Dermatologist and electrologist perspectives on laser by procedures nonphysicians

Richard Wagner, Trudy Brown, Edward M. McCarthy, Rebecca A. McCarthy, Tatsuo Uchida

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. As hair removal technology continues to evolve and new equipment comes to market, conflicts may develop between dermatologists and electrologists regarding the professional control and use of these devices. Methods. A total of 1004 Fellows of the American Academy of Dermatology and 719 electrologists from the southern United States were anonymously surveyed about clinical laser procedures (CLPs). Results. Compared to electrologists, dermatologists were more likely to support clinical laser regulations that placed licensed physicians in control (P = .001) and preferred that a delegating physician be physically present on the premises when CLPs were performed (P = .001). If a laser device was invented for permanent hair removal that was identical to traditional needle/probe electrolysis in every respect except energy type ('laser fiberoptic probe,' LFP), electrologists were more likely than dermatologists to support independent use of this device by electrologists (P = .001). A greater percentage of electrologists from Texas, a state without electrolysis licensing, were more likely to support the unlicensed use of the LFP and CLPs than electrologists from states, requiring electrolysis licensing. Conclusions. These data are consistent with previously published literature and permit a greater understanding of the multiple attitudinal, regulatory, and ethical issues involved when considering delegated and independent CLPs by electrologists.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)723-727
Number of pages5
JournalDermatologic Surgery
Volume26
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - 2000

Fingerprint

Lasers
Electrolysis
Hair Removal
Equipment and Supplies
Licensure
Physicians
Dermatologists
Ethics
Needles
Technology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dermatology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Dermatologist and electrologist perspectives on laser by procedures nonphysicians. / Wagner, Richard; Brown, Trudy; McCarthy, Edward M.; McCarthy, Rebecca A.; Uchida, Tatsuo.

In: Dermatologic Surgery, Vol. 26, No. 8, 2000, p. 723-727.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wagner, Richard ; Brown, Trudy ; McCarthy, Edward M. ; McCarthy, Rebecca A. ; Uchida, Tatsuo. / Dermatologist and electrologist perspectives on laser by procedures nonphysicians. In: Dermatologic Surgery. 2000 ; Vol. 26, No. 8. pp. 723-727.
@article{beb177534911458d9ae35bf0a5089512,
title = "Dermatologist and electrologist perspectives on laser by procedures nonphysicians",
abstract = "Background. As hair removal technology continues to evolve and new equipment comes to market, conflicts may develop between dermatologists and electrologists regarding the professional control and use of these devices. Methods. A total of 1004 Fellows of the American Academy of Dermatology and 719 electrologists from the southern United States were anonymously surveyed about clinical laser procedures (CLPs). Results. Compared to electrologists, dermatologists were more likely to support clinical laser regulations that placed licensed physicians in control (P = .001) and preferred that a delegating physician be physically present on the premises when CLPs were performed (P = .001). If a laser device was invented for permanent hair removal that was identical to traditional needle/probe electrolysis in every respect except energy type ('laser fiberoptic probe,' LFP), electrologists were more likely than dermatologists to support independent use of this device by electrologists (P = .001). A greater percentage of electrologists from Texas, a state without electrolysis licensing, were more likely to support the unlicensed use of the LFP and CLPs than electrologists from states, requiring electrolysis licensing. Conclusions. These data are consistent with previously published literature and permit a greater understanding of the multiple attitudinal, regulatory, and ethical issues involved when considering delegated and independent CLPs by electrologists.",
author = "Richard Wagner and Trudy Brown and McCarthy, {Edward M.} and McCarthy, {Rebecca A.} and Tatsuo Uchida",
year = "2000",
doi = "10.1046/j.1524-4725.2000.00022.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "723--727",
journal = "Dermatologic Surgery",
issn = "1076-0512",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dermatologist and electrologist perspectives on laser by procedures nonphysicians

AU - Wagner, Richard

AU - Brown, Trudy

AU - McCarthy, Edward M.

AU - McCarthy, Rebecca A.

AU - Uchida, Tatsuo

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - Background. As hair removal technology continues to evolve and new equipment comes to market, conflicts may develop between dermatologists and electrologists regarding the professional control and use of these devices. Methods. A total of 1004 Fellows of the American Academy of Dermatology and 719 electrologists from the southern United States were anonymously surveyed about clinical laser procedures (CLPs). Results. Compared to electrologists, dermatologists were more likely to support clinical laser regulations that placed licensed physicians in control (P = .001) and preferred that a delegating physician be physically present on the premises when CLPs were performed (P = .001). If a laser device was invented for permanent hair removal that was identical to traditional needle/probe electrolysis in every respect except energy type ('laser fiberoptic probe,' LFP), electrologists were more likely than dermatologists to support independent use of this device by electrologists (P = .001). A greater percentage of electrologists from Texas, a state without electrolysis licensing, were more likely to support the unlicensed use of the LFP and CLPs than electrologists from states, requiring electrolysis licensing. Conclusions. These data are consistent with previously published literature and permit a greater understanding of the multiple attitudinal, regulatory, and ethical issues involved when considering delegated and independent CLPs by electrologists.

AB - Background. As hair removal technology continues to evolve and new equipment comes to market, conflicts may develop between dermatologists and electrologists regarding the professional control and use of these devices. Methods. A total of 1004 Fellows of the American Academy of Dermatology and 719 electrologists from the southern United States were anonymously surveyed about clinical laser procedures (CLPs). Results. Compared to electrologists, dermatologists were more likely to support clinical laser regulations that placed licensed physicians in control (P = .001) and preferred that a delegating physician be physically present on the premises when CLPs were performed (P = .001). If a laser device was invented for permanent hair removal that was identical to traditional needle/probe electrolysis in every respect except energy type ('laser fiberoptic probe,' LFP), electrologists were more likely than dermatologists to support independent use of this device by electrologists (P = .001). A greater percentage of electrologists from Texas, a state without electrolysis licensing, were more likely to support the unlicensed use of the LFP and CLPs than electrologists from states, requiring electrolysis licensing. Conclusions. These data are consistent with previously published literature and permit a greater understanding of the multiple attitudinal, regulatory, and ethical issues involved when considering delegated and independent CLPs by electrologists.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0343962584&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0343962584&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1046/j.1524-4725.2000.00022.x

DO - 10.1046/j.1524-4725.2000.00022.x

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 723

EP - 727

JO - Dermatologic Surgery

JF - Dermatologic Surgery

SN - 1076-0512

IS - 8

ER -