The main aim was to build on the momentum that was created by the World Health Assembly’s decision to put dermatology on the map of global health. This was achieved in several ways. One was to introduce the field of dermatology as an important aspect of global health and the other one was to highlight drugs which are important in the field, for example drugs for psoriasis and products that protect from UV-induced skin damage.

The summit also aimed to send a clear signal to the leaders of different societies and associations, patient associations and the World Health Organization, to use this time to boost the activity of dermatologists worldwide in the field of global health.

There were also some very interesting spin-offs. One of them was the announcement of the opening of the ILDS gallery, and that is a huge effort to produce a gallery of skin disease images for teaching and research purposes. This is not restricted to white Caucasians, which is important given the over-representation of light skin colours in textbooks. Descriptions in the field of dermatology are usually based on findings in light skin, and this ILDS gallery is a great example of how we can unite to produce resources which are very important for teaching globally.

For me, one of the key highlights was clearly the ILDS gallery initiative, which is extremely important. Other highlights came from the working groups discussions. I couldn’t attend all the working groups, but they were all reported back on. What was interesting at this meeting was the broader perspective, in terms of how decisions in one country can influence the way dermatology is practiced in another country, and how we can try to bridge countries to reduce disparities in access to care, treatments, and specialists. The organization of regional skin training centres is another highlight; there’s a training centre in Tanzania, but there are new training centres opening and one of them is in the Oceania region. Dermatologists can really change the paradigm, previously everyone would focus on their own countries, so if you were active in Switzerland, you would only teach people in Switzerland and this is changing.

The impact on clinical practice is limited in countries which are very wealthy. What is important is the realization that some of the constraints that we put on ourselves because we can are unnecessary. In the group that was talking about surgery with limited resources we realized that there is a tendency in western countries to have strict sterilization practices, which sets a precedence. These standards are not always attainable in countries with less wealth and are not always based on science. There is a need to focus more on evidence-based medicine in this respect and not just doing things because resources allow. We should think more broadly, and I fear that we are setting aims which are not reasonable in a global health setting and this is something that we should change in our clinical practice. There should be a real effort to set time aside for teaching and research collaborations with countries that are not as wealthy.