Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Medical photography enhances patient care, medical education, and research. Despite medical photography's widespread use, little is known about how dermatologists choose to implement photography in routine clinical practice, and how they approach issues of image storage, image security, and patient consent. OBJECTIVE:To characterize dermatologists' medical photography habits and opinions. METHODS:A 32-item anonymous, multiple-choice SurveyMonkey questionnaire about medical photography practices was emailed to program directors of the 117 United States (US) dermatology residency programs between May and August 2015, with a request to forward to faculty and affiliated dermatologists. Only board-certified dermatologists practicing in the US were eligible. The Institutional Review Board exempted our study from full review. RESULTS:Our survey included 153 board-certified dermatologists, primarily representing the northeast (43.1%) and identifying as academic dermatologists (75.5%). Medical photography is prevalent: 61.8% report everyday use and 21.7% photograph every patient. Those reporting rare use (3.3%) were, on average, 20 years older. Dermatologists most commonly use photography to mark biopsy sites (87.5%), track disease (82.9%), and for education/teaching (72.4%). Nearly half (46%) use smartphone cameras. Emailing and texting photographs with patients or colleagues are common (69.1%). Most dermatologists (75.7%) always request patient consent for photographs. Only 23.7% adhere to a photography protocol and 73.9% desire more training opportunities. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Dermatologists value medical photography. While patterns of image acquisition, storage, and consent are noted, a variety of methods and preferences exist. Clearer photography guidelines and increased educational resources are likely to improve image quality, exchangeability, and confidentiality.

INTRODUCTION: Ghana is currently developing its provision of dermatology services. Epidemiologic studies of the skin diseases seen by Ghanaian dermatologists are needed to guide these efforts. We aimed to describe the skin conditions seen by and management practices of Ghanaian dermatologists in a specialized clinic. METHODS: We conducted a chart review of new patients presenting to the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital dermatology clinic during 2014. RESULTS: Among the 529 patients studied, 700 discrete diagnoses were made. The most commonly diagnosed skin conditions were infections (24.6%) and dermatitis (24.6%); atopic dermatitis (8.4%), acne vulgaris (5.3%) and scabies (5.1%) were the most common specific diagnoses. Among infants, children, and adolescents, the most common diagnosis was atopic dermatitis (31.7%, 30.0%, and 14.9%, respectively). Acne vulgaris (12.0%) was the most common skin condition diagnosed in young adults. Irritant contact dermatitis (6.9%) was most common among adults. Lichen planus (9.9%) was the most commonly diagnosed skin condition in the senior population. Diagnoses made by dermatologists differed from the referral diagnosis documented by primary care providers for 65.8% of patients. The most frequently recommended treatments were antihistamines (47.8%) and topical steroids (38.4%). Only 18 diagnostic biopsies were performed. CONCLUSION: Our study summarizes the skin diseases seen and management practices of Ghanaian dermatologists in a specialized clinic at a large public teaching hospital. The results of this study can help to guide future dermatology education and development efforts in Ghana.

We report a 68-year-old woman with chroniclymphocytic leukemia, who developed numerous,pruritic, edematous, and vesicobullous skin lesionsof the face and extremities over the course of severalmonths. The diagnosis of eosinophilic dermatosis ofhematologic malignancy (EDHM) was made basedon the clinical history and histopathologic features.Owing to the possible link between EDHM and amore aggressive underlying CLL, she was startedagain on chemotherapy. This case serves as areminder that, although the precise pathogenesis ofEDHM remains unclear, the paraneoplastic disorderis the result of immune dysregulation. Patientswho develop EDHM should undergo prompthematologic/oncologic evaluation.

Perniosis is a localized, inflammatory reaction that ischaracterized by erythematous papules and nodulesthat often are located on the acral surfaces in youngwomen. The lesions of perniosis are thought to bedue to cold-induced vasoconstriction that leadsto hypoxemia and inflammation of the vessel wall.Histopathologic and laboratory studies are indicatedfor patients with suspected perniosis to distinguishbetween idiopathic perniosis and secondaryperniosis. Treatment includes adequate heating andclothing, proper food intake, nifedipine, ultravioletA1 phototherapy, topical glucocorticoids, andvasodilators.

The association between multiple pilomatricomasand the autosomal dominant neurodegenerativedisorder myotonic dystrophy has been described inthe literature. Although the mechanism is unknown,it is hypothesized that the dystrophia myotonicaprotein kinase mutation in myotonic dystrophyaffects intracellular calcium levels, which alterproliferation and terminal differentiation that leads tocells that are observed in pilomatricomas. We presenta patient with multiple, symptomatic pilomatricomasand myotonic dystrophy, with a strong family historyof both of these rare disorders.

Importance: Significant ties exist between clinicians and industry. Little is known about the characteristics of industry payments to dermatologists. Objective: To analyze the nature and extent of industry payments to dermatologists. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective review using the publicly available Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Sunshine Act Open Payment database. Data were downloaded from the publically available CMS website under General Payment and Research Payment data sets. All payments to dermatologists from companies making products reimbursed by a government-run health program were reviewed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean, median, and range of payments made, including quantity and total sum of payments, per clinician. Total payments and number of transactions per category of payment, geographic region, and payment source were also assessed. Results: A total of 8333 dermatologists received 208613 payments totaling more than $34 million. The median total payment per dermatologist was $298 with an interquartile range of $99 to $844. The top 10% of dermatologists (n = 833) received more than $31.2 million, 90% of the total payments. The top 1% each (n = 83) received at least $93622 and accounted for 44% of total payments. While 83% of payment entries were for food and beverage, they accounted for only 13% of total amount of payments. Speaker fees (31.7%), consulting fees (21.6%), and research payments (16.5%) comprised 69.8% of total payment amount. The top 15 companies were all pharmaceutical manufacturers and paid dermatologists $28.7 million, representing 81% of total disbursement. Conclusions and Relevance: Dermatologists received substantial payments from the pharmaceutical industry. The nature and amount of payments varied widely. The impact of the data on patient care, physicians practice patterns, and patient perception of physicians is unclear.