Medical Student Exposure to Plastic Surgery and the Impact of a Home Training Program

Abstract

Background Contemporary medical education devotes little time to plastic surgery topics. This deficiency is potentially greater at institutions without a dedicated plastic surgery training program. Lack of exposure to plastic surgery results in many medical students developing limited awareness to the full scope of the field. As a result, these future physicians may be unaware of many conditions treated by the plastic surgeon, resulting in referrals being diverted to alternative specialist and furthering scope of practice creep. This study aims to assess medical students' exposure to plastic surgery and evaluate institutional-based differences in plastic surgery education by comparing medical schools with and without a plastic surgery training program. Methods Surveys were distributed to medical students at 2 institutions in the same United States city: 1 with a plastic surgery training program (TP) and 1 with no training program (NTP). Surveys assessed students' clinical experiences, exposure to plastic surgery, and understanding of the scope of plastic surgery. Results The response rate was 24.3% (306 of 1261). Many students reported having “little” or “no” exposure to plastic surgery during preclinical (93.5%) and clinical (77.7%) phases. NTP students were more likely to report “no” exposure to plastic surgery during both the preclinical (P = 0.0145) and clinical (P = 0.045) years. Consequently, approximately half of all students felt uncomfortable knowing when to refer a patient (46.1%) or place an inpatient consult (51.1%) to a plastic surgeon. When presented with clinical scenarios, plastic surgery was selected by only 53.4% of students. Performance between institutions was similar (53.0% TP vs 53.5% NTP, P = 0.936), with greater accuracy on cosmetic vignettes compared with hand and peripheral nerve vignettes. There was a statistically significant difference in 4 subspecialty domains between students who had prior exposure to plastic surgery and those who did not (hand/peripheral nerve, P < 0.0001; craniofacial, P = 0.007; breast/cosmetic, P = 0.001; and reconstruction/burn, P < 0.0001). Conclusions These findings add to the growing body of literature demonstrating that medical students have limited exposure to plastic surgery. Although limited in its scope, this study suggests that home TP status does not appear to overtly impact students' understanding. Increased exposure and overall surgical experience correlated with an increased understanding of the scope of plastic surgery.