Laboratory Information Systems in Molecular Diagnostics: Why Molecular Diagnostics Data are Different.

Molecular diagnostic testing presents new challenges to information management that are yet to be sufficiently addressed by currently available information systems for the molecular laboratory. These challenges relate to unique aspects of molecular genetic testing: molecular test ordering, informed consent issues, diverse specimen types that encompass the full breadth of specimens handled by traditional anatomic and clinical pathology information systems, data structures and data elements specific to molecular testing, varied testing workflows and protocols, diverse instrument outputs, unique needs and requirements of molecular test reporting, and nuances related to the dissemination of molecular pathology test reports. By satisfactorily addressing these needs in molecular test data management, a laboratory information system designed for the unique needs of molecular diagnostics presents a compelling reason to migrate away from the current paper and spreadsheet information management that many molecular laboratories currently use. This paper reviews the issues and challenges of information management in the molecular diagnostics laboratory.

BayGenomics: a resource of insertional mutations in mouse embryonic stem cells.

The BayGenomics gene-trap resource (http://baygenomics.ucsf.edu) provides researchers with access to thousands of mouse embryonic stem (ES) cell lines harboring characterized insertional mutations in both known and novel genes. Each cell line contains an insertional mutation in a specific gene. The identity of the gene that has been interrupted can be determined from a DNA sequence tag. Approximately 75% of our cell lines contain insertional mutations in known mouse genes or genes that share strong sequence similarities with genes that have been identified in other organisms. These cell lines readily transmit the mutation to the germline of mice and many mutant lines of mice have already been generated from this resource. BayGenomics provides facile access to our entire database, including sequence tags for each mutant ES cell line, through the World Wide Web. Investigators can browse our resource, search for specific entries, download any portion of our database and BLAST sequences of interest against our entire set of cell line sequence tags. They can then obtain the mutant ES cell line for the purpose of generating knockout mice.

Perceptions of pathology informatics by non-informaticist pathologists and trainees.

BACKGROUND: Although pathology informatics (PI) is essential to modern pathology practice, the field is often poorly understood. Pathologists who have received little to no exposure to informatics, either in training or in practice, may not recognize the roles that informatics serves in pathology. The purpose of this study was to characterize perceptions of PI by noninformatics-oriented pathologists and to do so at two large centers with differing informatics environments. METHODS: Pathology trainees and staff at Cleveland Clinic (CC) and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) were surveyed. At MGH, pathology department leadership has promoted a pervasive informatics presence through practice, training, and research. At CC, PI efforts focus on production systems that serve a multi-site integrated health system and a reference laboratory, and on the development of applications oriented to department operations. The survey assessed perceived definition of PI, interest in PI, and perceived utility of PI. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 107 noninformatics-oriented pathologists and trainees. A majority viewed informatics positively. Except among MGH trainees, confusion of PI with information technology (IT) and help desk services was prominent, even in those who indicated they understood informatics. Attendings and trainees indicated desire to learn more about PI. While most acknowledged that having some level of PI knowledge would be professionally useful and advantageous, only a minority plan to utilize it. CONCLUSIONS: Informatics is viewed positively by the majority of noninformatics pathologists at two large centers with differing informatics orientations. Differences in departmental informatics culture can be attributed to the varying perceptions of PI by different individuals. Incorrect perceptions exist, such as conflating PI with IT and help desk services, even among those who claim to understand PI. Further efforts by the PI community could address such misperceptions, which could help enable a better understanding of what PI is and is not, and potentially lead to increased acceptance by non-informaticist pathologists.

Pathology informatics fellowship training: Focus on molecular pathology.

