Academic Pathology最新文献

Pathology is a core component of medical school curricula because understanding the pathogenesis of the disease is foundational both for diagnostic efficiency and optimal use of ancillary resources in patient care. The Pathology Competencies for Medical Education (PCME) were developed as a national resource of expectations of pathology knowledge for medical students. The PCME are composed of three competencies: disease mechanisms and processes, organ system pathology, and diagnostic pathology and therapeutic pathology. The learning goals and learning objectives of the PCME that were first published in 2017 have been carefully revised and updated. Significant additions were made to fill gaps of the original PCME objectives, and some learning objectives have been retired or moved to more appropriate locations within the competencies. As curricula and the practice of medicine change, the PCME will continue to be revised and updated periodically. They have and will continue to serve as the organizing principle for the growing number of educational cases published by Academic Pathology. Nomenclature in the original and revised PCME will allow for continued linking of previous and new educational cases to the revised learning objectives. PCME and the educational cases can be adapted into any type of curricula. Having a widely accepted resource of learning objectives in pathology will help students and medical educators focus on essential components of pathology for the future practice of medicine.

Scheduling rotations for a pathology training program involves balancing educational requirements, service coverage, and paid time off (PTO). Absences can affect training as residents cross-cover, managing multiple services at once. Other specialties utilize a “Jeopardy” based system for covering absences. In this system, residents on outpatient services are “jeopardized” to cover inpatient services for trainee absences. Borrowing this concept, we created a schedule model with a “Jeopardy-Elective” (JE) rotation to support resident absences. Prior to 2018–19, our residency program consisted of a 12 month-long rotation schedule. We adopted a 13 four-week block rotation model system, adding four JE rotations per resident over the course of training. The JE resident covered services during trainee absences and spent the remaining rotation on elective. We then conducted a pre- and post-intervention survey of all residents who trained in both systems. Following the change in schedule model, our results showed a statistically significant increase in resident satisfaction with taking PTO (p = 0.0014), finding coverage (p = 0.0006), and taking a sick day (p = 0.03). The mean number of days covered by the JE resident was 8.5 ± 2.7 workdays (out of 20). PTO usage increased from 16 to 20 days/resident while mean number of sick days decreased from 1.7 to 1.3 days per resident. There was overwhelming support with 82% of residents wanting to retain the new system going forward. Through use of the JE rotation, our program improved service coverage issues and resident satisfaction, with the long-term goal of enhanced resident well-being and enriched resident learning experiences.

We have previously published a novel transfusion medicine curriculum for first-year anesthesiology residents, making available open access learning materials. We now present a curriculum iteration, by incorporating resident feedback and developing an additional “capstone” session for use at the end of the rotation that integrates several learning points into a practical problem-based simulation. This iteration of the curriculum was piloted with the 2019–2020 PGY-1 anesthesiology residents of the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics. Pre-course and post-course surveys, which assessed trainee understanding of course topics, were used to subjectively evaluate the usefulness of the curriculum. Results of the surveys demonstrated post-test mean scores were significantly increased when compared with the equivalent pre-course questions. This suggests the piloted curriculum iteration serves as a useful tool for resident learning. As an adjunct to our previous existing materials, in the spirit of open-access education, we share this additional curriculum material, consisting of four patient cases with 16 questions that can be used immediately for teaching purposes.

Patient safety education is a mandated Common Program Requirement of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and for the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada in all medical residency and fellowship programs. Although many hospitals and healthcare environments have general patient safety education tools for trainees, few to none focus on the unique training milieu of pathologists, including a mix of highly automated and manual error-prone processes, frequent multiplicity of events, and lack of direct patient relationships for error disclosure. We established a national Association of Pathology Chairs-Program Directors Section Workgroup focused on patient safety education for pathology trainees entitled Training Residents in Patient Safety (TRIPS). TRIPS included diverse representatives from across the United States, as well as representatives from pathology organizations including the American Board of Pathology, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, the College of American Pathologists, and the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine. Objectives of the workgroup included developing a standardized patient safety curriculum, designing teaching and assessment tools, and refining them with pilot sites. Here we report the establishment of TRIPS as well as data from national needs assessment of Program Directors across the country, who confirmed the need for a standardized patient safety curriculum.

Beginning 26 January 2022, the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 changed from a numerical score to Pass/Fail. Historically, residency programs have used Step 1 scores as a valuable metric in assessing the competitiveness of applicants. We assessed how residency program criteria will change when evaluating applicants after Step 1 becomes Pass/Fail. A survey was distributed to the program directors of all 144 pathology residency programs accredited by Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Survey questions evaluated the importance of using Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores when assessing applicants. Participants were asked to rank a list of applicant criteria used before and after Step 1 becomes Pass/Fail. Data were analyzed using chi-squared and paired t-tests with significance at P < 0.05. A total of 34 residency program directors (23.6%) responded to the survey. 76.5% (P< 0.001) of responders believed Step 1 scores were able to predict a resident's ability to pass their board exams, while 41.2% believed Step 2 CK could predict a resident's ability to pass board exams and perform clinically in pathology (P = 0.282). 61.8% of responders agreed that an applicant's medical school ranking would become more important (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the relative importance of 16 selection criteria after the change of Step 1 to Pass/Fail. It does not appear that Step 2 CK will become more important. Although results are constrained by a 23.6% response rate, it can be a start to guiding future students through residency applications.