Thirty-five of 64 respondents (54%) who reported having a RAC indicated that RAC was a formal rotation in their residency program. Although respondents noted that chief residents represented the largest group of participants (n = 53), lower level residents also have some degree of participation in the RAC (Fig. 8). Nearly all residents (60 of 64) provide continuity of care for their patients. According to the respondents, residents receive supervision mostly by full-time core faculty (Fig. 9), who usually oversee all components of perioperative and intraoperative care (Fig. 10).
Although the majority of RACs have some type of accreditation, 18 of 63 respondents with RACs reported no accreditation (Fig. 11). Furthermore, 28 of 63 respondents with RACs reported a list of inclusion/exclusion criteria for cases, and only 17 respondents reported having a Life Safety Plan for the RAC. An anesthesiologist administers anesthesia in 31 of 38 RACs with operative capability, whereas other personnel are used for this function in the remaining RACs (certified registered nurse anesthetist, 3; nursing staff, 2; and surgeon, 2). Seventeen of the 35 clinics with operative capability reported the ability to recover patients overnight.
Of the 64 respondents who indicated that their institution had a RAC, 1 ACAPS member reported a patient death in the facility and 2 ACAPS members reported patient deaths within 30 days of the procedure. Our cohort of ACAPS members observed no cases of malignant hyperthermia. Sixteen of the 62 ACAPS members (26%) indicated that their RAC has been involved in a lawsuit. Regarding malpractice insurance models, most groups are self-insured and pay premiums to a group trust (Fig. 12). Three of the 63 respondents with RACs noted that patients must sign a waiver, releasing residents from malpractice liability or to limit award for damages.
Although 18 respondents did not know if their RACs were financially viable, 33 respondents indicated that their RACs were financially viable, compared with 13 respondents who reported that the RACs were not financially viable. The large majority of attending surgeons do not receive any financial remuneration, but some of the respondents do receive compensation from professional fees, teaching stipend, or a medial directorship (Fig. 13). Almost all RACs offer discounted fees (59 of 63, 94%), and most RACs charge for the initial consultation (39 of 63, 62%). The most effective method for patient recruitment was listed as “word of mouth” (61 of 63, 97%). Faculty practices contribute various types of resources to the RACs, in addition to resident supervision (Fig. 14), such as clinic space, scheduling, nursing support, and disposable supplies. If profitable, net income is primarily transferred to a residents’ education fund, but some of the gains are transferred back to the division or department, presumably to cover overhead costs (Fig. 15). Only a small fraction of the positive net income is directed toward incentive plans for the faculty, to the dean or the hospital, or toward an operating reserve.
Research and Outcomes Effectiveness
Respondents indicated that RACs use a number of different methodologies to measure the effectiveness of the educational experience, with review of resident case logs and morbidity and mortality conferences as the most popular techniques (Fig. 16). Fourteen of the 64 respondents with RACs have presented related data at national scientific meetings, and 12 respondents have published their research in peer-reviewed, scientific journals. The overwhelming perception is that RACs have a positive effect on plastic surgery training (Fig. 17). The majority of respondents were neutral when asked about the impact of the RAC on their practice (n = 36), but only a minority of respondents reported that the RAC was a liability for the practice (n = 7) (Fig. 18).
RACs serve as an important component of graduate medical education in plastic surgery. Most clinics are financially viable but carry a high malpractice risk and consume considerable resources. Best practices, to maximize patient safety and optimize resident education, include use of accredited procedural rooms, having anesthesiologists provide anesthesia, and providing appropriate faculty supervision at all stages of patient care.
Despite their tremendous potential educational importance, medicolegal issues limit the value of RACs, through increased exposure and liability of both the resident and attending physicians. Given the perioperative deaths reported in this survey, combined with a litigation rate of 25%, significant measures must be pursued to create a culture that stresses patient safety, in such a setting where graduate medical education occurs. Quality metrics, such as reporting of adverse events, use of standardized safety protocols and check lists, supervision that exceeds requirements of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), and longitudinal follow-up of patients, must be incorporated into the mission and operational structure of the RAC. We strongly recommend establishing a formal relationship with risk management, just as divisions and departments currently do, through the following modalities: morbidity and mortality conferences, peer review of cases, and preemptive reporting of complications and patient complaints.
The educational concept of a RACs is not new and has been implemented in various specialties, including plastic surgery, otolaryngology,19 and dermatology.20 In fact, the literature is replete with articles addressing the mechanics of administrating Plastic Surgery RACs, their educational benefit, and analyses of outcome data. According to Neaman et al3 in 2010, 71% of plastic surgery residencies had a cosmetic surgery clinic, with 44% of the respondents noted that 100% of the cases performed there were cosmetic in nature.