BACKGROUND: Pathology informatics is both emerging as a distinct subspecialty and simultaneously becoming deeply integrated within the breadth of pathology practice. As specialists, pathology informaticians need a broad skill set, including aptitude with information fundamentals, information systems, workflow and process, and governance and management. Currently, many of those seeking training in pathology informatics additionally choose training in a second subspecialty. Combining pathology informatics training with molecular pathology is a natural extension, as molecular pathology is a subspecialty with high potential for application of modern biomedical informatics techniques. METHODS AND RESULTS: Pathology informatics and molecular pathology fellows and faculty evaluated the current fellowship program's core curriculum topics and subtopics for relevance to molecular pathology. By focusing on the overlap between the two disciplines, a structured curriculum consisting of didactics, operational rotations, and research projects was developed for those fellows interested in both pathology informatics and molecular pathology. CONCLUSIONS: The scope of molecular diagnostics is expanding dramatically as technology advances and our understanding of disease extends to the genetic level. Here, we highlight many of the informatics challenges facing molecular pathology today, and outline specific informatics principles necessary for the training of future molecular pathologists.

The ongoing evolution of the core curriculum of a clinical fellowship in pathology informatics.

The Partners HealthCare system's Clinical Fellowship in Pathology Informatics (Boston, MA, USA) faces ongoing challenges to the delivery of its core curriculum in the forms of: (1) New classes of fellows annually with new and varying educational needs and increasingly fractured, enterprise-wide commitments; (2) taxing electronic health record (EHR) and laboratory information system (LIS) implementations; and (3) increasing interest in the subspecialty at the academic medical centers (AMCs) in what is a large health care network. In response to these challenges, the fellowship has modified its existing didactic sessions and piloted both a network-wide pathology informatics lecture series and regular "learning laboratories". Didactic sessions, which had previously included more formal discussions of the four divisions of the core curriculum: Information fundamentals, information systems, workflow and process, and governance and management, now focus on group discussions concerning the fellows' ongoing projects, updates on the enterprise-wide EHR and LIS implementations, and directed questions about weekly readings. Lectures are given by the informatics faculty, guest informatics faculty, current and former fellows, and information systems members in the network, and are open to all professional members of the pathology departments at the AMCs. Learning laboratories consist of small-group exercises geared toward a variety of learning styles, and are driven by both the fellows and a member of the informatics faculty. The learning laboratories have created a forum for discussing real-time and real-world pathology informatics matters, and for incorporating awareness of and timely discussions about the latest pathology informatics literature. These changes have diversified the delivery of the fellowship's core curriculum, increased exposure of faculty, fellows and trainees to one another, and more equitably distributed teaching responsibilities among the entirety of the pathology informatics asset in the network. Though the above approach has been in place less than a year, we are presenting it now as a technical note to allow for further discussion of evolving educational opportunities in pathology informatics and clinical informatics in general, and to highlight the importance of having a flexible fellowship with active participation from its fellows.

Using computerized workflow simulations to assess the feasibility of whole slide imaging full adoption in a high-volume histology laboratory.

BACKGROUND: Whole slide Imaging (WSI) has been touted by many as the future of pathology, with estimates of full adoption occurring sometime in the next 5 to 15 years. While WSI devices have become increasingly capable since their inception, there has been little consideration of how WSI will be implemented and subsequently affect the workflow of high volume histology laboratories. METHODS: Histology workflow process data was collected from a high-volume histology laboratory (Massachusetts General Hospital) and a process model developed using business process management software. Computerized workflow simulations were performed and total histology process time evaluated under a number of different WSI conditions. RESULTS: Total histology process time increased approximately 10-fold to 20-fold over baseline with the presence of one WSI robot in the histology workflow. Depending on the specifications of the WSI robot, anywhere from 9 to 14 WSI robots were required within the histology workflow to minimize the effects of WSI. CONCLUSIONS: Placing a WSI robot into the current workflow of a high-volume histology laboratory with the intent of full adoption is not feasible. Implementing WSI without making significant changes to the current workflow of the histology laboratory would prove to be both disruptive and costly to surgical pathology.

