Structure and Funding of Clinical Informatics Fellowships: A National Survey of Program Directors.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, the American Board of Medical Specialties established clinical informatics (CI) as a subspecialty in medicine, jointly administered by the American Board of Pathology and the American Board of Preventive Medicine. Subsequently, many institutions created CI fellowship training programs to meet the growing need for informaticists. Although many programs share similar features, there is considerable variation in program funding and administrative structures. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to characterize CI fellowship program features, including governance structures, funding sources, and expenses. METHODS: We created a cross-sectional online REDCap survey with 44 items requesting information on program administration, fellows, administrative support, funding sources, and expenses. We surveyed program directors of programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education between 2014 and 2021. RESULTS: We invited 54 program directors, of which 41 (76%) completed the survey. The average administrative support received was $27,732/year. Most programs (85.4%) were accredited to have two or more fellows per year. Programs were administratively housed under six departments: Internal Medicine (17; 41.5%), Pediatrics (7; 17.1%), Pathology (6; 14.6%), Family Medicine (6; 14.6%), Emergency Medicine (4; 9.8%), and Anesthesiology (1; 2.4%). Funding sources for CI fellowship program directors included: hospital or health systems (28.3%), clinical departments (28.3%), graduate medical education office (13.2%), biomedical informatics department (9.4%), hospital information technology (9.4%), research and grants (7.5%), and other sources (3.8%) that included philanthropy and external entities. CONCLUSION: CI fellowships have been established in leading academic and community health care systems across the country. Due to their unique training requirements, these programs require significant resources for education, administration, and recruitment. There continues to be considerable heterogeneity in funding models between programs. Our survey findings reinforce the need for reformed federal funding models for informatics practice and training.

Training Aspects of Laboratory-Based Decision Support.

Pathology has a large role to play in the proper development, implementation, and optimization of clinical decision support (CDS). CDS training must be supported by an educational foundation in clinical and pathology informatics. Educational opportunities are currently limited, but expanding, in the pathology residency space with Pathology Informatics Essentials for Residents. The use of an educational version of electronic clinical systems is an important educational tool to support the needed outcomes-driven and exercise-based informatics and CDS training. With the multidisciplinary nature of informatics, it is advantageous to include laboratory professionals in the training exercises as appropriate.

Early experiences of accredited clinical informatics fellowships.

Since the launch of the clinical informatics subspecialty for physicians in 2013, over 1100 physicians have used the practice and education pathways to become board-certified in clinical informatics. Starting in 2018, only physicians who have completed a 2-year clinical informatics fellowship program accredited by the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education will be eligible to take the board exam. The purpose of this viewpoint piece is to describe the collective experience of the first four programs accredited by the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education and to share lessons learned in developing new fellowship programs in this novel medical subspecialty.

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.

Implementation and user satisfaction with forensic laboratory information systems in death investigation offices.

The use of laboratory information management systems (LIMSs) in forensic pathology and death investigation systems has lagged behind the greater pathology community. Yet the logistical needs of a modern medical examiner or coroner office could be well served by a robust forensic LIMS, and the data stored in a forensic LIMS could be effectively mined for the protection of the public's health and safety.In spring 2007, the National Association of Medical Examiners conducted a survey of its members to determine the use of and satisfaction with forensic LIMS. This survey was repeated in the fall of 2011. The responses to the 2 surveys were compared to note any trends or changes to LIMS use by medical examiners and coroners.Although the use of LIMS has increased in the 4 1/2 years between surveys, 18% of death investigation systems still do not have a forensic LIMS. The percentage of offices with home-developed systems has increased, whereas the user's satisfaction with these systems has decreased. This may be due to limited budgets to either purchase or develop systems. The integration of images into these systems has increased, but not nearly to the level that should be present in an image-dependent field. Users of these systems are cognizant of the features that a forensic LIMS should have to ensure the smooth operation of a death investigation office.

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.

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.

SCN5A allelic expression imbalance in African-Americans heterozygous for the common variant p.Ser1103Tyr.

BACKGROUND: Heterozygous and homozygous carriers of SCN5A-p.Ser1103Tyr, a common genetic variant with functional effects among African-Americans, have an increased risk of sudden death. We hypothesized that some heterozygous carriers may have unequal expression of wild-type and variant alleles and secondarily that predominance of the variant gene copy could further increase risk for sudden death in this population. METHODS: We quantified allele-specific expression of SCN5A-p.Ser1103Tyr by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in heart tissue from heterozygous African-American infants, who died from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) or from other causes, to test for allelic expression imbalance. RESULTS: We observed significant allelic expression imbalance in 13 of 26 (50%) African-American infant hearts heterozygous for SCN5A-p.Ser1103Tyr, and a significant (p < 0.0001) bimodal distribution of log2 allelic expression ratios. However, there were no significant differences in the mean log2 allelic expression ratios in hearts of infants dying from SIDS as compared to infants dying from other causes and no significant difference in the proportion of cases with greater expression of the variant allele. CONCLUSIONS: Our data provide evidence that SCN5A allelic expression imbalance occurs in African-Americans heterozygous for p.Ser1103Tyr, but this phenomenon alone does not appear to be a marker for risk of SIDS.