In 2006, the University of Kentucky group noted that the resident cosmetic surgery clinic contributed 82% of the resident’s total aesthetic procedures. This was completed with a 3.1% reoperative complication rate and no medicolegal litigation.4 Pyle et al10 at Wake Forest reported that not only do residents gain added experience as surgeon in a resident-driven clinic but also patients are able to receive cosmetic surgery that they might not otherwise be able to access. They had no major complications but did report a minor complication rate of 8% and a revision rate of 14.4%.10
Freiberg et al8 at the University of Toronto examined a retrospective survey of 265 patients with a 49% response rate, where 93% of patients said they would recommend the clinic (after a slightly lower rate the first year), and 93% would undergo the same procedure again if required. The highest patient satisfaction was seen in augmentation mammoplasty (9.1/10.0) and blepharoplasty (9.0/10.0), whereas rhytidectomy and rhinoplasty were lower at 7.8/10.00 and 6.9/10.0, respectively.8 At Georgetown University, Iorio et al7 evaluated satisfaction with resident injected fillers using a FACE-Q survey. They demonstrated a 91% rate of being satisfied or very satisfied with this evolving less invasive and highly popular injection in 10 patients.7
At the American Association of Plastic Surgeons meeting in 2012, a 2-year retrospective review of patient care from 2009 to 2011 at the Johns Hopkins Resident Cosmetic Surgery Clinic was presented. Rad et al9 noted complications rates consistent with the mainstream cosmetic surgery literature, breaking down the procedures by type and body location. Their study sample included 115 patients who underwent 132 primary body-contouring procedures and 53 patients who underwent 84 facial aesthetic procedures.9
Based on the published literature and the ACAPS national survey, it is clear that resident education in aesthetic surgery must be grounded in principles of informed consent, appropriate patient selection, patient safety, teamwork, and critical assessment of outcomes. Fortunately, qualitative and quantitative instruments have been recently developed to assess outcomes, in terms of patient satisfaction and objective measures.21–23 Furthermore, surgical educators are focusing on how to teach trainees aesthetic surgery—and reporting these results—within the framework of competency- and milestone-based graduate medical education.24–26 Additional efforts have been pursued to educate residents about the importance of strategic marketing, accounting and finance, economic forces of competition, the supply chain, and regulatory/legal considerations, in the context of office-based surgery and aesthetic services.27–32
The Aesthetic Surgery Task Force of the ACAPS endorses the concept a properly supervised RAC, provided that the following guidelines are considered and followed, to the greatest extent possible, within training programs accredited by the ACGME:
- The educational experience should maximize resident autonomy, appropriate to level of training, as permitted by ACGME guidelines.
Longitudinal, complete continuity of care is critical; no postrotation handoffs should occur.
The RAC must have a medical director who oversees the educational components of the program, to ensure that quality measures are met, that patient safety is optimized, and that operational logistics are well managed.
The RAC must establish screening processes to eliminate inappropriate patients, using such predefined parameters, such as body mass index, smoking status, uncontrolled diabetes, or hypertension.
The RAC must establish operative criteria, such as inclusion/exclusion lists and maximum length of case.
Surgery must be performed in accredited facilities only.
The RAC must have close faculty supervision in both the clinic and operating room, including presence at the key components of procedure.
The faculty must establish goals, objectives, and targets for residents; track outcomes; provide regular review; and offer timely feedback.
Real-time evaluation of competencies and milestones must be performed.
The program director should review operative logs to ensure diversity of cases, surgeons, and locations.
The RAC must combine a robust clinic and operative experience with strong educational modules focused on aesthetic surgery, including lectures, indications and outcomes conferences, and a journal club.
The medical director should moderate a formal Resident Clinic Outcomes Conference for the entire division/department, in association with risk management.
The division/department should reinvest net income back into the aesthetic curriculum/program.
The RAC can consider reduced fees to stimulate demand, by decreasing professional fees and charging facility fees high enough to cover overhead.
The RAC should involve residents with strategic marketing of the practice.
The RAC should have a dedicated administrative assistant to help run the program.
Although aesthetic education should begin early in the training program, the RAC should be limited to chief or senior residents in Plastic Surgery.
The educational curriculum should phase in the complexity of the cases as the resident skill set grows (eg, the trainee could start with breast and body procedures and then move to facial procedures).
Trainee experience at the RAC should occur after more traditional aesthetic surgery rotations have been completed and should be considered separate and distinct from faculty practices.
Residents should not be allowed to perform injection of neuromodulators, soft-tissue fillers, or chemical peels in the RAC, which instead should be used as an operative experience, for surgical procedures.
- a. Residents must obtain a complete history and physical examination, with preoperative evaluation to include patient photographs.
- b. Residents must discuss case with attending regarding operative plan.
- c. Attendings must be present for planning and execution of procedure.
- d. Residents must be involved with postoperative management, including complications.
