Alignment of Fellowship Training with Practice Patterns for Molecular Pathologists: A Report of the Association for Molecular Pathology Training and Education Committee.

In the two decades since Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited Molecular Genetic Pathology fellowships began, the field of clinical molecular pathology has evolved considerably. The American Board of Pathology gathered data from board-certified molecular genetic pathologists assessing the alignment of skills and knowledge gained during fellowship with current needs on the job. The Association of Molecular Pathology conducted a parallel survey of program directors, and included questions on how various topics were taught during fellowship, as well as ranking their importance. Both surveys showed that most training aligned well with the practice needs of former trainees. Genomic profiling of tumors by next-generation sequencing, bioinformatics, laboratory management, and regulatory issues were topics thought to require increased emphasis in training. Topics related to clinical genetics and microbiology were deemed less important by those in practice, perhaps reflecting the increasing subspecialization of molecular pathologists. Program directors still viewed these topics as important to provide foundational knowledge. Parentage, identity, and human leukocyte antigen testing were less important to both survey audiences. These data may be helpful in guiding future adjustments to the Molecular Genetic Pathology curriculum and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education program requirements.

Harmonization of training, training program requirements, board certification, and the practice of cytopathology: data from the American Board of Pathology surveys.

INTRODUCTION: The American Board of Pathology (ABPath) has ongoing efforts to better align certification with graduate medical education, training program requirements, and pathology practice. The present study focused on the subspecialty of cytopathology. We evaluated the current content and scope of fellowship programs, practice patterns and needs of diplomates, and program director (PD) and diplomate perceptions of the ABPath certification examination to identify gaps and provide an evidence base to guide harmonization in these areas. METHODS: Two surveys were administered: one directed to PDs of all 93 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) cytopathology fellowship programs and the other to cytopathology diplomates submitting continuing certification reporting to the ABPath. RESULTS: Most (86%) cytopathology diplomates work in smaller groups. Only 11% do >50% cytopathology in practice. Diplomates' cytopathology-related practice tasks varied, as did their perception of the content of fellowship training aligning with practice needs. In fellowship training programs, the specimen types, volumes, techniques of specimen acquisition, and graduated responsibility varied significantly. We identified areas in which current training and certification requirements are challenging for some programs. Diplomates and PDs had differing perceptions of the cytopathology examination; diplomates regarded image-based and microscopic glass slide questions as the best assessment of their knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: First, fellowship training programs could benefit from shared resources and should provide more graduated responsibility for fellows. Second, the ACGME Review Committee could consider this data in future program requirement revisions. Finally, information from these surveys will be useful as the ABPath adjusts certification examination content and delivery.