Grzybicki Dana Marie, Vrbin Colleen M, Reilly Thomas L, Zarbo Richard J, Raab Stephen S
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa, USA.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004 Feb;128(2):165-72. doi: 10.5858/2004-128-165-UOPEIS.
Use of a variety of nonphysician personnel for surgical pathology gross examination is generally known to be increasing, although detailed information regarding nonphysician use is currently unavailable.
To measure and describe the use of nonphysician personnel for surgical pathology gross examination in order to gain a better understanding of the current surgical pathology workforce.
A voluntary, mailed questionnaire containing items related to the use of multiple nonphysician personnel types in surgical pathology was distributed to (1) a cross-sectional sample (n = 968) of US pathologists and (2) a purposive sample of pathologist directors of surgical and/or anatomic pathology (n = 77) located at teaching institutions. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, the chi2 test, and 1-way analysis of variance. Staffing ratios were calculated for multiple nonphysician personnel types.
The overall response rate was 22% (n = 225). Of the US sample, 56% of respondents reported using nonphysician laboratory personnel to perform gross examinations, compared with 91% of the directors' sample. The most frequently reported personnel type for both samples was pathologists' assistants, but multiple other personnel types were used as well. Significant associations existed between certain practice types and personnel types used, as well as differences in the scope of responsibilities between personnel types. Calculated staffing ratios were variable across personnel types and were highest for pathologists' assistants.
The use of a variety of nonphysician laboratory personnel for surgical pathology gross examination is common, particularly in academic pathology practice. Further studies are needed to examine the impact of physician extenders on laboratory efficiency and quality of care.
虽然目前尚无关于非医师人员使用情况的详细信息，但众所周知，在外科病理学大体检查中使用各种非医师人员的情况普遍在增加。
衡量并描述外科病理学大体检查中非医师人员的使用情况，以便更好地了解当前的外科病理学劳动力状况。
向（1）美国病理学家的横断面样本（n = 968）和（2）位于教学机构的外科和/或解剖病理学病理科主任的目的样本（n = 77）发放了一份自愿邮寄的问卷，问卷包含与外科病理学中多种非医师人员类型使用相关的项目。使用描述性统计、相关性分析、卡方检验和单因素方差分析对回复进行分析。计算了多种非医师人员类型的人员配备比率。
总体回复率为22%（n = 225）。在美国样本中，56%的受访者报告使用非医师实验室人员进行大体检查，而主任样本中的这一比例为91%。两个样本中最常报告的人员类型是病理学家助理，但也使用了多种其他人员类型。某些实践类型与所使用的人员类型之间存在显著关联，并且人员类型之间的职责范围也存在差异。计算出的人员配备比率因人员类型而异，病理学家助理的比率最高。
在外科病理学大体检查中使用各种非医师实验室人员很常见，尤其是在学术病理学实践中。需要进一步研究以检查医师助理对实验室效率和护理质量的影响。