- e. Residents must be available for 24–7 coverage, with adequate faculty backup.
1. Morrison CM, Rotemberg SC, Moreira-Gonzalez A, et al. A survey of cosmetic surgery training in plastic surgery programs in the United States. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:1570–1578
2. Oni G, Ahmad J, Zins JE, et al. Cosmetic surgery training in plastic surgery residency programs in the United States: how have we progressed in the last three years? Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31:445–455
3. Neaman KC, Hill BC, Ebner B, et al. Plastic surgery chief resident clinics: the current state of affairs. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:626–633
4. Pu LL, Thornton BP, Vasconez HC.. The educational value of a resident aesthetic surgery clinic: a 10-year review. Aesthet Surg J. 2006;26:41–44
5. May JW Jr. Aesthetic surgery 101: resident education in aesthetic surgery, the MGH experience. Ann Plast Surg. 2003;50:561–566
6. Momeni A, Goerke SM, Bannasch H, et al. The quality of aesthetic surgery training in plastic surgery residency: a survey among residents in Germany. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:704–708
7. Iorio ML, Stolle E, Brown BJ, et al. Plastic surgery training: evaluating patient satisfaction with facial fillers in a resident clinic. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012;36:1361–1366
8. Freiberg A, Giguère D, Ross DC, et al. Are patients satisfied with results from residents performing aesthetic surgery? Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100:1824–1831; discussion 1832
9. Rad A, Burretta KJ, Im J, et al. The chief resident aesthetic surgery clinic: a safe alternative for patients.Abstract presented at the 91st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Plastic SurgeonsApril 2012San Francisco, Calif
10. Pyle JW, Angobaldo JO, Bryant AK, et al. Outcomes analysis of a resident cosmetic clinic: safety and feasibility after 7 years. Ann Plast Surg. 2010;64:270–274
11. Krieger LM, Shaw WW.. Pricing strategy for aesthetic surgery: economic analysis of a resident clinic’s change in fees. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103:695–700
12. Freiberg A.. Challenges in developing resident training in aesthetic surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 1989;22:184–187
13. Bingham HG.. Training in esthetic surgery: some problems encountered in a university program. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980;65:227–228
14. Schulman NH.. Aesthetic surgical training: the Lenox Hill model. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38:309–313
15. Linder SA, Mele JA 3rd, Capozzi A.. Teaching aesthetic surgery at the resident level. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1996;20:351–354
16. Zweifler M, Glasberg SB.. An outcome-based study of aesthetic surgery in a clinic setting. Ann Plast Surg. 2000;44:355–360
17. Rohrich RJ.. The importance of cosmetic plastic surgery education: an evolution. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:741–742
18. Rao VK, Schmid DB, Hanson SE, et al. Establishing a multidisciplinary academic cosmetic center. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:741e–746e
19. Sullivan CA, Masin J, Maniglia AJ, et al. Complications of rhytidectomy in an otolaryngology training program. Laryngoscope. 1999;109(2 Pt 1):198–203
20. Alam M.. Cosmetic surgery as a revenue engine for academic dermatology. Arch Dermatol. 2000;136:1096–1098
21. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q satisfaction with appearance scale: a new patient-reported outcome instrument for facial aesthetics patients. Clin Plast Surg. 2013;40:249–260
22. Pusic AL, Lemaine V, Klassen AF, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in plastic surgery: use and interpretation in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:1361–1367
23. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A, et al. Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast Surg. 2010;26:303–309
24. Kosowski TR, McCarthy C, Reavey PL, et al. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after facial cosmetic surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:1819–1827
25. Ching S, Rockwell G, Thoma A, et al. Clinical research in aesthetic surgery. Clin Plast Surg. 2008;35:269–273
26. Ching S, Thoma A, McCabe RE, et al. Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:469–480; discussion 481
27. Miller SH.. Competitive forces and academic plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;101:1389–1399
28. D’Amico RA, Saltz R, Rohrich RJ, et al. Risks and opportunities for plastic surgeons in a widening cosmetic medicine market: future demand, consumer preferences, and trends in practitioners’ services. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:1787–1792
29. Pacella SJ, Comstock MC, Kuzon WM Jr. Facility cost analysis in outpatient plastic surgery: implications for the academic health center. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:1479–1488
30. Pacella SJ.. Exceptions to the Stark law: the ambulatory surgery center exemption. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:822–823
31. Pacella SJ, Comstock M, Kuzon WM Jr. Certificate-of-need regulation in outpatient surgery and specialty care: implications for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:1103–1111; discussion 1112
32. Chivers QJ, Ahmad J, Lista F, et al. Cosmetic surgery training in Canadian plastic surgery residencies: are we training competent surgeons? Aesthet Surg J. 2013;33:160–165
Supplemental Digital Content
© 2015 American Society of Plastic Surgeons