Academic Pathology最新文献

Compared with the overall physician workforce, pathologist workforce in the United States has significant representation of international medical graduates (IMGs). IMG representation in the academic pathology workforce, as well as in departmental and pathology societal leadership, has not been documented. In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed a sample of 20 North American academic pathology departmental publicly available websites. Each faculty was recorded according to the location of their medical school training as either US or Canadian medical graduateor IMG (country of medical school graduation any other than US or Canada). Past and present presidents of four major North American pathology societies [American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP), Association for Academic Pathology (AAPath), College of American Pathologists (CAP), United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP)] were also recorded. A total of 1455 pathologists were retrieved in our search: 924 (63.5 %) were USCMGs and 531 (36.5 %) IMGs. Likewise, 65 % of pathology chairs were USCMGs and 35 % IMGs. These data mirror the 2022 Association of American Medical Colleges distribution in the pathology workforce (65.6 % USCMGs and 34.4 % IMGs). In contrast, historic data from 1993 to 2024 show that only 8 (8 %) past or current presidents of the major US pathology societies were IMGs (USCAP = 6, ASCP = 1, AAPath = 1, CAP = none). While the academic pathology community has proportional representation of physicians based on location of their medical school training, there is historical underrepresentation of IMGs in societal leadership. Unveiling the causes of this disparity and identifying any potential obstacles for faculty engagement is paramount.

Resident training in autopsy provides a foundation of knowledge and skills for forensic pathologists and anatomic pathologists, but obstacles are present in ensuring quality training. A survey of US autopsy service directors at sites with pathology residency programs was used to identify common challenges in resident autopsy training. Respondents (n = 29) largely believed that negative attitudes from residents, faculty, training programs, and/or the medical system at large (34%) and time limitations (34%) were the most significant challenges for residency autopsy training. Regarding the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's decreased autopsy requirements from 50 to 30 required cases, respondents noted decreased difficulty (38% to 7%) for residents to achieve the minimum of cases but increased concerns regarding competency at this minimum (7% to 76%). Other impacts of this reduced requirement included decreased interest from residents after meeting minimum requirements, shortened autopsy rotations, increased resident-free autopsies, and increased use of pathologist assistants. Two programs (7%) described a decreased need for residents to share cases, but no other potential benefit was described. In addition to the value provided to the community through autopsies, autopsy training during residency provides knowledge and skills relevant to anatomic pathologists generally and forms a necessary foundation on which forensic pathology fellows and future autopsy attendings can develop proficiency. Continued effort is needed to promote the importance of autopsies to pathology residents and others and to provide sufficient training to produce pathologists competent in autopsy pathology.