Torre Kristin, Russomanno Kristen, Ferringer Tammie, Elston Dirk, Murphy Michael J
Department of Dermatology, UConn Health, Farmington, CT.
Geisinger Medical Laboratories, Danville, PA.
Am J Dermatopathol. 2018 Jan;40(1):43-48. doi: 10.1097/DAD.0000000000000909.
Molecular technologies offer clinicians the tools to provide high-quality, cost-effective patient care. We evaluated education focused on molecular diagnostics, genomics, and personalized medicine in dermatopathology fellowship training.
A 20-question online survey was emailed to all (n = 53) Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited dermatopathology training programs in the United States.
Thirty-one of 53 program directors responded (response rate = 58%). Molecular training is undertaken in 74% of responding dermatopathology fellowships, with levels of instruction varying among dermatology-based and pathology-based programs. Education differed for dermatology- and pathology-trained fellows in approximately one-fifth (19%) of programs. Almost half (48%) of responding program directors believe that fellows are not currently receiving adequate molecular education, although the majority (97%) expect to incorporate additional instruction in the next 2-5 years. Factors influencing the incorporation of relevant education include perceived clinical utility and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education/residency review committee (RRC) requirements. Potential benefits of molecular education include increased medical knowledge, improved patient care, and promotion of effective communication with other healthcare professionals. More than two-thirds (68%) of responding program directors believe that instruction in molecular technologies should be required in dermatopathology fellowship training.
Although all responding dermatopathology fellowship program directors agreed that molecular education is important, only a little over half of survey participants believe that their fellows receive adequate instruction. This represents an important educational gap. Discussion among those who oversee fellow education is necessary to best integrate and evaluate teaching of molecular dermatopathology.
分子技术为临床医生提供了提供高质量、具有成本效益的患者护理的工具。我们评估了皮肤科病理学 fellowship 培训中专注于分子诊断、基因组学和个性化医学的教育。
向美国所有（n = 53）经研究生医学教育认证委员会（ACGME）认证的皮肤科病理学培训项目发送了一份包含20个问题的在线调查问卷。
53名项目主任中有31名回复（回复率 = 58%）。74%的回复皮肤科病理学 fellowship 项目开展了分子培训，基于皮肤科和基于病理学的项目的教学水平各不相同。在大约五分之一（19%）的项目中，皮肤科和病理学培训的 fellows 的教育存在差异。近一半（48%）的回复项目主任认为 fellows 目前没有接受足够的分子教育，尽管大多数（97%）预计在未来2至5年内会纳入额外的教学内容。影响纳入相关教育的因素包括感知到的临床实用性和研究生医学教育认证委员会/住院医师评审委员会（RRC）的要求。分子教育的潜在好处包括增加医学知识、改善患者护理以及促进与其他医疗保健专业人员的有效沟通。超过三分之二（68%）的回复项目主任认为皮肤科病理学 fellowship 培训应要求进行分子技术教学。
尽管所有回复的皮肤科病理学 fellowship 项目主任都同意分子教育很重要，但只有略超过一半的调查参与者认为他们的 fellows 接受了足够的教学。这代表了一个重要的教育差距。监督 fellows 教育的人员之间进行讨论对于最佳地整合和评估分子皮肤病理学教学是必要的。
