Surgical education in North America is shifting towards competency-based medical education (CBME), whereby trainee performance is measured and demonstrated through objective milestones.1 In response to this curriculum reform, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has defined core competencies that all plastic surgery residents are expected to attain upon program completion, with aesthetic surgical education being among these competencies.2–4 As highlighted by Murray and Baker, aesthetic surgery education distinguishes plastic surgery from other competing specialties, yet hands-on training in aesthetic plastic surgery is challenging mainly due to patient reluctance to have trainees participate in their procedures.1–3 Suggestions for improvement by experts include standardizing curricula across programs, shortening general surgery training, increasing hands-on training and faculty involvement, community rotations, fellowships in aesthetic surgery, and implementing resident-run clinics (RRCs).5–9 With an increase in RRCs and continuous transition in plastic surgery education into a milestones-based model, this study explores RRCs as a model for competency-based aesthetic surgery training in terms of best practices and outcomes.10,11
CURRENT METHODS OF AESTHETIC SURGERY TRAINING
Current methods of aesthetic surgery training differ across residency programs. Most programs employ designated cosmetic surgery rotations and integrate didactic teaching, while few have an RRC dedicated to aesthetic surgery training.7,12,13 Designated rotations are usually single or multiple 1–6-month periods whereby residents assist in surgery with variable exposure to the consultation and follow-up process.3,14 At some academic centers, the variability and extent of cosmetic procedures performed are minimal.15 Notably, private practice patients frequently undergo wide-awake procedures under local anesthesia, which may further limit the degree of intraoperative teaching.9
A TYPICAL RESIDENT-RUN CLINIC IN AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY
During the first clinical visit, the senior resident performs a complete evaluation of the patient, with or without an attending present, and formulates a preliminary care plan.16–26 During this time, the resident is able to counsel the patient on a given aesthetic surgery procedure and discuss the risks and benefits of surgery or other interventions. Initial consultations usually cost a ranging nonrefundable fee of $25–150 that can later be applied toward surgical expenses.17,25,27,28 Certain clinics do not charge consultation fees if the attending is not present during the clinical encounter.16,24,28 RRCs may choose to perform pre-consultation screening to identify eligible patients in advance.4 Free screening visits at the beginning of each rotation can promote the practice, with cost deficits offset by future revenue.17,18
The most common reasons for not accepting consultations are unavailable services, issues with insurance, patient’s body mass index, or comorbidity.16 The majority of consultations involve aging face and eyelids in older patients, as well as nasal, breast and body contouring in younger patients.17,22,28–30 A second reevaluation visit entails a review of the plan with the attending, surgical booking, and routine pre-operative photography.17,22,26,28 Clear disclosure on all costs associated with consultations, follow-ups, surgeries, and management of complications is given.18,22,31 To improve compliance to treatment and follow-up all payments are submitted in advance.17,21,28
Operative time can be provided or donated by the attending, and the residents should be responsible for booking their own surgeries.17,18,20–22,27,28 Most cases are done under general anesthesia.26 Patients are charged, in part or full, for anesthetic, hospital, surgical and overnight admission fees.17,18,20,21,28,32 Despite the expected increase in total-surgical-time given resident involvement, an autonomously working resident can be safe when adequately supervised.33–36 Adequate supervision entails that an attending is present or easily available, particularly for more complex or involved procedures. Intraoperatively, the attending’s presence follows a progressive autonomy model.17–19,22,24,27 That is, the degree of attending involvement depends on the comfort and experience of the resident.
