Pathology subspecialty fellowship application reform, 2007-2010

Cytopathology fellowship match: Pros and cons

A cytopathology fellowship match would create an enforced and structured recruitment timeline for the benefit of applicants and programs. Major benefits would include delaying fellowship applications to allow residents to explore different subspecialty areas, a standardized application process for administrative ease, and optimization of matches between applicants and programs based on ranked preferences rather than use of time-limited "exploding offers." The overall gains in efficiency and achieving the primary goals of supporting trainees and recruiting in an equitable and inclusive manner outweigh any downsides to instituting a cytopathology fellowship match. We aim to review the major discussions around this ongoing debate, arriving at the same conclusion as others in the literature that a pan-pathology fellowship match is ideal and that leadership from the Association of Pathology Chairs will be essential in unifying the fractured fellowship recruitment process.

Cytopathology fellowship recruitment: historical context, current state, and future considerations

Fellowship recruitment and retention of a skilled workforce is one of the biggest challenges that not only cytopathology is facing but that the field of pathology in general is being confronted with. There have long been issues with the fellowship recruitment process for both applicants and fellowship directors, including pressure to move the application process earlier and earlier and frustrations stemming from applicants needing to determine different individual timelines and program requirements. The unified timeline for fellowship recruitment was established as an attempt to standardize the recruitment process and to address the key issues of the push for earlier and earlier decision-making, which placed significant anxiety on trainees, as well as the burden on programs of more unexpected openings. While institution of the unified timeline has had many successes, there have been problems as well. Here, we discuss the multifaceted and intertwined factors that affect fellowship recruitment with a review of the historical context and the current setting and with an eye towards future directions. In the end, the issues we are currently facing are complex and there is likely no perfect solution to fixing an inherently broken system. However, the ultimate goal should be in better supporting our trainees' development and promoting a more fair and equitable recruitment process. Only by working together can we optimize the process for both applicants and programs alike.

The pathology fellowship application crisis: The current state and suggestions for remediation

Problems within the Pathology fellowship application process in the US have been recognized and reported for years. Recently, members of the Graduate Medical Education Committee (GMEC) of the Association of Pathology Chairs (APC) and collaborators collected survey data from the residents themselves and the fellowship programs, as represented by both the fellowship program directors (members of the Fellowship Directors Ad Hoc Committee, FDAHC) and the program administrators (members of the Graduate Medical Education Administrators Section, GMEAS). These data are presented and discussed, and potential steps to resolve some of the problems around fellowship applications in pathology are presented.

The crisis in the pathology subspecialty fellowship application process: Historical background and setting the stage

The process whereby pathology residents apply for fellowships for subspecialty training after residency has long been fraught with multiple problems. This paper reviews the history of the creation of such fellowships, as tied to requirements for eligibility for certification by the American Board of Pathology, going back to the inception of the Board in 1948. The problems with fellowship applications began to appear in conjunction with changes in Board requirements for basic certification, revolving around the "fifth year" or "credentialing year" requirements, and have created a situation where now residents mostly apply for fellowships while still in the second of their 4-year AP/CP residency. The pressures to apply ever-earlier, to accept offers with short intervals between offer and expiration, and how this damages programs, as well as residents, are reviewed. This paper is a companion to a larger examination of the current status of this problem, which also explores some means to ameliorate or eliminate those problems.

The State of the Job Market for Pathologists: Evidence From the College of American Pathologists Practice Leader Survey

CONTEXT.—

Disagreement exists within the pathology community about the status of the job market for pathologists. Although many agree that jobs in pathology were harder to come by earlier this decade, recent evidence suggests improvement is occurring.

OBJECTIVE.—

To assess the state of the job market for pathologists.

DESIGN.—

We analyzed data from the 2018 College of American Pathologists Practice Leader Survey. This survey contains data from 253 practice leaders on practices' hiring (and retrenchments) in 2017, the skills and level of experience being sought, success in filling those positions, and expectations for hiring in the next 3 years.

RESULTS.—

Among the surveyed practice leaders, 115 (45.5%) sought to hire at least 1 pathologist in 2017, and together tried to fill 246 full-time equivalent positions that year, of which 93.5 full-time equivalents (38%) were newly created. This hiring was not limited to larger, academic-based practices, but also occurred among smaller practices and practices based in nonacademic hospitals, independent laboratories, and other settings. Although some practices retrenched (60 full-time equivalents in 2017), the net increase was a healthy 187 full-time equivalents. Practices most frequently sought pathologists who had at least 2 years of experience, but the level of experience identified with the "optimal" candidate varied by desired areas of subspecialty expertise. Practice leaders also reported expected growth in hiring, with the number of positions they hope to fill in the next 3 years exceeding those vacated by retirement.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Our findings support the proposition that the demand for pathologists is strong, at least at the current time.

How to Succeed in Fellowship Acquisition: A Survey of Pathology Residents

Medical school curricula limit students’ exposure to pathology practice while pathology subspecialty training programs require residents to apply for fellowships as early as the end of their first year of training. Thus, limited exposure to pathology practice creates significant confusion and anxiety, often making the fellowship application process premature. Additionally, early focus on subspecialty training in order to acquire a fellowship adds to the initial lack of emphasis on general pathology training. We prepared a voluntary online survey with questions developed through focus groups and advice from an expert in survey design to determine which fellowships are desired and how successful residents are in their pursuit of these fellowships. The survey was distributed through the Pathology Residency Program Directors' (PRODS) listserv. Answers were solicited from pathology trainees throughout the entire training cycle. There were 141 (4.6% response rate) total respondents with each postgraduate year represented. One hundred twenty-two (95%) of 129 residents plan on completing 1 or 2 fellowships after residency training. Encouragingly, 94 (75%) of 126 pathology residents attained their desired specialty fellowship. However, 32 (32%) of 99 residents who acquired at least one fellowship chose a general surgical pathology fellowship. Furthermore, 33 (24%) respondents had already decided to pursue a specific specialty while still in medical school. An additional 32 (23%) came to their decision during postgraduate year 1. Therefore, although most residents are successful in attaining their desired fellowship, further research is needed to understand the effect of early commitment to a subspecialty and its impact on pathology education.

Challenges and opportunities in the application process for fellowship training in pathology: an independent survey of residents and fellows demonstrates limited interest in an NRMP-style matching program

A survey completed by 366 pathology residents and fellows examined preferences for 3 fellowship application systems: keeping the current system, a National Resident Matching Program (NRMP)-style match, and a unified time line. All groups showed a strong preference for a time line, accounting for 62.1% of first choices vs the current system (17.3%) or a match (20.6%). When asked for a second choice after time line was ranked first, 60.5% of respondents whose fellowship of choice was available at their residency institution and 63.5% who had accepted fellowship positions at their residency institution preferred the current system; 51.4% whose fellowship of choice was not available at their residency institution and 50.6% of those who had accepted fellowship positions elsewhere preferred a match. Location and family/personal reasons were more important than subspecialty competitiveness and program prestige when accepting fellowship positions. Pressure to choose and apply early for fellowship persists and is greatest for anatomic pathology-only and clinical pathology-only residents.