Academic Pathology最新文献

Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) are observable clinical skills and/or procedures that have been introduced into medical education at the student and resident levels in most specialties to determine readiness to advance into residency or independent practice, respectively. This publication describes the process and outcomes of a pilot study looking at the feasibility of using two anatomic pathology and two clinical pathology EPAs in pathology residency in 6 pathology residency programs that volunteered for the study. Faculty development on EPAs and their assessment was provided to pilot program faculty, and EPA assessment tools were developed and used by the pilot programs. Pre- and post-study surveys were given to participating residents, faculty, and program directors to gauge baseline practices and to gather feedback on the EPA implementation experience. Results demonstrated overall good feasibility in implementing EPAs. Faculty acceptance of EPAs varied and was less than that of program directors. Residents reported a significant increase in the frequency with which faculty provided formative assessments that included specific examples of performance and specific ways to improve, as well as increased frequency with which faculty provided summative assessments that included specific ways to improve. EPAs offered the most benefit in setting clear expectations for performance of each task, for providing more specific feedback to residents, and in increasing Program director's understanding of resident strengths abilities and weaknesses.

Pathologists use certain terminologies to communicate uncertainty in pathology reports. The message conveyed in pathology reports may be interpreted differently by clinicians leading to possible miscommunication. We aimed to compare the interpretation and impact of uncertainty phrases between pathologists and clinicians. A survey with examples of uncertain diagnoses containing (“suspicious for”, “indefinite for”, “favor”, “cannot exclude”, “suggestive of”, “compatible with”, “cannot rule out”, “highly suspicious for” and “consistent with”) was sent to pathologists and clinicians. For each diagnosis, participants assigned a level of certainty from 1 to 10 and were asked whether they would recommend treatment based on such phraseology. Thirty-six responses (from 7 pathologists, 10 surgeons, 8 pediatric oncologists, 8 medical oncologists, 2 radiation oncologists and 1 diagnostic radiologist) were received. Pathologists had a narrower range of uncertainty compared to clinicians. Wide variation between both groups was seen for all phrases except “compatible with” and “highly suspicious for”. ‘Indefinite for' showed the lowest mean of certainty (4.67 for pathologists; 4.00 for clinicians) whereas 'consistent with' had the highest (8.83 for pathologists and 9.38 for clinicians). There was a significant difference in the degree of certainty between both groups for “compatible with” (7.83 for pathologists and 9.06 for clinicians, p = .009). For treatment decisions, pathologists and clinicians agreed on initiating treatment when “consistent with” and “compatible with” were used and gave variable responses for the other terms. They proposed opposing treatment recommendations for “favor”. Pathologists and clinicians varied in interpretation of uncertainty phrases which may impact treatment.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning have numerous applications in pathology and laboratory medicine. The release of ChatGPT prompted speculation regarding the potentially transformative role of large-language models (LLMs) in academic pathology, laboratory medicine, and pathology education. Because of the potential to improve LLMs over the upcoming years, pathology and laboratory medicine clinicians are encouraged to embrace this technology, identify pathways by which LLMs may support our missions in education, clinical practice, and research, participate in the refinement of AI modalities, and design user-friendly interfaces that integrate these tools into our most important workflows. Challenges regarding the use of LLMs, which have already received considerable attention in a general sense, are also reviewed herein within the context of the pathology field and are important to consider as LLM applications are identified and operationalized.

The number of graduating allopathic (MD) medical students matching into pathology has declined in recent years, while the number of osteopathic (DO) medical students has increased modestly, given the rapid expansion of osteopathic medical schools. Nonscholarly publications and materials on the internet often perpetuate negative perceptions of osteopathic physicians. Anecdotally, perspectives exist that some pathology residency programs are not DO-friendly; however, the reasons and how widespread an effect this might be are unclear. Our survey queried pathology chairs and residency program directors about their perceptions of osteopathic applicants and their knowledge of osteopathic medical school/training in general. This study utilized two similar, parallel surveys of pathology chairs and residency program directors with general questions structured around the perceptions and knowledge of both allopathic and osteopathic physicians, their medical training, and the consideration of osteopathic applicants to pathology residency. Pathology residency leaders acknowledge some negative perceptions of osteopathic physicians in the medical profession, the news, and social media. They also have some knowledge and perception gaps regarding osteopathic training and applicants, although experience with training osteopathic physicians as residents has been equivalent to that with allopathic physicians, and consideration appears to be fairly equal for osteopathic applicants. Even though negative perceptions of osteopathic physicians persist in news and social media, our surveys demonstrate that the leadership of pathology residency programs does not hold the same degree of bias and that DOs perform well in allopathic pathology residency programs without evidence of inferior outcomes.

Published data on combined breast and gynecologic [breast/gyn] surgical pathology fellowship training programs are limited. Our study aimed to survey the landscape of such fellowships in the United States (US), including specific information about their characteristics and the educational activities therein. Using web searches, we identified programs offering combined breast/gyn surgical pathology fellowship training. We developed a 26-item questionnaire asking program directors to report on the characteristics of their fellowship training structure. The search revealed 25 academic based programs offering one-year combined breast/gyn fellowship training, predominantly located (40 %) in the Northeast area. The following data was obtained: 44 % of the programs were accredited by the ACGME, 82 % required >19 weeks of breast and gyn service, and 69.6 % accepted the common application, 54.5 % of programs require completion of a research project for graduation. An annual average of 3000 breast and 3000 gyn cases appears to be the usual volume of cases. Interestingly, only 36 % of the program directors are graduates of a combined breast/gyn fellowship program. In conclusion, we present the most comprehensive and up-to-date census of combined breast/gyn pathology fellowships in the US. Our study provides valuable information on the current state of combined breast/gyn pathology fellowship training. The information will be helpful to current and prospective trainees, as well as program leaders.

Pathology education is taught using different curricula in the United States (USA) and abroad. We evaluate and compare the hours spent in different forms of pathology teaching such as lectures, team-based learning (TBL), problem-based learning (PBL), and other methods taught in general and systemic pathology amongst different medical schools within the USA and outside the USA. The total number of lecture hours taught in general and systemic pathology combined was greater in outside schools than within the USA (141 h vs 97.8 h, respectively). Three subjects in general pathology and six subjects in systemic pathology had a significantly greater lecture hours in outside medical schools. The greatest difference was the hours spent in labs were longer for both general and systems pathology in schools outside the USA. The overall utilization of PBL in general and systemic pathology teaching combined was much greater outside the USA compared to within the USA (average overall hours PBL – 97.2 outside vs 16.5 in the USA), however, the reverse was observed for using TBL (average overall hours TBL – 59.5 outside vs 84.5 in USA). Average hours used with other methods of teaching was also greater in outside medical schools compared to USA medical schools (80.8 h vs 44 h, respectively). Pathology teaching in both general and systemic pathology has more extensive lecture hours, laboratory hours, PBL, and other methods of teaching pathology in outside medical schools with different curricula than USA medical schools. TBL is utilized more extensively in USA medical schools.