Yeah..Henry's is pretty much the most comprehensive. Not a big fan of golf, though.
Keeping in mind that we're talking about limited utility, "rounding," or perhaps better put, occasionally being active on the clinical wards, can have a positive effect on everything from what tests are being ordered to how they are being interpreted to management issues such as timing of orders vs turnaround time. While the average clinical attending should have a reasonable grasp of what to order in a given situation for the decision they want to make, realistically we have to remember that clinicians are raised in a shotgun climate in which as residents they are constantly asked how many zebras they considered and whether they ruled those zebras out. They generally have been taught to order first and think later.
Beyond that, they are often not really aware of how certain clinical scenarios or sample problems might affect their results -- very high creatinine, hemolysis, lipemia, recent massive transfusion, etc. Transfusion reactions are also not commonly well-understood among clinicians (especially non-heme non-onc's) beyond possibly volume overload and ABO incompatibility. Non-ID's sometimes have problems obtaining useful samples for culture, or waiting for or interpreting culture results.
And a lot of pathologists just don't understand the workflow issues the average clinician faces daily. If certain lab results aren't available by 7 AM rounds, or earlier pre-round data collection junior staff, then draws have to be earlier or turnaround times faster. If certain decisions have to be made by Wednesday on tests that are batched Wednesday late afternoon, then something should probably change.
There are numerous situations in which this combination of simple "good communication" and having an occasional presence on the wards is, I believe, useful in the realm of CP. I'm not advocating daily rounding, no -- just that there is a place for it in limited institution dependent circumstances.
As for the separate question on AP.. this was touched on to some extent in another thread or two recently. While there might be some utility in speaking with or evaluating a patient personally, that role is very well established as being the clinician's realm. It's like an outside radiologist calling a patient to ask if they have any facial droop rather than saying to the clinician hey, I see this little something on the MRI, any chance they have a clinical abnormality? In this case I think the benefit to the patient of going through appropriate channels with the clinician outweighs the possible benefit to the pathologist of direct communication/evaluation of a patient.