Evaluate regenerative claims, select meaningful scalp and skin outcomes, and defend a patient-specific plan in a case conference.
Each teaching day runs from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Live virtual sessions follow Eastern Time. On-campus sessions follow local time.
Breaks are at 10:30 a.m. and 2:45 p.m. Lunch runs from 12:15 to 1:15 p.m.
Campus location and cohort dates will be announced. On-campus stations use simulation, case records and peer review.
Finish with a comparative PRP evidence table and a review of the claims in a proposed skin procedure.
| Time | Session |
|---|---|
| 9:00–10:30 a.m. | From treatment request to clinical question |
| 10:45 a.m.–12:15 p.m. | Follicle biology and skin repair |
| 1:15–2:45 p.m. | Reading PRP and platelet-concentrate studies |
| 3:00–4:30 p.m. | Evaluating skin procedures and combination claims |
Leave with a product review, shared-decision notes and a reproducible photography and follow-up worksheet.
| Time | Session |
|---|---|
| 9:00–10:30 a.m. | Exosomes, cell products and healthy-aging claims |
| 10:45 a.m.–12:15 p.m. | Patient selection and shared decisions |
| 1:15–2:45 p.m. | Photography, trichoscopy and longitudinal measures |
| 3:00–4:30 p.m. | Monitoring and case conference |
Rotate through simulated consultation and documentation stations, then present and revise a case plan.
| Time | Session |
|---|---|
| 9:00–10:30 a.m. | Scalp imaging repeatability station |
| 10:45 a.m.–12:15 p.m. | Skin assessment and evidence station |
| 1:15–2:45 p.m. | Adverse-event reporting and handoff drill |
| 3:00–4:30 p.m. | Case defense and peer review |
Allow two additional hours to revise and submit the independent capstone using feedback from the course.
Clinicians who evaluate hair loss or aesthetic skin concerns. Familiarity with patient consultation, scalp examination and longitudinal documentation is recommended.
Review the AAD hair-loss overview and FDA resources below. Bring a published study and the public labeling for a product or device discussed in your practice. Use the fictional cases for all exercises.
Study times are estimates for the proposed course.
A patient asks for a regenerative injection after six months of shedding. Map onset, distribution, symptoms, recent illness, medication changes and prior treatment. Distinguish reported shedding from measured density. Identify missing examination findings and the decisions that require specialist review.
Compare this history with gradual patterned thinning. Write a differential and mark each additional finding that could change the next step.
A consultation worksheet with two working hypotheses, unresolved questions and a justified decision to assess, defer or refer.
Compare the hair-growth cycle with the phases of wound repair. Trace how platelet signaling, inflammation and remodeling appear in mechanistic explanations. Relate each proposed mechanism to a measurable human outcome and consider whether a scalp endpoint transfers to a skin indication.
Draw two evidence chains, one ending in hair count and one in scar appearance. Identify the step in each chain that a laboratory experiment cannot establish.
An annotated mechanism map with a human-study question for each indication.
Extract the population, platelet preparation description, comparator, blinding, co-interventions and follow-up from a paper. Examine how split-scalp designs and repeated observations affect interpretation. Compare absolute change, between-group change, uncertainty and clinical importance.
In a fictional trial, mean target-area density rises by 12 hairs/cm² in one arm and 7 in the comparator. Compute the 5 hairs/cm² difference in change. Explain what cannot be concluded without variation, attrition and follow-up data.
A one-page evidence table and a plain-language statement explaining confidence in the observed difference.
Review a request for treatment of acne-scar texture. Compare baseline scar morphology, skin history, patient priorities and photo consistency. Read the intended use and limitations for a specific microneedling device. Examine the evidence and regulatory status of each element in a proposed combination separately.
Compare a device label, a case series and a brochure promoting an added topical product. Mark which document supports each claim and where the proposed combination lacks support.
A claim-by-claim matrix and a consultation note identifying alternatives and information needed before proceeding.
Distinguish an autologous preparation, a donor-derived product and an extracellular-vesicle claim. Examine what product identity, sterility documentation, intended use and authorization each establish. Separate a laboratory biomarker change from an improvement meaningful to a patient.
Audit a fictional pitch promising follicle regeneration and reversal of skin aging. Locate the current FDA source, date the search, and classify each claim by the evidence available for that exact product and use.
A product review with source links, remaining uncertainties and a recommendation for the clinical team.
Use the diagnosis, standard options, prior treatment, goals, competing risks and cost to structure a discussion. Practice explaining uncertain benefit without placing a number on an individual result. Identify circumstances requiring deferral or additional evaluation.
Role-play a patient requesting immediate treatment despite new scalp symptoms and another patient asking whether a higher-priced preparation is superior. Document the reasoning in each conversation.
Two short shared-decision notes with alternatives, uncertainties and a specific follow-up action.
Define a repeatable target area, camera distance, lighting, hair preparation and observation interval. Compare hair count, shaft caliber, a patient-reported outcome and a skin-texture scale. Identify sources of bias from styling, exposure changes, selective views and loss to follow-up.
Audit two simulated visit series. Reject the noncomparable images and design a repeat-capture plan before interpreting apparent change.
A baseline and follow-up measurement sheet with a predefined endpoint and rules for unusable observations.
Build a follow-up plan that separates expected observations, lack of response, new symptoms and suspected adverse events. Assign responsibility for reviewing concerns and documenting escalation. Compare how a revised diagnosis changes the original plan.
At a simulated follow-up, the patient reports worsening symptoms despite photographs suggesting improvement. Reconcile the conflicting data and hand the case over to a colleague.
A follow-up note, escalation handoff and a revised recommendation with a reason for each change.
Work in pairs with training images and a simulated visit record. Set landmarks and camera position, repeat the capture after repositioning, and compare results between operators. Document lighting or angle changes that could mimic improvement.
Exchange baseline and follow-up sets with another pair. Identify which image pairs permit comparison and repeat one capture using the written standard.
A reproducibility checklist with a paired-image audit, one correction and the reason it was needed.
Use a simulated acne-scar consultation to connect a patient's stated goal to an observable endpoint. Inspect sample device labeling and compare a published outcome measure with the brochure claim offered in the case.
Run a mock consultation with a peer, document missing information, and write a short recommendation that accounts for uncertainty and alternatives.
A skin consultation brief with a measurement plan and references supporting the proposed next steps.
Follow a fictional post-procedure concern through intake, clinician review, documentation and follow-up. Establish who owns each handoff and which missing records must be reconciled before the case is closed.
Role-play a coordinator-to-clinician handoff under incomplete information. A second team audits whether the record shows what was observed, who reviewed it and what happens next.
A handoff note, a responsibility map and a corrected event record.
Present a provisional scalp or skin case plan to peers. Explain the evidence supporting the choice, the reasons another option was set aside and the finding that would change the decision.
Respond to a new case detail supplied during the review. Revise the plan and identify the remaining work for the independent capstone.
A revised case plan and a feedback log connecting each material change to a specific observation or source.
Prepare two briefs. A patient with patterned thinning asks whether PRP is worth pursuing. A second patient with acne scarring brings an exosome brochure. For each, define the clinical question, compare an established option, evaluate one relevant human study and record any product-specific evidence gaps.
Submit the two case briefs, an evidence table, a dated regulatory-source check and paired baseline/follow-up templates. Defend one decision to proceed with further evaluation or to defer.
Ask about the planned elective. Admissions will share scheduling and tuition when available.