The resident is held accountable as the primary surgeon on all documentation and patient information material.20,21,23,28,31 A preformulated postoperative plan is followed and patients are encouraged to adhere to a follow-up timeline, consisting of 3–4 visits on average.17,20,24 The follow-up includes postoperative photographs and satisfaction surveys.26 Residents remain on call for their cases, and in charge of follow-up and the management of any complications.18,22,27 A policy for fees associated with revisional surgery should be discussed and agreed upon before the first intervention.22,23,28,37 When complications arise, an open disclosure session can be held with the involved resident and attending to address dissatisfaction and provide feedback.28
As with any clinic, RRCs are at risk for complications.18,22,33–36 Ethical issues arise following unfavorable results, especially in the absence of direct supervision.16,38 This mandates designation of responsibility, proper ethical education and medical liability insurance to help navigate conflicts between educational goals and patients’ safety and expectations.16,21,38,39 Residents require liability insurance and sometimes patients require cosmetic medical insurance.26,28 Clear patient understanding of residents as surgeons-in-training under supervision is essential.27 Only 35% of patients clearly understand residents’ designated role, and most expect to be asked for permission before the resident assuming responsibility.18,30,40 Patient education tools improve informed consent and understanding of residents’ roles and thus shared decision-making and satisfaction by approximating expectation.26,27,41,42 Nevertheless, evidence suggests that satisfaction rates in RRCs are comparable to that of private centers.17,18,20,28,31,43 Low satisfaction is likely related to the technical learning curve, unrealistic patient expectations, resident demeanor, communication and time spent in an interview.31 Other common reasons for dissatisfaction following surgery included scarring, asymmetry, complications, and unmatched expectations.23,31
Finally, cosmetic patients require personalized service and privacy, which is contrary to academic practices whereby multiple trainees partake in patient care.16,44 This patient population demands care by selected experts, restricting residents’ exposure to private-clinic-based rotations.5,16,44 Reluctance stems from the perceived negative effects on their aesthetic outcomes, which patients pay for out-of-pocket. As such, most of the learning is obtained by observing or assisting surgical attendings perform aesthetic surgery. In addition, with many procedures performed in an awake patient under local anesthesia or light sedation, teaching may be further limited during these types of interventions.17 Financial incentives are thought to be a crucial factor in recruiting patients for surgery carried out by trainees.16 RRCs cater to a niche of patients that are attracted to lowered prices in exchange for resident involvement.19,27
DEGREE OF EXPOSURE AND NON-SURGICAL TECHNIQUES
The most commonly performed procedures are body contouring and breast surgeries, and across all programs, residents report the highest confidence in performing these surgeries.5–7,45–47 The exceptions are mastopexy, advanced and lower body contouring, and endoscopic breast augmentation.6,7,46 Most graduates lack comfort in facial surgical procedures, such as facelifts and rhinoplasties.5–7,45–47 In contrast, graduates feel comfortable performing platysma and brow lifts, yet their program directors feel they lacked comfort in open or endoscopic brow lift, and chin or face implants.7,46,47 Finally, residents lack exposure in noninvasive procedures including endoscopic techniques, peels, skin care, injectables, laser resurfacing, and hair transplantation.5–7,46,47
RRCs are difficult to initiate due to lack of public knowledge and may not generate enough revenue to survive.25,27 Media advertisement can be used to promote free screening visits or the launch of new clinics or rotations.16–18,22,30 Alternatively, patient satisfaction driving “word of mouth” can also increase referrals.21,25,27,28,31 Most RRCs operate on a not-for-profit basis. Revenue from the clinic is usually returned to the program or used for compensation of clinic staff.18,26–28 For example, some clinics hire administrative assistants, freeing residents from these time-consuming tasks.18,26,27 Revenue can also be used to provide residents with housing, travel, books, and stipends.14,21,28 Some programs provide attending staff with educational reimbursements, such as a percentage of insurance claims.16,37
