irrigation systems meant for cleansing before radiologic or endoscopic exams are class II devices — subject to 510(k) premarket notification requirements before marketing — whereas systems intended for other uses, such as routine colon cleansing for general well-being, are regarded as class III devices — subject to premarket approval requirements — according to an FDA spokesperson. To date, the FDA has not approved any colonic irrigation devices for the latter use, the spokesperson said.

For instance, the FDA warned consumers not to use a product promoted for colon cleansing after finding it contained tadalafil, the active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug for erectile dysfunction. The FDA has also issued numerous warning letters to the makers of colon cleansing devices, as they are not approved for this purpose.

The Federal Trade Commission can also take action specifically if the claims about the benefits and safety of products — including supplements, foods, over-the-counter drugs, or health equipment — are false, misleading, or not supported by science.

 

What Are the Dangers?

Cleanse and detox products come with many risks, including electrolyte imbalances, dehydration, and infections, Ali said. With colonic irrigation, there is a risk for rectal perforation. Products also may disrupt the gut microbiome, and some can interact with medications or worsen underlying health conditions, he added.

“It’s important for patients to be aware of these risks before considering nonmedical ‘cleaning’ methods,” he said.

At worst, patients risk fatality, Ali noted. He recalled a young patient who began using a vegetable enema as a detox. As it was being administered, the colon ruptured. The patient was admitted as a medical emergency and required surgery. Fortunately, the patient survived, but the incident could have proven fatal, Ali said.

 

Educating Patients

Because patients often don’t think of herbal cleanses, detox teas, and over-the-counter powders as supplements, Ali said it’s important to ask them about everything they take.

One way to frame this question is to ask if they are consuming any over-the-counter supplements or any other remedies, he said, and perhaps ask directly about any cleanses they are doing.

When patients ask him about colon cleanses, Ali explains the difference between evidence-based colonoscopy preparation and unregulated “cleanses.” Most patients respond to that approach, he said. Indeed, AGA and other GI societies updated their recommendations on optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy.

“Still, the appeal of quick fixes of social media trends can sometimes outweigh medical advice,” Ali said. He depends on building trusted relationships and reinforcing the message over time and finds that helps patients make informed and healthier choices.

Bilal, too, explains to patients that cleanses are unnecessary and educates them about what to do instead:

• Eat a  containing the recommended amount of  (22-34 g, depending on age and gender).
• For , follow a bowel regimen advised by your doctor.
• If gastrointestinal issues persist, get a medical checkup.
• Get any unexplained constipation or  checked out by a doctor.

Taking a careful history can pay off, Ali has found. He questioned a patient complaining of abdominal discomfort whose testing found unexpectedly elevated liver enzymes and found she had been using an herbal “cleanse tea” found online. Within 4 weeks of stopping it, her liver enzymes normalized. “Thankfully, she made a full recovery — and she never touched those remedies again,” he said.

Ali had no relevant disclosures. Bilal reported consulting for Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, and Steris.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Social media is rife with content promoting colon cleansing as a way to shed toxins and fix everything from chronic fatigue and overweight to weak immunity and skin problems.

Even doctors who aren’t hip to the latest TikTok trends may not be able to avoid the hype. That’s because patients are bringing up colon cleansing during their office visit.

“Patients often raise questions about colonics or detox teas, especially when these gain traction on social media platforms like TikTok,” said Tauseef Ali, MD, AGAF, medical executive director of SSM Health Digestive Care at St. Anthony Hospital in Oklahoma City. “Interest typically comes in waves, closely tied to the latest online trends.”

That means gastroenterologists need to be prepared when they’re asked if the latest product — whether it’s colon hydrotherapy, a detox drink or pill, or an enema — being touted by influencers is good for their health. And it’s not just patients who are asking.

“Sometimes we’ll get a message from primary care,” Mohammad Bilal, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of Bariatric and Third Space Endoscopy at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colorado, told GI & Hepatology News. They’re getting the same questions from patients, and they want to know if colon cleansing that’s not connected with a colonoscopy exam has any benefits for overall health or specific health conditions.

The answer is no, and patients are more likely to believe that when physicians explain it using good information. Here is how Ali, Bilal, and professional organizations advise doctors to approach the issue.

 

What Exactly Is a Colon Cleanse?

Colon cleanses come in a variety of forms. Colonic irrigation, also called colon hydrotherapy, involves inserting a tube into the rectum and flushing out the colon with a large amount of fluid. Enemas do the same but use a small amount of liquid, and some product instructions tell the user to “hold it” for a designated amount of time before expelling colon contents.

Other cleanses, often called detoxing cleanses, are laxatives or herbal teas that users drink — and then stay close to the bathroom. Detox regimens and diets also are mentioned as a way to remove toxins from the body, improve health, and promote well-being.

