Person:

Mostaghimi, Arash

To The Editor Dr DeCamp and colleagues recently wrote about the online identities of physicians, stating that it is “operationally impossible” and “potentially harmful” to separate personal and professional identities. Rather than identity separation, they proposed physicians decide whether content is appropriate for a physician to be posting, regardless of the forum. We believe this latter point to be necessary, but not sufficient, for physicians to manage their online identity.

The increased use of social media by physicians, combined with the ease of finding information online, can blur personal and work identities, posing new considerations for physician professionalism in the information age. A professional approach is imperative in this digital age in order to maintain confidentiality, honesty, and trust in the medical profession. Although the ability of physicians to use online social networks, blogs, and media sites for personal and professional reasons should be preserved, a proactive approach is recommended that includes actively managing one’s online pres- ence and making informed choices about disclosure.The development of a “dual-citizenship” approach to online social media that separates public and private personae would allow physicians to both leverage networks for professional connections and maintain privacy in other aspects. Although social media posts by physicians enable direct communication with readers, all posts should be considered public and special consideration for patient privacy is necessary.

Background Although patients are commonly using the Internet to find healthcare information, the amount of personal and professional physician information and patient-generated ratings freely accessible online is unknown.

Objective To characterize the nature of online professional and personal information available to the average patient searching for physician information through a standardized web search.

Design, Setting, and Participants We studied 250 randomly selected internal medicine physicians registered with the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine in 2008. For each physician, standardized searches via the Google search engine were performed using a sequential search strategy. The top 20 search results were analyzed, and websites that referred to the study subject were recorded and categorized. Physician rating sites were further investigated to determine the number of patient-entered reviews.

Main Measures Number and content of websites attributable to specific physicians.

Key Results Websites containing personal or professional information were identified for 93.6% of physicians. Among those with any web sites identified, 92.8% had professional information and 32.4% had personal information available online. Female physicians were more likely to have professional information available on the Internet than male physicians (97.5% vs. 91.7%, p = 0.03), but had similar rates of available personal information (32.5% vs. 32.5%, p = ns). Among personal sites, the most common categories included social networking sites such as Facebook (10.8% of physicians), hobbies (10.0%), charitable or political donations (9.6%), and family information (8.8%). Physician rating sites were identified for 86.4% of providers, but only three physicians had more than five reviews on any given rating site.

Conclusions Personal and professional physician information is widely available on the Internet, and often not under direct control of the individual physician. The availability of such information has implications for physician–patient relationships and suggests that physicians should monitor their online information.

IMPORTANCE: In response to a perceived erosion of medical dermatology, combined internal medicine and dermatology programs (med/derm) programs have been developed that aim to train dermatologists who take care of medically complex patients. Despite the investment in these programs, there is currently no data with regards to the potential impact of these trainees on the dermatology workforce. OBJECTIVE: To determine the experiences, motivations, and future plans of residents in combined med/derm residency programs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed residents at all United States institutions with both categorical and combined training programs in spring of 2012. Respondents used visual analog scales to rate clinical interests, self-assessed competency, career plans, and challenges. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary study outcomes were comfort in taking care of patients with complex disease, future practice plans, and experience during residency. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of 31 med/derm residents (87.5%) and 28 of 91 (31%) categorical residents responded (overall response rate 46%). No significant differences were seen in self-assessed dermatology competency, or comfort in performing inpatient consultations, cosmetic procedures, or prescribing systemic agents. A trend toward less comfort in general dermatology was seen among med/derm residents. Med/derm residents were more likely to indicate career preferences for performing inpatient consultation and taking care of medically complex patients. Categorical residents rated their programs and experiences more highly. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Med/derm residents have stronger interests in serving medically complex patients. Categorical residents are more likely to have a positive experience during residency. Future work will be needed to ascertain career choices among graduates once data are available.