Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

The pathology residency review process.

R H Sebring

    American Journal of Clinical Pathology
    |August 1, 1983
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    The Residency Review Committee (RRC) for Pathology frequently cited deficiencies in anatomic pathology, clinical pathology, and organizational aspects, leading to probation or withdrawal of accreditation for anatomic and clinical pathology (APCP) programs. Most adverse actions occurred in smaller, non-profit hospitals.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Practice patterns in neonatal hyperbilirubinemia.

    Pediatrics·1998
    Same author

    Quality improvement: an ACQIP exercise on telephone advice.

    Pediatrics in review·1997
    Same author

    Quality improvement: an ACQIP exercise on the management of otitis media.

    Pediatrics in review·1996
    Same author

    The political anatomy of a guideline: a collaborative effort to develop the AHCPR-sponsored practice guideline on otitis media with effusion.

    The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement·1996
    Same author

    The Residency Review Committee for Radiology: its organization, function, and performance in diagnostic radiology.

    AJR. American journal of roentgenology·1984
    Same author

    Separation of services approach is it working?

    Record·1977

    Area of Science:

    • Medical Education
    • Pathology Residency Training
    • Accreditation Standards

    Background:

    • The accreditation process for Pathology residencies is overseen by the Residency Review Committee (RRC).
    • Understanding RRC actions and common deficiencies is crucial for program improvement.
    • Previous analyses have not focused specifically on the 5-year trend of adverse actions.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To describe the accreditation process for Pathology residency programs.
    • To summarize RRC actions, focusing on adverse outcomes like probation and accreditation withdrawal.
    • To identify the most common deficiencies cited and the characteristics of programs undergoing adverse actions.

    Main Methods:

    • Content analysis of RRC adverse decisions over the past 5 years.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Categorization and counting of the most frequently cited deficiencies.
  • Analysis of hospital types and resident numbers for programs with voluntary or involuntary accreditation withdrawal.

    • Main Results:

    • Deficiencies were most commonly found in anatomic pathology, clinical pathology, and organizational aspects of residency training.
    • Probation and withdrawal of accreditation were significant outcomes for anatomic and clinical pathology (APCP) programs.
    • Nongovernment, not-for-profit hospitals with an average of four residents were most likely to experience accreditation withdrawal.

    Conclusions:

    • Pathology residency programs face common challenges in specific training areas and organizational structure.
    • Targeted interventions addressing these deficiencies can improve accreditation outcomes.
    • Accreditation data highlights a need for support for smaller, non-profit residency programs.