- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,463
- Reaction score
- 293
I was curious if anyone here has any knowledge of the accreditation standards for pathology residencies.
We keep close track of every surge path case a resident sees during training (does everyone's program?) in a sort of 'case log.' As of now the ABP only requires the famous 50 autopsies and occasionally asks to see evidence of procedures like FNAs (occasionally)-- there are no objective standards for the number, spread, complexity and accuracy of the cases a resident sees during their training. Though I hear we're supposed to be responsible for 2000 cases over our 4 years.
This is in sharp contrast to other fields. In surgery there is a '750 major case' requirement to graduate and become board-eligible. But this can't just be any random collection of 750 cases: the resident must have performed at least a critical part of the case in order to be able to log it, and the distribution across organ systems and the type of procedure is meticulously detailed. It's logged on a central site-- every resident in every program in the US uses the same one.
(If anyone wants to see it, it's here: https://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/GSNatData1213.pdf)
What would you think about adopting such a system for pathology? Obviously we see/workup many more cases than the average surgical resident would and I don't think it's necessary to break it down into every possible tumor type. I think it could help objectively assess programs and whether or not they are able to expose residents to an adequate array of specimens and cases in their training, and would be certify people to be ready to practice general anatomic pathology when they graduate. (Maybe it would work for CP-- I can see it adapted for blood bank in particular-- but that's a black box for me on which I can't comment).
If you think it's a terrible idea, how would you objectively assess which residencies are adequate and which should be shuttered?
We keep close track of every surge path case a resident sees during training (does everyone's program?) in a sort of 'case log.' As of now the ABP only requires the famous 50 autopsies and occasionally asks to see evidence of procedures like FNAs (occasionally)-- there are no objective standards for the number, spread, complexity and accuracy of the cases a resident sees during their training. Though I hear we're supposed to be responsible for 2000 cases over our 4 years.
This is in sharp contrast to other fields. In surgery there is a '750 major case' requirement to graduate and become board-eligible. But this can't just be any random collection of 750 cases: the resident must have performed at least a critical part of the case in order to be able to log it, and the distribution across organ systems and the type of procedure is meticulously detailed. It's logged on a central site-- every resident in every program in the US uses the same one.
(If anyone wants to see it, it's here: https://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/GSNatData1213.pdf)
What would you think about adopting such a system for pathology? Obviously we see/workup many more cases than the average surgical resident would and I don't think it's necessary to break it down into every possible tumor type. I think it could help objectively assess programs and whether or not they are able to expose residents to an adequate array of specimens and cases in their training, and would be certify people to be ready to practice general anatomic pathology when they graduate. (Maybe it would work for CP-- I can see it adapted for blood bank in particular-- but that's a black box for me on which I can't comment).
If you think it's a terrible idea, how would you objectively assess which residencies are adequate and which should be shuttered?