Despite having garnered support by plastic surgery educators,15,22 the lack of RRC standardization is multifactorial. Most of the available research shows financial viability despite high risk for litigation and extensive resources and personnel.12,26 In terms of location, an offsite set-up requires fixed costs, expensive equipment (lasers, endoscopes, etc.) and can be logistically difficult for residents to reach. Although offsite clinics avoid the need for sharing resources and space, they must be fully accredited.22,30 For revenue optimization, an understanding of economic elasticity is essential to appropriately price services and optimize deficiency coverage while maintaining viability.19 The American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons also recognizes costs, staff oversight, malpractice concerns, and administrative issues as barriers to setting up RRCs.28,37 Administration, logistics, and billing are essential for a practice’s success and evidence shows that residents lack knowledge on appropriate documentation and coding.16,48 This requires education on strategic marketing, accounting and finance, economic forces of competition, supply chain, and regulations, in the context of office-based surgery and aesthetic services, which is lacking.12,49,50 In addition, due to the rotating nature of residents’ involvement, residents lack exposure to all aspects of running a practice and may not complete their patients’ follow-up as they graduate or move onto other rotations.31 Other administrative issues lie in legal accountability of complications or unfavorable results.16,38
Establishing RRCs can be challenging due to a lack of faculty or program director/residency program committee approval, or alternatively a public perception of residents being inexperienced or unqualified for their aesthetic surgery needs.16,25 Operating room availability and adequate clinic time may also be roadblocks.16,28,37 Moreover, inadequate funding and negative attitudes from residents towards RRCs are also reported.26,45 Infrequently, local private aesthetic clinics can perceive the introduction of an RRC as competition.17,23,27 To avoid damaging relationships with local private cosmetic surgeons, RRCs should be advertised as a learning resource targeted to patients with inadequate funding, and those with complex medical problems to allow residents to practice patient screening.51
RATIONALE FOR RESIDENT-RUN CLINICS IN CBME IN AESTHETIC SURGERY
The ACGME has introduced a CBME model in hopes of providing trainees with the tools to meet societal expectations upon transition into independent practice. RRCs are semi-independent environments that employ all aspects of this competency framework and provide a milestone-based education through progressive autonomy.12 Since the quality of care in aesthetics is centralized around patient satisfaction, continuity of care is essential for improving resident performance.31,43 As such, it provides a society-catered educational opportunity that well prepares residents for postgraduation practice, while maintaining an equivalent safety profile.
Using the competencies of the ACGME and the roles of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada as a framework (Fig. 1), comparing the currently employed models in aesthetics training to RRCs will highlight the importance of the latter in the transition towards CBME (Table 1).52,53 Although didactic teachings and designated rotations can provide medical knowledge and some exposure to patient care (medical expert role), RRCs employ a unique, semi-autonomous and immersive learning environment to improve knowledge and skill acquisition through applicative learning.17–19,22,24,27 Moreover, RRCs provide residents with prime opportunities to develop their professionalism and their roles as health advocates by allowing them direct patient exposure during a primary visit in a milieu that varies from that in an academic practice.16–26 This is further augmented by the accountability bestowed on the resident in terms of outcomes, which is lacking in traditional teaching models of aesthetic surgery.20,21,23,28,31 This learning environment is also compatible with the plastic surgery milestone project by providing measurable and attainable levels of experience and accountability and help identify learning gaps.11 As such, the role of RRCs within CBME become especially important with the implementation of the Next Accreditation System, with evidence of validity and effectiveness emerging from application on other surgical programs.54–57 With variability in response and preparedness among plastic surgery programs, the effects within the accreditation process can range from suggesting programs where residents have difficulties in attaining milestone to establish RRCs or making them essential for accreditation given the weight given to aesthetic surgery within the established Plastic Surgery Milestones.11,57
Table 1. -
Comparison of Traditional Aesthetic Rotation and Resident-Run Aesthetic Clinics
||Didactic teaching, designated rotations
||Competency-based, surgical autonomy
||Improved exposure as primary surgeon
||Personalized and private cosmetic services
||Affordable cosmetic surgery
||Static, staff dependent
||Progressive, resident dependent
|Continuity of care
||Low pre- and postoperative resident involvement
||High preoperative decision-making and postoperative follow-up
