Professor and Vice Chair, Departments of Pathology and Medical Education, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois.
Associate Professor and Residency Program Director, Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2021 Sep-Oct;10(5):447-458. doi: 10.1016/j.jasc.2021.06.002. Epub 2021 Jun 17.
The American Board of Pathology (ABPath) has ongoing efforts to better align certification with graduate medical education, training program requirements, and pathology practice. The present study focused on the subspecialty of cytopathology. We evaluated the current content and scope of fellowship programs, practice patterns and needs of diplomates, and program director (PD) and diplomate perceptions of the ABPath certification examination to identify gaps and provide an evidence base to guide harmonization in these areas.
Two surveys were administered: one directed to PDs of all 93 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) cytopathology fellowship programs and the other to cytopathology diplomates submitting continuing certification reporting to the ABPath.
Most (86%) cytopathology diplomates work in smaller groups. Only 11% do >50% cytopathology in practice. Diplomates' cytopathology-related practice tasks varied, as did their perception of the content of fellowship training aligning with practice needs. In fellowship training programs, the specimen types, volumes, techniques of specimen acquisition, and graduated responsibility varied significantly. We identified areas in which current training and certification requirements are challenging for some programs. Diplomates and PDs had differing perceptions of the cytopathology examination; diplomates regarded image-based and microscopic glass slide questions as the best assessment of their knowledge.
First, fellowship training programs could benefit from shared resources and should provide more graduated responsibility for fellows. Second, the ACGME Review Committee could consider this data in future program requirement revisions. Finally, information from these surveys will be useful as the ABPath adjusts certification examination content and delivery.
美国病理学委员会(ABPath)正在努力使认证与住院医师医学教育、培训计划要求和病理学实践更好地保持一致。本研究集中在细胞病理学的亚专业领域。我们评估了研究员计划的当前内容和范围、从业者的实践模式和需求,以及计划主任(PD)和研究员对 ABPath 认证考试的看法,以确定差距,并为这些领域的协调提供证据基础。
进行了两项调查:一项针对所有 93 个研究生医学教育认证委员会(ACGME)细胞病理学研究员计划的 PD,另一项针对向 ABPath 提交持续认证报告的细胞病理学研究员。
大多数(86%)细胞病理学研究员在较小的团体中工作。只有 11%的人在实践中进行>50%的细胞病理学工作。研究员的细胞病理学相关实践任务各不相同,他们对与实践需求相一致的研究员培训内容的看法也不同。在研究员培训计划中,标本类型、数量、标本采集技术和责任分级差异很大。我们确定了一些计划中当前培训和认证要求具有挑战性的领域。研究员和 PD 对细胞病理学考试有不同的看法;研究员认为基于图像和显微镜载玻片的问题是评估他们知识的最佳方法。
首先,研究员培训计划可以从共享资源中受益,并应为研究员提供更多的分级责任。其次,ACGME 审查委员会可以在未来的项目要求修订中考虑这些数据。最后,这些调查的信息将在 ABPath 调整认证考试内容和提供方式时非常有用。