Residency training programs in veterinary clinical pathology: a comparison of experiences at two institutions

Two institutions with different residency training formats in clinical pathology are compared with respect to application procedures, learning and teaching opportunities, learning resources, research training, publication requirements, and assessment methods of the program and trainees. The University of Florida and Purdue University programs are both based on an emphasis in morphologic recognition and interpretation of disease processes as well as training in basic science and applied research principles. The progress of trainees through each program is carefully monitored to meet individual needs as well as to meet the training requirements to allow candidates to sit for the certifying examination in clinical pathology. Periodic mock board exams are a critical tool to assess trainee progress and learning. The differences in format focus on coursework and publication requirements as well as on program assessment tools. While one program provides training in the form of 75% clinical diagnostic service, the other uses a mixture of 50% coursework and 50% clinical diagnostic training. Despite the contrast between a pure residency training program and one combining residency training with an MS degree, both institutions provide a solid program structure, ample learning resources, and adequate faculty mentorship to produce a high pass rate of board-certified specialists, the major focus for both programs. Numbers of post-training employment positions for both institutions are similar for those selecting faculty positions at veterinary schools. During the period studied, however, the combined residency and MS graduate program at Purdue University produced more graduates employed in pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, while the residency program at the University of Florida produced more graduates employed by diagnostic laboratories.