Academic Pathology最新文献

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.

The SingHealth Pathology Residency Program (SHPRP) is a 5-year postgraduate training program in Singapore. We face the problem of resident attrition, which has a significant impact on the individual, program and healthcare providers. Our residents are regularly evaluated, using in-house evaluations as well as assessments required in our partnership with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education International (ACGME-I). We hence sought to determine if these assessments were able to distinguish residents who would attrite from residents who would graduate successfully. Retrospective analysis of existing residency assessments was performed on all residents who have separated from SHPRP and compared with residents currently in senior residency or graduated from the program. Statistical analysis was performed on quantitative assessment methods of Resident In-Service Examination (RISE), 360-degree feedback, faculty assessment, Milestones and our own annual departmental mock examination. Word frequency analysis of narrative feedback from faculty assessment was used to generate themes.

Since 2011, 10 out of 34 residents have separated from the program. RISE, Milestone data and the departmental mock examination showed statistical significance in discriminating residents at risk of attrition for specialty-related reasons from successful residents. Analysis of narrative feedback showed that successful residents performed better in areas of organization, preparation with clinical history, application of knowledge, interpersonal communication and achieving sustained progress. Existing assessment methods used in our pathology residency program are effective in detecting residents at risk of attrition. This also suggests applications in the way that we select, assess and teach residents.

There has been a significant decline in the number of United States allopathic medical students matching to pathology residency programs. Data acquired from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) show sustained variation in the medical school production of students who go on to pathology residency. When divided into groups based on the medical school's historical volume of graduates entering pathology, the schools in groups labeled Group 1 and Group 2 produced significantly higher and lower proportions of pathology residents, respectively. This study aimed to identify what medical school curriculum elements and other medical school characteristics might explain the differences observed in the AAMC data. The Dean or another undergraduate medical education contact from the Group 1 and Group 2 schools was invited to participate in an interview. Pathology Program Directors and Pathology Department Chairs were also included in communications. Thirty interviews were completed with equal numbers from each group. Interview questions probed pathology experiences, existence, and structure of a pathology interest group, options for post-sophomore fellowships, recent curriculum changes, and the extent of mentoring programs. Surprisingly, the curriculum does not appear to be a predictor of a medical school's production of students who enter pathology residency. A significantly greater percentage of Group 1 schools are public institutions compared to Group 2 schools. Other factors that may increase the number of students who go into pathology include mentoring, active learning versus observation, and post-sophomore fellowships or other opportunities to work in the capacity of a new pathology resident.

Currently, there are few osteopathic physician trainees who choose to pursue pathology residencies when compared to allopathic students and international medical graduates. Although the amount of residency positions filled by osteopathic students has increased in recent years, the percentage of osteopathic students choosing pathology has not changed much from 2011 to 2022 (about 0.16% increase), and, in 2022, pathology had the third lowest percentage of filled post-graduate year 1 residency positions by osteopathic applicants when compared to fifteen other major medical specialties. Potential explanations for this disparity may include relatively few total numbers of osteopathic applicants when compared to allopathic and international medical graduate trainees, as well as potential institutional educational limitations (i.e., pathology exposure differences among academic-based versus community-based hospital settings). This review suggests ways pathologists and educational institutions may help improve pathology exposure to osteopathic physician trainees, such as pathology interest groups, post-sophomore fellowships, rotating pathology electives, and through social media (e.g., Twitter). Utilizing these (and other) pathways may help improve osteopathic physician recruitment to pathology during subsequent applicant-residency match cycles.

According to the National Resident Matching Program in 2022, 631 pathology positions were offered. In total, 248 senior applicants from United States (US) allopathic schools filled 36.6% of these positions. To bolster medical student understanding of pathology, a medical school pathology interest group organized a multi-day activity to introduce rising second-year medical students to pathology as a career. Five students completed both pre- and post-activity surveys assessing their knowledge of the specialty. All five students had a BA/BS degree as their highest level of education. Only one student indicated that he or she had previously shadowed a pathologist as a medical laboratory scientist for a duration of four years. Two students indicated that they were interested in internal medicine, one indicated radiology, one forensic pathology or radiology, and one was undecided. During the activity, students biopsied tissue from cadavers in the gross anatomy lab. Thereafter, students participated in the standard tissue processing by shadowing a histotechnologist. Under the guidance of a pathologist, students microscopically examined slides and discussed the clinical findings. Post-activity survey results indicated that participation increased their knowledge of pathology as a career with a median increase of 0.8 points (range: 0.2 to 1.6) on a 5-point Likert scale. Students also indicated that their participation increased their knowledge of pathology skills and techniques—median increase of 1.2 (range: 0.8 to 1.8). This activity can be implemented by medical educators to expose medical students to pathology as a career with the benefit of increasing student knowledge in the specialty.