Clinical fellowship training in pathology informatics: A program description.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, our healthcare system established a clinical fellowship program in pathology informatics. In 2011, the program benchmarked its structure and operations against a 2009 white paper "Program requirements for fellowship education in the subspecialty of clinical informatics", endorsed by the Board of the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) that described a proposal for a general clinical informatics fellowship program. METHODS: A group of program faculty members and fellows compared each of the proposed requirements in the white paper with the fellowship program's written charter and operations. The majority of white paper proposals aligned closely with the rules and activities in our program and comparison was straightforward. In some proposals, however, differences in terminology, approach, and philosophy made comparison less direct, and in those cases, the thinking of the group was recorded. After the initial evaluation, the remainder of the faculty reviewed the results and any disagreements were resolved. RESULTS: The most important finding of the study was how closely the white paper proposals for a general clinical informatics fellowship program aligned with the reality of our existing pathology informatics fellowship. The program charter and operations of the program were judged to be concordant with the great majority of specific white paper proposals. However, there were some areas of discrepancy and the reasons for the discrepancies are discussed in the manuscript. CONCLUSIONS: After the comparison, we conclude that the existing pathology informatics fellowship could easily meet all substantive proposals put forth in the 2009 clinical informatics program requirements white paper. There was also agreement on a number of philosophical issues, such as the advantages of multiple fellows, the need for core knowledge and skill sets, and the need to maintain clinical skills during informatics training. However, there were other issues, such as a requirement for a 2-year fellowship and for informatics fellowships to be done after primary board certification, that pathology should consider carefully as it moves toward a subspecialty status and board certification.

Different tracks for pathology informatics fellowship training: Experiences of and input from trainees in a large multisite fellowship program.

BACKGROUND: Pathology Informatics is a new field; a field that is still defining itself even as it begins the formalization, accreditation, and board certification process. At the same time, Pathology itself is changing in a variety of ways that impact informatics, including subspecialization and an increased use of data analysis. In this paper, we examine how these changes impact both the structure of Pathology Informatics fellowship programs and the fellows' goals within those programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As part of our regular program review process, the fellows evaluated the value and effectiveness of our existing fellowship tracks (Research Informatics, Clinical Two-year Focused Informatics, Clinical One-year Focused Informatics, and Clinical 1 + 1 Subspecialty Pathology and Informatics). They compared their education, informatics background, and anticipated career paths and analyzed them for correlations between those parameters and the fellowship track chosen. All current and past fellows of the program were actively involved with the project. RESULTS: Fellows' anticipated career paths correlated very well with the specific tracks in the program. A small set of fellows (Clinical - one or two year - Focused Informatics tracks) anticipated clinical careers primarily focused in informatics (Director of Informatics). The majority of the fellows, however, anticipated a career practicing in a Pathology subspecialty, using their informatics training to enhance that practice (Clinical 1 + 1 Subspecialty Pathology and Informatics Track). Significantly, all fellows on this track reported they would not have considered a Clinical Two-year Focused Informatics track if it was the only track offered. The Research and the Clinical One-year Focused Informatics tracks each displayed unique value for different situations. CONCLUSIONS: It seems a "one size fits all" fellowship structure does not fit the needs of the majority of potential Pathology Informatics candidates. Increasingly, these fellowships must be able to accommodate the needs of candidates anticipating a wide range of Pathology Informatics career paths, be able to accommodate Pathology's increasingly subspecialized structure, and do this in a way that respects the multiple fellowships needed to become a subspecialty pathologist and informatician. This is further complicated as Pathology Informatics begins to look outward and takes its place in the growing, and still ill-defined, field of Clinical Informatics, a field that is not confined to just one medical specialty, to one way of practicing medicine, or to one way of providing patient care.

