Academic Pathology最新文献

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.

Artificial intelligence (AI) may have a profound impact on traditional teaching in academic settings. Multiple concerns have been raised, especially related to using ChatGPT for creating de novo essays. However, AI programs such as ChatGPT may augment teaching techniques. In this article, we used ChatGPT 3.5 to create 60 multiple choice questions. Author written text was uploaded and ChatGPT asked to create multiple choice questions with an explanation for the correct answer and explanations for the incorrect answers. Unfortunately, ChatGPT only generated correct questions and answers with explanations in 32 % of the questions (19 out of 60). In many instances, ChatGPT failed to provide an explanation for the incorrect answers. An additional 25 % of the questions had answers that were either wrong or misleading. A grade of 32 % would be considered failing in most courses. Despite these issues, instructors may still find ChatGPT useful for creating practice exams with explanations—with the caveat that extensive editing may be required.

Health literacy has been defined and studied as an important component of a patient's ability to understand and obtain appropriate healthcare. However, a laboratory component of health literacy, as it pertains to the understanding of laboratory tests and their results, has not been previously defined. An analysis of readily available health literacy tools was conducted to determine laboratory testing-specific content representation. One hundred and four health literacy tools from a publicly available database were analyzed. Many of the health literacy tools were found to be lacking items related to laboratory testing. Of the health literacy tools that did contain a laboratory component, they were categorized pertaining to the laboratory test/testing content. Emerging from this process, eight competencies were identified that encompassed the entire range of laboratory-related aspects of health literacy. We propose that these eight competencies form the basis of a set of competencies needed for one to access, interpret, and act on laboratory results–a capacity we are referring to as “laboratory literacy.”

The field of pathology is facing an inflection point where the demand for pathology services is not being met by a corresponding rise in recruitment into the field. Many of the myths about the field of pathology have been dispelled elsewhere, but there have not been many formal accounts of the experience medical students’ face when finding their path to pathology. Because of challenges in the visibility of pathology as a specialty and not simply a subject required for United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1, students tend to fall into one of two categories: early differentiators or late discoverers. Here, we provide anecdotal accounts of these two paths at institutions with different curricular designs and provide a first-hand account of the challenges we faced and opportunities discovered in our journeys to pathology. Based on these experiences, we offer suggestions for ways to address some of the issues medical students must navigate when trying to explore pathology in curricula not built for such exploration.

Socio-historical barriers remain a concern in Academic Medicine. Regrettably, despite the modern cultural era defined by increased recognition and response to such issues, widespread covert barriers and misperceptions continue to limit the advancement of many, in particular, international medical graduate physicians (IMGs) who represent a significant proportion of the US physician workforce. Adversity is experienced in the form of cultural racism, affinity bias, and underrepresentation in distinct specialties as well as in leadership roles. Often, these unnecessary hardships exacerbate pre-existing discrimination in Academic Medicine, further marginalizing IMGs. In this article, we discuss the prevalence of “medical inferiority bias” and the resulting impact on US healthcare, specifying considerations to be made from a policy perspective.