Search

This article presents findings from a 4-year series of surveys of new-in-practice pathologists, and a survey of physician employers of new pathologists, assessing how pathology graduate medical education prepares its graduates for practice. Using the methodology described in our previous study, we develop evidence for the importance of residency training for various practice areas, comparing findings over different practice settings, sizes, and lengths of time in practice. The principal findings are (1) while new-in-practice pathologists and their employers report residency generally prepared them well for practice, some areas—billing and coding, laboratory management, molecular pathology, and pathology informatics—consistently were identified as being important in practice but inadequately prepared for in residency; (2) other areas—autopsy pathology, and subspecialized apheresis and blood donor center blood banking services—consistently were identified as relatively unimportant in practice and excessively prepared for in residency; (3) the notion of a single comprehensive model for categorical training in residency is challenged by the disparity between broad general practice in some settings and narrower subspecialty practice in others; and (4) the need for preparation in some areas evolves during practice, raising questions about the appropriate mode and circumstance for training in these areas. The implications of these findings range from rebalancing the emphasis among practice areas in residency, to reconsidering the structure of graduate medical education in pathology to meet present and evolving future practice needs.

The use of social media at academic conferences is expanding, and platforms such as Twitter are used to share meeting content with the world. Pathology conferences are no exception, and recently, pathology organizations have promoted social media as a way to enhance meeting exposure. A social media committee was formed ad hoc to implement strategies to enhance social media involvement and coverage at the 2018 and 2019 annual meetings of the Association of Pathology Chairs. This organized approach resulted in an 11-fold increase in social media engagement compared to the year prior to committee formation (2017). In this article, the social media committee reviews the strategies that were employed and the resultant outcome data. In addition, we categorize tweets by topic to identify the topics of greatest interest to meeting participants, and we discuss the differences between Twitter and other social media platforms. Lastly, we review the existing literature on this topic from 23 medical specialties and health care fields.

Few medical specialties engage in ongoing, organized data collection to assess how graduate medical education in their disciplines align with practice. Pathology educators, the American Board of Pathology, and major pathology organizations undertook an evidence-based, empirical assessment of what all pathologists need to learn in categorical residency. Two challenges were known when we commenced and we encountered 2 others during the project; all were ultimately satisfactorily addressed. Initial challenges were (1) ensuring broad representation of the new-in-practice pathologist experience and (2) adjusting for the effect on this experience of subspecialty fellowship(s) occurring between residency and practice. Additional challenges were (3) needing to assess and quantify degree and extent of subspecialization in different practice settings and (4) measuring changing practice responsibilities with increasing time in practice. We instituted annual surveys of pathologists who are relatively new (

This retrospective observational study on faculty development analyzes the Duke University Pathology Department’s 18-year experience with a structured mentoring program involving 51 junior faculty members. The majority had MD degrees only (55%). The percentage of young women faculty hires before 1998 was 25%, increasing to 72% after 2005. Diversity also broadened from 9% with varied heritages before 1998 to 37% since then. The mentoring process pivoted on an annual review process. The reviews generally helped candidates focus much earlier, identified impediments they individually felt, and provided new avenues to gain a national reputation for academic excellence. National committee membership effectively helped gain national exposure. Thirty-eight percent of the mentees served on College of American Pathologists (CAP) committees, exponential multiples of any other national society. Some used CAP resources to develop major programs, some becoming nationally and internationally recognized for their academic activities. Several faculty gained national recognition as thought leaders for publishing about work initiated to serve administrative needs in the Department. The review process identified the need for more protected time for research, issues with time constraints, and avoiding exploitation when collaborating with other departments. This review identified a rigorous faculty mentoring and review process that included annual career counseling, goal-oriented academic careers, monitored advancement to promotion, higher salaries, and national recognition. All contributed to high faculty satisfaction and low faculty turnover. We conclude that a rigorous annual faculty review program and its natural sequence, promotion, can greatly foster faculty satisfaction.

Effective physician workforce management requires that the various organizations comprising the House of Medicine be able to assess their current and future workforce supply. This information has direct relevance to funding of graduate medical education. We describe a dynamic modeling tool that examines how individual factors and practice variables can be used to measure and forecast the supply and demand for existing and new physician services. The system we describe, while built to analyze the pathologist workforce, is sufficiently broad and robust for use in any medical specialty. Our design provides a computer-based software model populated with data from surveys and best estimates by specialty experts about current and new activities in the scope of practice. The model describes the steps needed and data required for analysis of supply and demand. Our modeling tool allows educators and policy makers, in addition to physician specialty organizations, to assess how various factors may affect demand (and supply) of current and emerging services. Examples of factors evaluated include types of professional services (3 categories with 16 subcategories), service locations, elements related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, new technologies, aging population, and changing roles in capitated, value-based, and team-based systems of care. The model also helps identify where physicians in a given specialty will likely need to assume new roles, develop new expertise, and become more efficient in practice to accommodate new value-based payment models.