Identification of best practices for resident aesthetic clinics in plastic surgery training

The ACAPS National Survey

Charles Hultman, Cindy Wu, Michael L. Bentz, Richard Redett, R. Bruce Shack, Lisa R. David, Peter J. Taub, Jeffrey E. Janis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: Resident aesthetic clinics (RACs) have demonstrated good outcomes and acceptable patient satisfaction, but few studies have evaluated their educational, financial, or medicolegal components. We sought to determine RAC best practices. Methods: We surveyed American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeon members (n = 399), focusing on operational details, resident supervision, patient safety, medicolegal history, financial viability, and research opportunities. Of the 96 respondents, 63 reported having a RAC, and 56% of plastic surgery residency program directors responded. Results: RACs averaged 243 patient encounters and 53.9 procedures annually, having been in existence for 19.6 years (mean). Full-time faculty (73%) supervised chief residents (84%) in all aspects of care (65%). Of the 63 RACs, 45 were accredited, 40 had licensed procedural suites, 28 had inclusion/exclusion criteria, and 31 used anesthesiologists. Seventeen had overnight capability, and 17 had a Life Safety Plan. No cases of malignant hyperthermia occurred, but 1 facility death was reported. Sixteen RACs had been involved in a lawsuit, and 33 respondents reported financial viability of the RACs. Net revenue was transferred to both the residents' educational fund (41%) and divisional/departmental overhead (37%). Quality measures included case logs (78%), morbidity/mortality conference (62%), resident surveys (52%), and patient satisfaction scores (46%). Of 63 respondents, 14 have presented or published RACspecific research; 80 of 96 of those who were surveyed believed RACs enhanced education. Conclusions: RACs are an important component of plastic surgery education. Most clinics are financially viable but carry high malpractice risk and consume significant resources. Best practices, to maximize patient safety and optimize resident education, include use of accredited procedural rooms and direct faculty supervision of all components of care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)26-37
Number of pages12
JournalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open
Volume3
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

Plastic Surgery
Esthetics
Practice Guidelines
Patient Safety
Patient Satisfaction
Education
Surveys and Questionnaires
Malignant Hyperthermia
Malpractice
Financial Management
Internship and Residency
Research
History
Morbidity
Safety
Mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Identification of best practices for resident aesthetic clinics in plastic surgery training : The ACAPS National Survey. / Hultman, Charles; Wu, Cindy; Bentz, Michael L.; Redett, Richard; Shack, R. Bruce; David, Lisa R.; Taub, Peter J.; Janis, Jeffrey E.

In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open, Vol. 3, No. 3, 01.01.2015, p. 26-37.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hultman, Charles ; Wu, Cindy ; Bentz, Michael L. ; Redett, Richard ; Shack, R. Bruce ; David, Lisa R. ; Taub, Peter J. ; Janis, Jeffrey E. / Identification of best practices for resident aesthetic clinics in plastic surgery training : The ACAPS National Survey. In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open. 2015 ; Vol. 3, No. 3. pp. 26-37.
@article{1d6e01dffa7b4235aa43ec6c0ad31c55,
title = "Identification of best practices for resident aesthetic clinics in plastic surgery training: The ACAPS National Survey",
abstract = "Introduction: Resident aesthetic clinics (RACs) have demonstrated good outcomes and acceptable patient satisfaction, but few studies have evaluated their educational, financial, or medicolegal components. We sought to determine RAC best practices. Methods: We surveyed American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeon members (n = 399), focusing on operational details, resident supervision, patient safety, medicolegal history, financial viability, and research opportunities. Of the 96 respondents, 63 reported having a RAC, and 56{\%} of plastic surgery residency program directors responded. Results: RACs averaged 243 patient encounters and 53.9 procedures annually, having been in existence for 19.6 years (mean). Full-time faculty (73{\%}) supervised chief residents (84{\%}) in all aspects of care (65{\%}). Of the 63 RACs, 45 were accredited, 40 had licensed procedural suites, 28 had inclusion/exclusion criteria, and 31 used anesthesiologists. Seventeen had overnight capability, and 17 had a Life Safety Plan. No cases of malignant hyperthermia occurred, but 1 facility death was reported. Sixteen RACs had been involved in a lawsuit, and 33 respondents reported financial viability of the RACs. Net revenue was transferred to both the residents' educational fund (41{\%}) and divisional/departmental overhead (37{\%}). Quality measures included case logs (78{\%}), morbidity/mortality conference (62{\%}), resident surveys (52{\%}), and patient satisfaction scores (46{\%}). Of 63 respondents, 14 have presented or published RACspecific research; 80 of 96 of those who were surveyed believed RACs enhanced education. Conclusions: RACs are an important component of plastic surgery education. Most clinics are financially viable but carry high malpractice risk and consume significant resources. Best practices, to maximize patient safety and optimize resident education, include use of accredited procedural rooms and direct faculty supervision of all components of care.",
author = "Charles Hultman and Cindy Wu and Bentz, {Michael L.} and Richard Redett and Shack, {R. Bruce} and David, {Lisa R.} and Taub, {Peter J.} and Janis, {Jeffrey E.}",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/GOX.0000000000000334",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "26--37",
journal = "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open",
issn = "2169-7574",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Ltd.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Identification of best practices for resident aesthetic clinics in plastic surgery training