||Chief resident and supervising attending
||Standardized objective milestones, through progressive autonomy
When residents are allowed to take charge in patient care, RRCs develop skills related to the non-technical aspects of care (cognitive competencies) as well, which are often deficient in other models of aesthetic training.32,37,58–60 These non-technical skills include communication, leadership, task management, and practice management. In addition, such learning environments involve a trial and error process that most trainees will only go on to experience in their first year of practice, as well as autonomous learning that allows residents to graduate with more confidence.16,24,47 RRCs are, therefore, unique in providing an opportunity to partake in all aspects of patient care, including preoperative planning and long-term follow-up of aesthetic surgical cases compared to other models.3,17 Exposure to these skills are imperative for practice and system-based learning, where residents assume the roles of collaborators with other team members, leaders of their practice and communicators through direct patient care, patient education and plan formation.18,22,27 Lastly, several RRCs involve their residents in learning through evidence-based-medicine and studying the clinic’s outcomes, thus developing their analytical and research skills.20,26,31,43,61
In such a transition to CBME, the ability to measure the progress and competency in the aforementioned skills and roles becomes a priority; RRCs provide an optimal environment for such assessments as well. Attainment of the 6 ACGME core competencies can be measured using 360-degree evaluations.61–63 That is, feedback is obtained from all parties involved, including subjective self-evaluations. Establishing learning objectives, providing feedback in real-time, completing case logs, and attending mortality-morbidity meetings are also methods commonly employed for performance improvement.18,21,24,37,59 A recent survey of the effect of the increased ACGME case log minimum requirements demonstrated an increase in RRCs, designated rotations, and self-perceived resident preparedness; this transition was generally thought to be beneficial for training.10 An autonomy score describing the attending’s role, ranging from “available” to “scrubbed for the entire case,” has been used to track autonomy progression. This form of graded autonomy provides stable soil for competency development.5,12,14,16,20,23 Application of formal tools such as client satisfaction questionnaire-8 and FACE-Q among others can also be used to track resident performance and provide feedback for improvement.23,58,64
Current research on RRCs in aesthetic surgery mainly consists of statistical compilations from surveys targeting residents and program directors.3,4,7,13,17,38,46,65 There remains a gap between the perception of faculty and residents with regard to aesthetic training. Eighty-eight percent of program directors were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with cosmetic training, compared to only 32% of residents.31 Accordingly, a 2016 ASAPS survey demonstrated that both parties agreed that RRCs were the best modality for aesthetic surgery teaching.5–7,12,45–47 Members of the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons were also in support of RRCs and did not perceive them as being a liability.12 The present authors provide further support for the merit of RRCs, highlighting how the autonomous learning platform can serve as a vehicle for competency-based learning within aesthetic surgery training. As such, RRCs may provide teaching programs and faculty with a tool to facilitate the challenging shift towards CBME, which has already become the evolving standard for North American surgical education.
1. Knox AD, Gilardino MS, Kasten SJ, et al. Competency-based medical education for plastic surgery: where do we begin? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:702e–710e.
2. Roostaeian J, Rough J, Edwards MC. A plastic surgery resident’s view of aesthetic training and the future. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34:1270–1273.
3. Baker TJ, Gordon HL. The training of aesthetic surgeons in a private practice. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981;68:774–775.
4. Williams HB. Aesthetic plastic surgery education. Can J Plast Surg. 1994;2:13–15.
5. Linder SA, Mele JA 3rd, Capozzi A. Teaching aesthetic surgery at the resident level. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1996;20:351–354.
6. Smith J, Kilshaw A, Williams A. UKTEAS: United Kingdom training experience in aesthetic surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:1008–1009.
7. 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.
8. Edwards K, Ishii C. Cosmetic surgery training in the United States. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31:980–981.
9. Taub PJ, David L, Cheesborough JE. Curriculum development for the resident aesthetic clinic. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3:e365.
