Gender Representation by Specialty Track at Surgical Meetings: The American and Australasian Experiences.

BACKGROUND: We compared the representation of women panelists at two large, general interest surgical meetings: the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Clinical Congress and Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) Scientific Congress. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed comprehensive analyses of panels and panelists at ACS and RACS meetings (2013-2018). Manual review was conducted to determine counts and proportions of invited panelists by gender. We made within- and between-meeting comparisons regarding gender representation by specialty track. Tracks were characterized after our review of meeting programs. RESULTS: There were 4542 panelists and 1390 panels at RACS from 2013 to 2018. At ACS, there were 3363 panelists over 693 panels. The specialty tracks with the highest proportion of men-only panels were transplant (75%) and cardiothoracic (63%) at ACS and cardiothoracic (83%) and multidisciplinary (81%) at RACS. The lowest proportions of men-only panels were in breast and pediatric surgery at ACS (5% and 11%, respectively) and breast and rural surgery at RACS (24% and 36%, respectively). At ACS, the highest proportions of women panelists were on panels in breast (63%) and endocrine surgery (48%) and in breast (44%) and rural surgery (33%) at RACS, while the lowest proportion of women panelists were in transplant (10%) and cardiothoracic (14%) at ACS and multidisciplinary (8%) and cardiothoracic (7%) at RACS. CONCLUSIONS: There is a persistent difference in gender representation at surgical meetings, particularly within certain subspecialties. Program chairs and committees could increase the proportion of women by focusing on who serves as panelists overall and within specialty tracks.

The pathologist Philipp Schwartz (1894-1977) : From Nazi victim to initiator of the "Emergency Society of German Scholars Abroad".

Without a doubt, Frankfurt Pathologist Philipp Schwartz is one of the most iconic scholars in recent medical history. As the son of Jewish parents, he was forced to emigrate after Hitler seized power in 1933. Despite this repressive experience, he succeeded in founding the "Notgemeinschaft deutscher Wissenschaftler im Ausland" ("Emergency Association of German Scientists Abroad") in 1933, with which he helped hundreds of forcibly emigrated university teachers find academic positions. In addition, he had a decisive influence on the reform of the higher education system in Turkey, rendered outstanding achievements in neuropathology, and attained leading positions as a scientist in the exile countries Turkey and the USA.However, as successful as the pathologist's scientific career in exile may have been, his relationship with Germany remained problematic throughout his life. Against this background, this article focuses on the reception of Philipp Schwartz in the different political systems of Germany - from the Weimar Republic to the Third Reich, and from post-war Germany to the recent past in the Federal Republic. This study is essentially based on primary sources from the University Archive of Frankfurt.Schwartz had a promising career in the Weimar Republic. In the aftermath of Hitler's takeover (1933) he was deprived of any perspectives in Germany and fled to Switzerland in the spring of 1933. His achievements as a full professor in Istanbul and as initiator of the Notgemeinschaft are remarkable in both scientific and political regards. Still, he was denied employment at the Goethe University Frankfurt. Until well after his death (1977), Philipp Schwartz's life and work received little attention in Germany. It was only after the turn of the millennium that he received the recognition he was denied during his lifetime.

[The "Conseil national professionnel d'anatomie et cytologie pathologiques" (CNPath): At the service of the profession]. / Le Conseil national professionnel d'anatomie et cytologie pathologiques (CNPath) : une structure au service de la profession.

The « conseils nationaux professionnels ¼ (CNP) are professional boards existing since 2010. Their missions, organization and functioning have been defined by the decree 2019-17 of January 9, 2019. CNPs represent all the members of a medical specialty (or health profession). CNPs must include all the learned societies and all the representative structures and associations of the same medical specialty. Their bodies must strictly respect the parity between public and private health sectors. The main missions of CNPs include the contribution to the elaboration of the national priority directions for continuous medical education and the definition of the individual plan for continuous professional development (DPC) recommended for the specialty. CNPs also behave as a single window for ministries, State agencies, welfare system and colleges of physicians. They are likely to be strongly involved in the process of re-certification of physicians, established in July 2019. The Conseil national professionnel d'anatomie et cytologie pathologiques, termed CNPath, has been created in 2010 and officially recognized by the Ministry of Health in August 2019. The main current actions of CNPath are: the elaboration of the individual DPC scheme for the specialty and the definition of the minimal obligations requested for its validation, the long-expected recognition of the expertal consultation in pathology, the support to the nation-wide effort for the production of structured pathological reports and the launching of a plan for implementing digital pathology. An internet site is under construction, to diffuse all the relevant information and make available the documents useful to all pathologists.

New Jersey PA regulation and the march on Trenton.

New Jersey was the next to the last state to recognize physician assistants (PAs) and pass legislation allowing them to practice. This first-person account supported by interviews with those who were there details the trail to NJ licensure, including the development of a state society, the growth of support from strong leaders in the medical and academic communities, and the grassroots efforts of many PAs aspiring to work in their home state.

[Laboratory Medicine and Medical Team Approaches--Opening Remarks from the Chair].

Recently, medical team approaches were pointed out to be important in the field of laboratory medicine. The staff working in laboratory medicine needs to participate in various kinds of medical team such as ICT or NST. With such a background, the working group for medical teams was established in the Japanese Society of Laboratory Medicine in January 2012. Special program II was organized by this group at the 60th annual meeting held in Kobe in 2013. People gathered from representative societies related to laboratory medicine and discussed how we should participate in team approaches. Based on the results of meaningful discussions, we have reached a strong consensus to pursue team approaches in the future.

[Japanese Association of Clinical Laborato Physicians--What We Are Doing Now and How We Should Develop in the Future as Competent Members of Team Medicine].

No clinical laboratory would admit they do not practice team medicine, at least conceptually. However, true team medicine is more than an aspiration--it is an intentional care structure built, led, and delivered by a diverse, multidisciplinary team of physicians, medical technologists, nurses, pharmacists, and dozens of other professionals. We clinical laboratory physicians are able to fulfill an important role as competent members of the team medicine. Because we can look at the results of clinical examinations of patients earlier than anyone else, we can interpret the patient's condition by analyzing that results, and provide useful information to facilitate team medicine. I have conducted a questionnaire survey on team medicine targeting clinical laboratory physicians to clarify the tasks we are performing. In this paper, I describe what clinical laboratory physicians are currently doing, and how should we develop in the future.

The birth of the American Physician Scientists Association--the next generation of Young Turks.

The American Society for Clinical Investigation (ASCI) was started a century ago to foster and to address the needs of the younger physician-scientists. A hundred years later, ASCI remains one of the premier organizations for physician-scientists and one of most well-respected organizations in the medical community. I have had the opportunity and pleasure to interact with the ASCI not only as an organization through my tenure as president of the American Physician Scientists Association, but also with its members over the last four years. In my view, the same characteristics that permeate ASCI the organization also define ASCI the membership--mentorship, exemplary role models, advocacy, and leadership.