T2 - The ACAPS National Survey

AU - Hultman, Charles

AU - Wu, Cindy

AU - Bentz, Michael L.

AU - Redett, Richard

AU - Shack, R. Bruce

AU - David, Lisa R.

AU - Taub, Peter J.

AU - Janis, Jeffrey E.

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Introduction: Resident aesthetic clinics (RACs) have demonstrated good outcomes and acceptable patient satisfaction, but few studies have evaluated their educational, financial, or medicolegal components. We sought to determine RAC best practices. Methods: We surveyed American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeon members (n = 399), focusing on operational details, resident supervision, patient safety, medicolegal history, financial viability, and research opportunities. Of the 96 respondents, 63 reported having a RAC, and 56% of plastic surgery residency program directors responded. Results: RACs averaged 243 patient encounters and 53.9 procedures annually, having been in existence for 19.6 years (mean). Full-time faculty (73%) supervised chief residents (84%) in all aspects of care (65%). Of the 63 RACs, 45 were accredited, 40 had licensed procedural suites, 28 had inclusion/exclusion criteria, and 31 used anesthesiologists. Seventeen had overnight capability, and 17 had a Life Safety Plan. No cases of malignant hyperthermia occurred, but 1 facility death was reported. Sixteen RACs had been involved in a lawsuit, and 33 respondents reported financial viability of the RACs. Net revenue was transferred to both the residents' educational fund (41%) and divisional/departmental overhead (37%). Quality measures included case logs (78%), morbidity/mortality conference (62%), resident surveys (52%), and patient satisfaction scores (46%). Of 63 respondents, 14 have presented or published RACspecific research; 80 of 96 of those who were surveyed believed RACs enhanced education. Conclusions: RACs are an important component of plastic surgery education. Most clinics are financially viable but carry high malpractice risk and consume significant resources. Best practices, to maximize patient safety and optimize resident education, include use of accredited procedural rooms and direct faculty supervision of all components of care.

AB - Introduction: Resident aesthetic clinics (RACs) have demonstrated good outcomes and acceptable patient satisfaction, but few studies have evaluated their educational, financial, or medicolegal components. We sought to determine RAC best practices. Methods: We surveyed American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeon members (n = 399), focusing on operational details, resident supervision, patient safety, medicolegal history, financial viability, and research opportunities. Of the 96 respondents, 63 reported having a RAC, and 56% of plastic surgery residency program directors responded. Results: RACs averaged 243 patient encounters and 53.9 procedures annually, having been in existence for 19.6 years (mean). Full-time faculty (73%) supervised chief residents (84%) in all aspects of care (65%). Of the 63 RACs, 45 were accredited, 40 had licensed procedural suites, 28 had inclusion/exclusion criteria, and 31 used anesthesiologists. Seventeen had overnight capability, and 17 had a Life Safety Plan. No cases of malignant hyperthermia occurred, but 1 facility death was reported. Sixteen RACs had been involved in a lawsuit, and 33 respondents reported financial viability of the RACs. Net revenue was transferred to both the residents' educational fund (41%) and divisional/departmental overhead (37%). Quality measures included case logs (78%), morbidity/mortality conference (62%), resident surveys (52%), and patient satisfaction scores (46%). Of 63 respondents, 14 have presented or published RACspecific research; 80 of 96 of those who were surveyed believed RACs enhanced education. Conclusions: RACs are an important component of plastic surgery education. Most clinics are financially viable but carry high malpractice risk and consume significant resources. Best practices, to maximize patient safety and optimize resident education, include use of accredited procedural rooms and direct faculty supervision of all components of care.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958060321&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84958060321&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000334

DO - 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000334

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 26

EP - 37

JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

SN - 2169-7574

IS - 3

ER -