A core curriculum for clinical fellowship training in pathology informatics.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, our healthcare system established a clinical fellowship program in Pathology Informatics. In 2010 a core didactic course was implemented to supplement the fellowship research and operational rotations. In 2011, the course was enhanced by a formal, structured core curriculum and reading list. We present and discuss our rationale and development process for the Core Curriculum and the role it plays in our Pathology Informatics Fellowship Training Program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Core Curriculum for Pathology Informatics was developed, and is maintained, through the combined efforts of our Pathology Informatics Fellows and Faculty. The curriculum was created with a three-tiered structure, consisting of divisions, topics, and subtopics. Primary (required) and suggested readings were selected for each subtopic in the curriculum and incorporated into a curated reading list, which is reviewed and maintained on a regular basis. RESULTS: Our Core Curriculum is composed of four major divisions, 22 topics, and 92 subtopics that cover the wide breadth of Pathology Informatics. The four major divisions include: (1) Information Fundamentals, (2) Information Systems, (3) Workflow and Process, and (4) Governance and Management. A detailed, comprehensive reading list for the curriculum is presented in the Appendix to the manuscript and contains 570 total readings (current as of March 2012). DISCUSSION: The adoption of a formal, core curriculum in a Pathology Informatics fellowship has significant impacts on both fellowship training and the general field of Pathology Informatics itself. For a fellowship, a core curriculum defines a basic, common scope of knowledge that the fellowship expects all of its graduates will know, while at the same time enhancing and broadening the traditional fellowship experience of research and operational rotations. For the field of Pathology Informatics itself, a core curriculum defines to the outside world, including departments, companies, and health systems considering hiring a pathology informatician, the core knowledge set expected of a person trained in the field and, more fundamentally, it helps to define the scope of the field within Pathology and healthcare in general.

Pathology informatics fellowship retreats: The use of interactive scenarios and case studies as pathology informatics teaching tools.

BACKGROUND: Last year, our pathology informatics fellowship added informatics-based interactive case studies to its existing educational platform of operational and research rotations, clinical conferences, a common core curriculum with an accompanying didactic course, and national meetings. METHODS: The structure of the informatics case studies was based on the traditional business school case study format. Three different formats were used, varying in length from short, 15-minute scenarios to more formal multiple hour-long case studies. Case studies were presented over the course of three retreats (Fall 2011, Winter 2012, and Spring 2012) and involved both local and visiting faculty and fellows. RESULTS: Both faculty and fellows found the case studies and the retreats educational, valuable, and enjoyable. From this positive feedback, we plan to incorporate the retreats in future academic years as an educational component of our fellowship program. CONCLUSIONS: Interactive case studies appear to be valuable in teaching several aspects of pathology informatics that are difficult to teach in more traditional venues (rotations and didactic class sessions). Case studies have become an important component of our fellowship's educational platform.

Evaluation and optimization for liquid-based preparation cytology in whole slide imaging.

BACKGROUND: Cytology poses different obstacles in whole slide imaging compared to surgical pathology slides. A single focal plane suffices for most of the latter, but cytology slides are thicker, potentially requiring multiple focal planes for adequate diagnostic information. Multiple focal planes adversely impact scanning time per slide, evaluation times, and file sizes. In this pilot study, we evaluated and compared the multilayer stack method to the extended focus algorithm as an alternative which collapses multiple focal planes into a single image, retaining only focused areas from each plane. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 10 SurePath(®) cervical cytology slides were scanned at three thickness settings: 18, 24, and 30 µm. Three scanners were used: (1) Hamamatsu Nanozoomer 2.0-HT, (2) 3DHISTECH Mirax scan, and (3) Bioimagene iScan Coreo Au. The Nanozoomer and iScan utilized multilayer stacking, while the Mirax files were composited by extended focus. Scan times and file sizes were recorded, and image quality compared. RESULTS: The Nanozoomer stacks averaged 1.58 gb and around 25 min for each slide, while the iScan stacks ranged from 6.23 to 9.3 gb and took 34-50 min to scan. The Mirax images averaged 210 mb and took 13-20 min to scan. Multilayer stack image quality from both Nanozoomer and iScan was fairly comparable. The iScan revealed significant mechanical issues that did not correspond to user settings. The Mirax images showed worrisome loss of crisp focus detail, worsening with increasing focal planes and impacting assessment of nuclear contours and chromatin detail. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal number of focal planes remains unknown for cytology. Multilayer stacks require excessive scanning time, network bandwidth, and file storage. Extended focus was evaluated as an alternative, but significant image quality issues were revealed. Further large-scale studies are needed to assess their clinical impact.