10. Kraft CT, Harake MS, Janis JE. Longitudinal assessment of aesthetic plastic surgery training in the United States: the effect of increased ACGME case log minimum requirements. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39:NP76–NP82.
11. McGrath MH; Chair, on behalf of the Plastic Surgery Milestone Working Group. The plastic surgery milestone project. J Grad Med Educ. 2014;6(1 Suppl 1):225–242.
12. Hultman CS, Wu C, Bentz ML, et al. Identification of best practices for resident aesthetic clinics in plastic surgery training: the ACAPS national survey. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3:e370.
13. 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.
14. Pu LLQ, Baker JL, Peters CR, et al. Resident aesthetic surgery training: the University of South Florida model. Aesthet Surg J. 1999;19:465–468.
15. Zucker J, Lee J, Khokhar M, et al. Measuring and assessing preventive medicine services in a student-run free clinic. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2013;24:344–358.
16. 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.
17. Freiberg A. Challenges in developing resident training in aesthetic surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 1989;22:184–187.
18. Schulman NH. Aesthetic surgical training: the Lenox Hill model. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38:309–684; discussion 684.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. May JW Jr.. Aesthetic surgery 101: resident education in aesthetic surgery, the MGH experience. Ann Plast Surg. 2003;50:561–566.
22. 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.
23. Koulaxouzidis G, Momeni A, Simunovic F, et al. Aesthetic surgery performed by plastic surgery residents: an analysis of safety and patient satisfaction. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;73:696–700.
24. Day KM, Scott JK, Gao L, et al. Progressive surgical autonomy in a plastic surgery resident clinic. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5:e1318.
25. Ingargiola MJ, Molina Burbano F, Yao A, et al. Plastic surgery resident-run cosmetic clinics: a survey of current practices. Aesthet Surg J. 2018;38:793–799.
26. Qureshi AA, Parikh RP, Myckatyn TM, et al. Resident cosmetic clinic: practice patterns, safety, and outcomes at an academic plastic surgery institution. Aesthet Surg J. 2016;36:NP273–NP280.
27. Stadelmann WK, Rapaport DP, Payne W, et al. Residency training in aesthetic surgery: maximizing the residents’ experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;101:1973–1977.
28. Mahabir RC, Carr NJ, Thompson RP, et al. Aesthetic plastic surgery education: the Vancouver approach. Can J Plast Surg. 2002;10:11–14.
29. Whitaker IS, Mason L, Boyce DE, et al. An analysis of 1361 aesthetic procedures from 2000 to 2005 in a large regional plastic surgery unit: implications for cosmetic surgery training. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60:437–439.
30. Freiberg A, Giguère D, Ross DC, et al. Are patients satisfied with results from residents performing aesthetic surgery? Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100:1824–684; discussion 684.
31. Zweifler M, Glasberg SB. An outcome-based study of aesthetic surgery in a clinic setting. Ann Plast Surg. 2000;44:355–360.
32. Rezaeian F, Schantz JT, Sukhova I, et al. Training in aesthetic surgery at a university clinic - the “Munich model” [German]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2013;45:370–375.
33. Jubbal KT, Echo A, Spiegel AJ, et al. The impact of resident involvement in breast reconstruction surgery outcomes by modality: an analysis of 4,500 cases. Microsurgery. 2017;37:800–807.
34. Kazaure HS, Roman SA, Sosa JA. The resident as surgeon: an analysis of ACS-NSQIP. J Surg Res. 2012;178:126–132.
35. Papandria D, Rhee D, Ortega G, et al. Assessing trainee impact on operative time for common general surgical procedures in ACS-NSQIP. J Surg Educ. 2012;69:149–155.
36. Jordan SW, Mioton LM, Smetona J, et al. Resident involvement and plastic surgery outcomes: an analysis of 10,356 patients from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:763–773.
37. Rao VK, Schmid DB, Hanson SE, et al. Establishing a multidisciplinary academic cosmetic center. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:741e–746e.
