Adequacy of pathology resident training for employment: a survey report from the Future of Pathology Task Group

The recent change in accreditation requirements for anatomic pathology and clinical pathology residency training from 5 to 4 years and the rapid advances in technologies for pathology services have sparked a renewed debate over the adequacy of pathology residency training. In particular, perceived deficiencies in training have been declared from a variety of sources, both in the form of recent editorial opinions and from surveys of community hospital pathologist employers in 1998, 2003, and 2005 by Dr Richard Horowitz.

To obtain more comprehensive data on the perceptions of strengths and weaknesses in pathology residency training.

The College of American Pathologists conducted a survey of potential pathology employers (senior College of American Pathologists members, members designated as head of group, and members of the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology). Also surveyed were recent graduates of pathology residency programs, who were identified as being junior members of the College of American Pathologists, were recent recipients of certification from the American Board of Pathology, or were contacted through their directors of pathology residency programs.

There were 559 employer respondents, of whom 384 were responsible for hiring and/or supervising new pathologists. There were 247 recent graduates of pathology residency training programs who responded. From the employers' standpoint, the majority expressed overall satisfaction with recent graduates, but almost one third of employers indicated that new hires had a major deficiency in a critical area. Specific areas of deficiency were clinical laboratory management and judgment in ordering special stains and studies. In addition, one half of employers agreed that more guidance and support for newly trained pathologists is needed now than was required 10 years ago. Academic employers generally were more satisfied than private sector employers. Newly trained pathologists did not appear to be inappropriately overconfident in their abilities. In addition, their perceptions of those specific areas in which they are most and least prepared are very similar to the ratings provided by employers. On average, newly trained pathologists' ratings of their own preparedness are highest for specific aspects of general pathology and anatomic pathology, and lowest for specific aspects of clinical pathology and administration. In selecting new pathologists, employers perceived medical knowledge and interpersonal skills as the most important discriminating applicant characteristics. When new employees were asked why they thought they were offered their position, the discriminating qualifications cited most often were academic background and training, as well as completion of a fellowship and subspecialty training.

It is our hope that the results of this survey can be used as input for further discussions and recommendations for training of pathology residents so as to further advance the ability of pathologists to provide quality patient care upon their graduation from training.