 

Why Do Patients Use Them?

“Many patients describe a desire for ‘cleanliness,’ ‘detoxification,’ or to ‘feel lighter,’” Ali told GI & Hepatology News.

The claims on social media promote all of this and more — and well-known influencers make it all sound even more attractive.

“These motivations are often rooted in the cultural belief that the colon accumulates harmful toxins that must be flushed out,” Ali said. “This idea is not supported by scientific evidence. The body’s natural detox systems, primarily the liver and kidneys, already perform this function effectively.”

Bilal said that in recent years, he has noticed more awareness in general about the importance of gut health. “When there’s awareness, people often go to the other extreme,” he said.

Where Is the Evidence?

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), part of the National Institutes of Health, warns on an information page that both cleansing and detox programs can be unsafe and falsely advertised.

While searches of medical literature turn up few studies, the NCCIH information points to a 2014 review that concluded that there is no compelling research to support the use of detox diets for managing weight or eliminating toxins. A 2017 review found juicing and detox regimens can cause weight loss initially but then lead to weight gain once a normal diet is resumed.

A systematic review of research on the safety and effectiveness of self-administered coffee enemas found nine case reports describing adverse events: seven reported colitis after the enema, and two reported more critical adverse events. All nine reports warned against the procedure. The researchers found no study reporting the effectiveness of coffee enemas.

The NCCIH information also notes that there is “limited clinical evidence validating colonic irrigation and insufficient evidence for its prescribed uses.”

 

Are Cleanses Regulated?

Some over-the-counter colon cleansing products are viewed as dietary supplements, giving the FDA authority to regulate them and take action under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.

Certain products promoted as colon cleanses, such as laxatives, are regulated by the FDA as over-the-counter drugs and must meet safety and other requirements.

Colonic irrigation systems meant for cleansing before radiologic or endoscopic exams are class II devices — subject to 510(k) premarket notification requirements before marketing — whereas systems intended for other uses, such as routine colon cleansing for general well-being, are regarded as class III devices — subject to premarket approval requirements — according to an FDA spokesperson. To date, the FDA has not approved any colonic irrigation devices for the latter use, the spokesperson said.

For instance, the FDA warned consumers not to use a product promoted for colon cleansing after finding it contained tadalafil, the active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug for erectile dysfunction. The FDA has also issued numerous warning letters to the makers of colon cleansing devices, as they are not approved for this purpose.

The Federal Trade Commission can also take action specifically if the claims about the benefits and safety of products — including supplements, foods, over-the-counter drugs, or health equipment — are false, misleading, or not supported by science.

 

What Are the Dangers?

Cleanse and detox products come with many risks, including electrolyte imbalances, dehydration, and infections, Ali said. With colonic irrigation, there is a risk for rectal perforation. Products also may disrupt the gut microbiome, and some can interact with medications or worsen underlying health conditions, he added.

“It’s important for patients to be aware of these risks before considering nonmedical ‘cleaning’ methods,” he said.

At worst, patients risk fatality, Ali noted. He recalled a young patient who began using a vegetable enema as a detox. As it was being administered, the colon ruptured. The patient was admitted as a medical emergency and required surgery. Fortunately, the patient survived, but the incident could have proven fatal, Ali said.

 

Educating Patients

Because patients often don’t think of herbal cleanses, detox teas, and over-the-counter powders as supplements, Ali said it’s important to ask them about everything they take.

One way to frame this question is to ask if they are consuming any over-the-counter supplements or any other remedies, he said, and perhaps ask directly about any cleanses they are doing.

When patients ask him about colon cleanses, Ali explains the difference between evidence-based colonoscopy preparation and unregulated “cleanses.” Most patients respond to that approach, he said. Indeed, AGA and other GI societies updated their recommendations on optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy.

“Still, the appeal of quick fixes of social media trends can sometimes outweigh medical advice,” Ali said. He depends on building trusted relationships and reinforcing the message over time and finds that helps patients make informed and healthier choices.

Bilal, too, explains to patients that cleanses are unnecessary and educates them about what to do instead:

• Eat a  containing the recommended amount of  (22-34 g, depending on age and gender).
• For , follow a bowel regimen advised by your doctor.
• If gastrointestinal issues persist, get a medical checkup.
• Get any unexplained constipation or  checked out by a doctor.

Taking a careful history can pay off, Ali has found. He questioned a patient complaining of abdominal discomfort whose testing found unexpectedly elevated liver enzymes and found she had been using an herbal “cleanse tea” found online. Within 4 weeks of stopping it, her liver enzymes normalized. “Thankfully, she made a full recovery — and she never touched those remedies again,” he said.

Ali had no relevant disclosures. Bilal reported consulting for Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, and Steris.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.