About

Amy L. Halverson, MD, is a Professor of Surgery specializing in Gastrointestinal and Endocrine surgery at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. She serves as Vice Chair of Surgical Education, contributing to the development and oversight of surgical training programs. Her role involves advancing surgical education and mentoring the next generation of surgeons, aligning with the legacy of Loyal Davis, MD, FACS, a renowned figure in surgical education and neurological surgery, after whom the Loyal Davis Surgical Interest Group is named.

Research topics

• Medicine
• Internal medicine
• Family medicine
• Medical physics
• Surgery
• Oncology
• Dermatology
• Intensive care medicine
• Engineering
• Nursing
• Gastroenterology
• Engineering ethics
• Radiology
• Pathology

Selected publications

• 63595 Treatment of Cosmetic Sequelae of Major Dermatologic Disease: Protocol for a Multi-Site Retrospective Review

  Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2025-09-01

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Ethical Challenges in Research Involving Hospitalized Patients: A Phenomenological Study

  Health Care Analysis · 2025-07-10 · 3 citations

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Guideline organizations' guidance documents paper 9: co-operative approaches

  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2025-11-20

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Barriers to clinical cosmetic and laser dermatology research in the academic setting by source of funding: a systematic review

  Archives of Dermatological Research · 2025-05-31 · 3 citations

  reviewOpen accessSenior authorCorresponding

  Clinical research is a cornerstone of academic dermatology, including research in cosmetic and laser procedures. However, numerous barriers exist to conducting clinical research in an academic setting as compared to private practice. The objective of this study was to describe the barriers to clinical research in cosmetic and laser dermatology in the academic setting under three common funding scenarios: (1) industry sponsored, (2) unfunded, investigator-initiated, and (3) publicly funded, investigator-initiated. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify 17 publications regarding funding of clinical dermatology research. Inductive content analysis was used to extract, categorize, and understand the barriers related to clinical dermatology research, specifically in cosmetic dermatology, based on the type of funding. An expert panel of 11 board-certified dermatologists who practice and conduct research in cosmetic and laser dermatology at academic institutions reviewed these barriers, interpreted each barrier's implications for academic cosmetic and laser dermatology research, and proposed possible approaches to overcoming each. Nine barriers were identified for each funding scenario, and a total of 60 approaches for mitigating these were suggested. Most barriers to industry sponsored research were related either to institutional hurdles or industry preferences. The most cited barrier to unfunded, investigator-initiated research was limited protected academic time. The most frequently cited barriers to publicly funded, investigator-initiated research were grant availability and disproportionate awarding of grants based on investigator demographics. Proposed approaches for overcoming barriers included recruiting the help of trainees, streamlining administrative paperwork, fostering collaboration between industry and academic centers, providing financial incentives, seeking out mentorship from other faculty, and collaborating with other investigators, departments, and institutions.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Compensation models in academic cosmetic dermatology

  Archives of Dermatological Research · 2025-10-17

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Cutaneous Anatomy in Mohs Micrographic Surgery

  2025-01-01

  book-chapterSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Needs assessment for updating IOM standards for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines

  Clinical and Public Health Guidelines · 2025-05-26 · 1 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior authorCorresponding

  Abstract Background The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Standards for Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust (CPG Standards) and Standards for Systematic Reviews (SR Standards), established in 2011, have significantly influenced evidence‐based healthcare. However, the rapid evolution in medical practices and technologies necessitates a reassessment of these standards to ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness in modern healthcare. Methods This study employed a survey approach targeting professional guideline developers. The first survey assessed the general need for updating IOM standards (both CPG and SR Standards), while the second focused on specific CPG Standards, soliciting detailed feedback on their current relevance and areas needing revision. Participants were purposively targeted from various medical specialties and roles in guideline development. Results The General Need for Updating IOM Standards Survey garnered 22 responses, and the Specific CPG Standards Survey received 25 responses. A significant majority of respondents indicated the need for revising both the CPG and SR Standards. Key areas identified for CPG standards revision included conflict‐of‐interest management, incorporation of real‐world evidence and artificial intelligence, and systematic review processes. The responses highlighted the challenges of high compliance costs and the need for more practical execution guidance. Conclusion This study highlights an urgent need for updating both sets of IOM Standards. The rapidly changing healthcare landscape, characterized by technological advancements and evolving medical evidence, necessitates a dynamic and responsive approach to guideline development. Establishing an authoritative body for periodic assessment and revision of these standards is crucial to ensure that CPGs remain scientifically robust, practical, and relevant to contemporary healthcare needs.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• The Importance of Nursing Education for Bangladeshi Nursing Teachers

  Education Language and Sociology Research · 2025-03-16

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Can we take the purpose of nurse education for granted, and, more importantly, should we? That is the issue at stake in this paper. The question of purpose is absent in the nursing literature; our aim here is to urge that it not be overlooked by demonstrating its importance to the future of nursing. The nursing profession in Bangladesh has undergone a remarkable development over the recent years. But nursing teachers still faces different types of challenges. The reasons for the contradiction have become a complex interaction between socioeconomic and cultural factors, which are related to the conflicts between British curriculum, with an emphasis on basic care activities, social and gender norms, and discrimination against nurses at educational institutions. This paper aims to look at nurses’ views about nursing care and their profession, to depict how nursing education has been an empowering tool, and to analyze how nurses’ socioeconomic background, personal experiences and life stories have influenced their professional careers. Therefore, nursing education is found to empower nursing teachers in terms of knowledge, independence, and self-realization.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Bacon-Shor Board Games

  arXiv (Cornell University) · 2025-04-03

  preprintOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  We identify a period-4 measurement schedule for the checks of the Bacon-Shor code that fully covers spacetime with constant-weight detectors, and is numerically observed to provide the code with a threshold. Unlike previous approaches, our method does not rely on code concatenation and instead arises as the solution to a coloring game on a square grid. Under a uniform circuit-level noise model, we observe a threshold of approximately $0.3\%$ when decoding with minimum weight perfect matching, and we conjecture that this could be improved using a more tailored decoder.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Management of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: A literature review and update

  Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2025-11-20

  article
  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Jeffrey S. Dover

  Brown University

  147 shared

• Kenneth A. Arndt

  103 shared

• Emily Poon

  Chinese University of Hong Kong

  96 shared

• Emir Veledar

  University of Miami

  63 shared

• Michael Nodzenski

  Northwestern University

  53 shared

• Bianca Y. Kang

  48 shared

• Leonard H. Goldberg

  DermSurgery Associates

  47 shared

• Jeremy S. Bordeaux

  University School

  47 shared