Leadership perspectives on osteopathic medical school applicants to pathology residency training.

The number of graduating allopathic (MD) medical students matching into pathology has declined in recent years, while the number of osteopathic (DO) medical students has increased modestly, given the rapid expansion of osteopathic medical schools. Nonscholarly publications and materials on the internet often perpetuate negative perceptions of osteopathic physicians. Anecdotally, perspectives exist that some pathology residency programs are not DO-friendly; however, the reasons and how widespread an effect this might be are unclear. Our survey queried pathology chairs and residency program directors about their perceptions of osteopathic applicants and their knowledge of osteopathic medical school/training in general. This study utilized two similar, parallel surveys of pathology chairs and residency program directors with general questions structured around the perceptions and knowledge of both allopathic and osteopathic physicians, their medical training, and the consideration of osteopathic applicants to pathology residency. Pathology residency leaders acknowledge some negative perceptions of osteopathic physicians in the medical profession, the news, and social media. They also have some knowledge and perception gaps regarding osteopathic training and applicants, although experience with training osteopathic physicians as residents has been equivalent to that with allopathic physicians, and consideration appears to be fairly equal for osteopathic applicants. Even though negative perceptions of osteopathic physicians persist in news and social media, our surveys demonstrate that the leadership of pathology residency programs does not hold the same degree of bias and that DOs perform well in allopathic pathology residency programs without evidence of inferior outcomes.

Continued Positive Job Search Experience for New Pathologists Seeking First Employment During the COVID-19 Pandemic (2020-2022).

CONTEXT.­: As pathologists retire and leave the field, it is critical to accurately capture employment trends for new-in-practice pathologists. There is always interest in the job market for newly graduated pathology trainees and prospective pathology trainees, but it is unclear how the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the job search experience. OBJECTIVE.­: To provide an update on trends gleaned from a survey of pathology graduates' job search experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN.­: We analyzed data from an annual job search survey sent by the College of American Pathologists Graduate Medical Education Committee between 2020 and 2022 to College of American Pathologists junior members and fellows in practice 3 years or less actively looking for a nonfellowship position. Various indicators of the job search experience were compared year to year and with the data previously published 2017 to 2019 and 2012 to 2016. RESULTS.­: Analysis revealed continued positive trends between the 2020 to 2022 data and the data from 2017 to 2019 and 2012 to 2016. This includes continued ease in finding positions, continued availability of jobs in the subspecialty of choice, continued satisfaction with the positions accepted, and, notably, higher starting salaries. CONCLUSIONS.­: Despite the many challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, job market trends for newly graduated pathology trainees continue to be favorable with respect to multiple indicators compared with 2 prior periods, 2017 to 2019 and 2012 to 2016.

Experiential exposure as the key to recruiting medical students into pathology.

Medical student interest and pursuit of a career in pathology have been steadily declining since 2015. We conducted three separate surveys of medical students to better understand these trends. In our first survey, we focused on assessing U.S. allopathic medical students understanding and perceptions of pathology. We later surveyed U.S. osteopathic medical students as a companion to the allopathic medical student survey, in which many similarities were discovered with some key differences. In our final survey, we specifically looked at curriculum differences between the U.S. allopathic medical schools that graduate the most students who enter pathology training programs (Group 1) versus those schools that graduate the fewest future pathologists (Group 2) to determine if the curriculum had an impact on medical student matriculation into pathology. Together, through these surveys, we were able to identify several remarkable recurring trends, presenting areas of targetable action. Here, we summarize themes from the three studies as well as a review of pertinent literature to offer best practices for exposing and engaging medical students to pathology and possibly recruiting students to consider pathology as a career.

How influential are medical school curriculum and other medical school characteristics in students' selecting pathology as a specialty?

There has been a significant decline in the number of United States allopathic medical students matching to pathology residency programs. Data acquired from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) show sustained variation in the medical school production of students who go on to pathology residency. When divided into groups based on the medical school's historical volume of graduates entering pathology, the schools in groups labeled Group 1 and Group 2 produced significantly higher and lower proportions of pathology residents, respectively. This study aimed to identify what medical school curriculum elements and other medical school characteristics might explain the differences observed in the AAMC data. The Dean or another undergraduate medical education contact from the Group 1 and Group 2 schools was invited to participate in an interview. Pathology Program Directors and Pathology Department Chairs were also included in communications. Thirty interviews were completed with equal numbers from each group. Interview questions probed pathology experiences, existence, and structure of a pathology interest group, options for post-sophomore fellowships, recent curriculum changes, and the extent of mentoring programs. Surprisingly, the curriculum does not appear to be a predictor of a medical school's production of students who enter pathology residency. A significantly greater percentage of Group 1 schools are public institutions compared to Group 2 schools. Other factors that may increase the number of students who go into pathology include mentoring, active learning versus observation, and post-sophomore fellowships or other opportunities to work in the capacity of a new pathology resident.

Factors influencing US osteopathic medical students to choose pathology as a specialty.

