Original Article

Skin Biopsies and Diagnostic Outcomes at a Multisite Family Medicine Residency Network

Authors: Alice J. Lin, BS, Laura K. Ferris, MD, PhD, John Maier, MD, PhD, Robin Maier, MD

Abstract

Objectives: Physicians other than dermatologists evaluate nearly 60% of all skin diseases, and 22% of these physicians are family physicians. Dermatology education is therefore an important aspect of Family Medicine training. Dermatologic procedural training in Family Medicine residency is not standardized, however, so family physicians graduate with highly variable skills. This study describes the scope and diagnostic outcomes of skin biopsies performed by residents at a multisite Family Medicine residency network in comparison with those performed by attendings at a Family Medicine faculty community practice.

Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients evaluated at eight Family Medicine residency training sites and one Family Medicine faculty community practice within a regional academic health system between January 2020 and October 2022. Patients with a skin finding who underwent at least one skin biopsy during their visit were included in the study.

Results: Among all of the skin findings, the incidence of skin biopsy was 3.6% (258/7104) for residents and 1.8% (175/9917) for attendings (P < 0.001). Family Medicine residents performed fewer shave biopsies (57.8% vs 77.7%, P < 0.001) and more punch biopsies (25.6% vs 11.4%, P < 0.001) compared with attendings. Most biopsies performed by residents and attendings were benign, although residents biopsied significantly more benign (79.1% vs 64.6%, P < 0.001) and malignant lesions (11.2% vs 5.7%, P = 0.049). Attendings biopsied significantly more low-to-moderate–grade dysplastic (22.3% vs 5.0%, P < 0.001) and high-grade atypical lesions (4.0% vs 0.8%, P = 0.034).

Conclusions: Family Medicine residents at this residency network receive training in a variety of skin biopsy types. Distinct skin biopsy practices and outcomes between residents and attendings may reflect differences in patient populations, clinical expertise, and dermatology referral patterns.
Posted in: Dermatology15

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Fleischer AB Jr, Herbert CR, Feldman SR, et al. Diagnosis of skin disease by nondermatologists. Am J Manag Care 2000;6:1149–1156.
 
2. Federman DG, Kirsner RS. The primary care physician and the treatment of patients with skin disorders. Dermatol Clin 2000;18:215–221.
 
3. Suneja T, Smith ED, ChenGJ, et al. Waiting times to see a dermatologist are perceived as too long by dermatologists: implications for the dermatology workforce. Arch Dermatol 2001; 137:1303–1307.
 
4. Stern RS, Nelson C. The diminishing role of the dermatologist in the office-based care of cutaneous diseases. J Am Acad Dermatol 1993;29(5 Pt 1):773–777.
 
5. Vaidya T, Zubritsky L, Alikhan A, et al. Socioeconomic and geographic barriers to dermatology care in urban and rural US populations. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018;78:406–408.
 
6. Fleischer AB, Feldman SR, McConnell RC. The most common dermatologic problems identified by family physicians, 1990-1994. Fam Med 1997;29:648–652.
 
7. Awadalla F, Rosenbaum DA, Camacho F,et al.Dermatologicdiseaseinfamily medicine. Fam Med 2008;40:507–511.
 
8. Lowell BA, Froelich CW, Federman DG, et al. Dermatology in primary care: prevalence and patient disposition. J Am Acad Dermatol 2001;45:250–255.
 
9. Branch WT, Collins M, Wintroub BU. Dermatologic practice: implications for a primary care residency curriculum. J Med Educ 1983;58:136–142.
 
10. Geller AC, Koh HK, Miller DR, et al. Use of health services before the diagnosis of melanoma: implications for early detection and screening. J GenIntern Med 1992;7:154–157.
 
11. Robsahm TE, Helsing P, Svendsen HL. Clinical suspicion sensitivity of nodular and superficial spreading melanoma. Acta Derm Venereol 2021;101:adv00427.
 
12. Nothnagle M, Sicilia JM, Forman S, et al. Required procedural training in family medicine residency: a consensus statement. Fam Med 2008;40:248–252.
 
13. Kelly BF, Sicilia JM, Forman S, et al. Advanced procedural training in family medicine: a group consensus statement. Fam Med 2009;41:398–404.
 
14. Stephenson A, From L, Cohen A, et al. Family physicians’ knowledge of malignant melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol 1997;37:953–957.
 
15. Duran-Nelson A, Baum KD, Weber-Main AM, et al.Efficacy of peer-assisted learning across residencies for procedural training in dermatology. J Grad Med Educ 2011;3:391–394.
 
16. Goetsch NJ, Hoehns JD, Sutherland JE, et al. Assessment of postgraduate skin lesion education among Iowa family physicians. SAGE Open Med 2017;5:2050312117691392.
 
17. Poulin E, Swartz A, O’Grady J, et al. Essential office procedures for Medicare patients in primary care: comparison with family medicine residency training. Fam Med 2019;51: 574–577.
 
18. Nelson KC, Swetter SM, Saboda K, et al. Evaluation of the number-needed-to-biopsy metric for the diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol 2019;155:1167–1174.
 
19. Alhumidi A, Alshamlan N, Alfaraidi M, et al. Invisible dermatosis, diagnostic discrepancy between the general pathologist and dermatopathologist. J Cutan Pathol 2019;46:905–912.
 
20. Piepkorn MW, Longton GM, Reisch LM, et al. Assessment of second-opinion strategies for diagnoses of cutaneous melanocytic lesions. JAMA Netw Open 2019;2:e1912597.