38. Schenker M, Lees VC, McGeorge DD, et al. Aesthetic surgical training in the UK independent sector–the clients’ view: results of a survey on 155 private patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59:1188–1192.
39. Bennett Katelyn GK. The teaching of ethics and professionalism in plastic surgery residency: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78:552–556.
40. AlGhamdi KM, Almohanna HM, Alkeraye SS, et al. Perceptions, attitudes, and satisfaction concerning resident participation in health care among dermatology outpatients. J Cutan Med Surg. 2014;18:20–27.
41. Kempenich JW, Willis RE, Blue RJ, et al. The effect of patient education on the perceptions of resident participation in surgical care. J Surg Educ. 2016;73:e111–e117.
42. Brandel MG, Reid CM, Parmeshwar N, et al. Efficacy of a procedure-specific education module on informed consent in plastic surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78(5 Suppl 4):S225–S228.
43. Ching S, Thoma A, McCabe RE, et al. Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:469–684; discussion 684.
44. Bingham HG. Training in esthetic surgery: some problems encountered in a university program. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980;65:227–228.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. Hashem AM, Waltzman JT, D’Souza GF, et al. Resident and program director perceptions of aesthetic training in plastic surgery residency: an update. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:837–846.
48. Boyle KR, Gooi A, Kacmarynski DSF, et al. Resident education of documentation and coding. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;145:136.
49. Raper Steven ES. Tipping the scales: educating surgeons about medical malpractice. J Surg Res. 2016;206:206–213.
50. Ghaderi Kimeya FK. Coding and billing in surgical education: a systems-based practice education program. J Surg Educ. 2017;74:199–202.
51. Kamali P, van Paridon MW, Ibrahim AM, et al. Plastic surgery training worldwide: part 1. The United States and Europe. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4:e641.
52. Frank JR, Mungroo R, Ahmad Y, et al. Toward a definition of competency-based education in medicine: a systematic review of published definitions. Med Teach. 2010;32:631–637.
53. Iobst WF, Sherbino J, Cate OT, et al. Competency-based medical education in postgraduate medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32:651–656.
54. Swing SR, Beeson MS, Carraccio C, et al. Educational milestone development in the first 7 specialties to enter the next accreditation system. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5:98–106.
55. Nasca TJ, Philibert I, Brigham T, et al. The next GME accreditation system — rationale and benefits. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1051–1056.
56. Byrne LM, Miller RS, Nasca TJ. Implementing the next accreditation system: results of the 2014-2015 annual data review. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8:118–123.
57. Sillah NM, Ibrahim AM, Lau FH, et al. The new Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education next accreditation system milestones evaluation system: what is expected and how are plastic surgery residency programs preparing? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:181–187.
58. Qureshi AA, Parikh RP, Sharma K, et al. Nonsurgical facial rejuvenation: outcomes and safety of neuromodulator and soft-tissue filler procedures performed in a resident cosmetic clinic. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017;41:1177–1183.
59. Brandel MG, D’Souza GF, Reid CM, et al. Analysis of a resident aesthetic clinic: process for rhinoplasty, resident experience, and patient satisfaction. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78(5 Suppl 4):S175–S179.
60. Rad A, Burretta K, 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 Surgeons. 2012.San Francisco, Calif
61. Bancroft GN, Basu CB, Leong M, et al. Outcome-based residency education: teaching and evaluating the core competencies in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:441e–448e.
62. Janis JE. Discussion: 360-degree evaluations of plastic surgery resident Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies: experience using a short form. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:650–651.
63. Pollock RA, Donnelly MB, Plymale MA, et al. 360-degree evaluations of plastic surgery resident Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies: experience using a short form. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:639–649.
64. Connolly Katharine AK. Feedback in plastic and reconstructive surgery education: past, present, and future. J Craniofac Sur. 2015;26:2261–2263.
65. Ellis H. The private hospital and the surgical trainee. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1988;296:152.