The decline in the number of US allopathic (Medical Doctor or M.D.) medical students matching to pathology residency has been a topic of much discussion at national pathology professional society meetings and in recent publications. A recent survey of fourth-year allopathic medicals students was conducted to better understand the rationale behind students' interest or lack thereof in pathology as a specialty. This study utilizes a similar survey tool gauging osteopathic (Doctor of Osteopathy or D.O.) student knowledge and interest in pathology, and offers insight into a possible growth market for the specialty. Similar to allopathic students, osteopathic students noted that clinical or research opportunities in pathology during medical school, autopsy observation/participation, and participation in pathology interest groups correlated with a greater likelihood of selecting pathology as a specialty. However, some key differences in osteopathic medical school curricular elements including microscope use, gross pathology specimen demonstrations, case-based learning by pathologists, exposure to pathology during other rotations, awareness of a pathology interest group, as well as an overall understanding of the everyday work of a pathologist were noted. Experiential exposure to pathology, and direct mentorship from pathologists may present an opportunity for pathology professional organizations, and pathology residency programs to partner with osteopathic medical schools to increase interest in the field, and aid in pipeline development.

Blood type change identifies late dominance reversal of chimerism after double umbilical cord blood transplantation with review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: A 30-year-old man underwent double umbilical cord blood transplantation (UCBT) for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with reduced intensity conditioning. The cords had identical HLA types and were each a 5/6 match to the patient. Following transplantation, cord 2 initially dominated all tested cell populations. At day +306, we observed an unusual reversal of dominance chimerism pattern in which cord 1 instead dominated all tested populations. STUDY DESIGN & METHODS: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based short tandem repeat (STR) assays were performed on the peripheral blood and bone marrow samples. The white blood cell (WBC) populations from the peripheral blood were manipulated for testing to create subpopulations enriched for CD3, CD33, and CD56. RESULTS: Chimerism studies on day +77 showed the following: cord 1: 44%-CD3; 0%-CD33; 16%-CD56; cord 2: 56%-CD3; 100%-CD33; 84%-CD56. Cord 2 initially dominated in all tested cell populations. Chimerism studies performed on post-transplantation day +306 uncovered a reversal of dominance chimerism pattern in which cord 1 now dominated in all cell populations (cord 1: 82%-CD3; >95%-CD33; 67%-CD56; cord 2: 18%-CD3; <5%-CD33; 33%-CD56). Between days +127 and +244, the patient's blood type shifted from B Rh-positive to A Rh-negative. CONCLUSION: The change in the patient's blood type identified a late reversal of dominance chimerism pattern. This is a rare occurrence, previously cited only once, which is inconsistent with published data that early high CD3 counts and unseparated bone marrow chimerism predominance at day +100 predict long-term cord dominance in double UCBT in the vast majority of cases.

Association of four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate with subsequent plasma transfusion: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients prescribed four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4FPC) received less plasma during the following 24-hour period than those treated for the same indications who received only plasma. INTRODUCTION: It is unclear whether 4FPC is associated with a reduction in subsequent plasma transfusion. This is important for minimising transfusion-associated risks and for inventory management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients treated for bleeding or coagulopathy. Individuals receiving 4FPC were matched by indication to patients treated with only plasma. Blood products received during 24-hour follow up were compared between 4FPC and plasma-only patients. RESULTS: There was no difference in the number of patients receiving additional plasma (19 (21%) 4FPC patients vs 31 (34%) plasma-only patients, P = .07) nor in the median number of additional plasma units received (0 units for both groups, interquartile range [0, 0] for 4FPC patients vs [0, 1] for plasma-only patients, P = .09). Subgroup analysis comparing patients who received 4FPC for on-label vs off-label indications found no difference in the number of patients receiving plasma nor in the median number of plasma units received. CONCLUSION: 4FPC was prescribed to a diverse set of patients, and administration was not associated with reduced plasma transfusion at our institution.

Transfusion protocol for implantation and explantation of cardiac devices in an academic medical center.

Few reports in the literature describe the transfusion support needed for implantation and explantation of cardiac assist devices. Because such devices are frequently used at this institution, we have established a protocol to support these patients. We reviewed blood bank records to document the usage of blood components in all patients on cardiac assist devices from 1989 to 2005 (n = 215). The data were separated into components given at the time of implantation and explantation of the device. Implantation data on 214 patients showed the mean use as follows: red blood cells (RBC), 5.7 U; platelets (PLT), 2.4 U; fresh frozen plasma (FFP), 7.5 U; and cryoprecipitate, 0 U. Explantation data on 134 patients showed a mean use as follows: RBC, 7.7 U; PLT, 2.4 U; FFP, 9.9 U; and cryoprecipitate, 3.7 U. Our protocol for the preparation of blood components for implantation and explantation of a cardiac device is, implantation: RBC, 4 U; PLT, 1 U; FFP, 6 U; explantation: RBC, 8 U; PLT, 2 U; FFP, 8 U. Our data do not support the need for preparation of cryoprecipitate before implantation or explantation.