AJCP / Special Article
A Consensus Curriculum for Laboratory Management
Training for Pathology Residents
Ronald L. Weiss, MD,1 Barbara J. McKenna, MD,2 Melissa Lord-Toof,3 Nancie Noie Thompson,4
and the Work Group Members*
Key Words: Residency training; Laboratory management; Consensus curriculum
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPWABWFBU9EYXR
Abstract
Through the combined efforts of the American
Pathology Foundation (APF), the American Society for
Clinical Pathology (ASCP), and the Program Directors
Section (PRODS) of the Association of Pathology
Chairs (APC), a needs assessment was performed via a
survey on the PRODS listserv, workshops at the APC/
PRODS annual meetings in 2009 and 2010, and a Work
Group of representatives of APF, ASCP, and PRODS.
Residency program needs and resource constraints
common to training pathology residents in practice and
laboratory management were identified. In addition,
a consensus curriculum for management training was
created to serve as a resource for residency training
program directors and others. The curriculum was
converted into a “wiki” design tool for use by program
directors, residents, and faculty.
The ASCP is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing
Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
The ASCP designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1
AMA PRA Category 1 Credit ™ per article. Physicians should claim only the
credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
This activity qualifies as an American Board of Pathology Maintenance of
Certification Part II Self-Assessment Module.
The authors of this article and the planning committee members and staff
have no relevant financial relationships with commercial interests to disclose.
Questions appear on p 817. Exam is located at www.ascp.org/ajcpcme.
What is a pathologist, fresh out of training in anatomic
pathology (AP), clinical pathology (CP), or both (AP/CP),
expected to know about laboratory and pathology practice
management when he or she joins a community-based practice,
an academic medical center department, or a research laboratory? Does the setting really matter that much? And how well
do we prepare residents for this aspect of their future practice?
A combination of anecdotes and survey results during
the past 10 to 15 years has defined a gap between training in
management principles and skills development and the expectation that employers have for pathologists in their first couple
of years in practice. To paraphrase 1 senior pathologist in a
large private practice setting, “More often than not, we are now
recruiting young pathologists with competency in anatomic
pathology but lacking in those good interpersonal and communication skills necessary to be productive members of the
group.” In 2 descriptions that spanned approximately 10 years
of practice, Horowitz found,1,2 as a result of 3 separate surveys
of community-based pathologists, that interpersonal and communication skills were “essential” and that “management and
coding/billing” skills were “useful” to successful practice.
These so-called nonpathology skills remained, in his experience, the major deficiency for newly trained pathologists. Other
authors have added further confirmation of the gap between
new pathologist skills and the expectations of their colleagues
and employers in subsequent practice.3-6 In their white paper,
“Resident Preparation for Practice,” authors from the College
of American Pathologists (CAP) and the Association of Pathology Chairs (APC) emphasize the importance of necessary skills
in strategic planning, budgeting, operations management, coding and billing, contract negotiations, the role of the laboratory
© American Society for Clinical Pathology
Am J Clin Pathol 2011;136:671-678
671
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPWABWFBU9EYXR
671
671
CME/SAM
Upon completion of this activity you will be able to:
• describe the value of laboratory management training for pathology
residents.
• describe the opportunities and challenges that are faced by residency
program directors in providing management training.
• describe key elements of the proposed management curriculum.
Weiss et al / Laboratory Management Curriculum
medical director, and the interaction of pathologists with a variety of other constituents in their institutions and communities.6
Beginning in 1987, with the formulation of the Park City
Report of the APC on the core components—including management and informatics—of pathology residency training
programs, there have been a series of meetings and reports that
have focused on the adequacy of residency training. The Colorado Springs Conference I, in 1989, focused on the “Future
Content and Structure of Residency Training in Pathology”; it
was followed in 1993 by the Colorado Springs Conference IV
“Clinical Pathology Residency: Curriculum Reform.”7,8
As a result of intersociety conferences on pathology
training, representatives from the APC, ASCP, CAP, and the
Academy of Clinical Laboratory Physicians and Scientists
(ACLPS) formed the “Conjoint Task Force on Clinical Pathology.” From the Task Force’s breakout group on management
and informatics, a number of conclusions and recommendations were reached.. Most important, the Task Force recommended that to meet the objective that a “clinical pathologist
should use management and informatics to direct and control
the operational effectiveness of the clinical laboratory,” pathology residents should receive training in broad competencies in
management and informatics. Furthermore, the group strongly
recommended that this training be introduced early in the
programs and should be reinforced continuously with graded
responsibility. In 1995, the Conjoint Task Force summarized
these recommendations in the Graylyn Conference Report,
“Recommendations for Reform of Clinical Pathology Training.”9 Subsequently, the Association of Directors of Anatomic
and Surgical Pathology and the ACLPS each published “curriculum content and evaluation” proposals for resident competency in anatomic and clinical pathology, respectively.10,11
Both included specific knowledge and skill sets in laboratory
management. Several training programs have also published
descriptions of their curricula in laboratory management.12-17
Early in 2009, we were invited to conduct a workshop on
resident laboratory management training for the program directors group at the APC/Program Directors Section (PRODS)
Annual Meeting in Seattle, WA, on July 15, 2009. In preparation for that workshop, a survey was developed for distribution
to the PRODS listserv. This report describes that survey, summarizes the discussion and action items agreed to during the
workshop, and describes a year-long curriculum design process
and the development and deployment of this laboratory management curriculum resource to a “wiki” site.
The Process
To prepare for the workshop, we decided to survey the
PRODS to assess whether and how laboratory management
training was occurring in residency training programs. To
672
672
Am J Clin Pathol 2011;136:671-678
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPWABWFBU9EYXR
ensure that the issues of most importance were addressed by
the survey, a presurvey questionnaire was sent to members
of the listserv. By using those responses, combined with
our experience, the laboratory management survey was
then designed and distributed, also via the listserv using the
Internet-based survey tool Zoomerang.
Of the program directors surveyed, 54 responded; 40
were in academic medical centers and 14 were in community
hospital–based training programs.
The survey questions addressed program practices, constraints, and resource needs. The responses showed that the
time devoted to management and leadership varied considerably, from once a month to a dedicated course. Teaching tools
used by program directors included mock laboratory inspections (51%) and elective rotations (15%). Major obstacles
included faculty time and interest, resident time and interest,
not enough faculty experts, and the lack of evaluation tools.
Expressed needs included textbooks, Web resources, and
institutional and departmental support and commitment.
The session at the 2009 APC/PRODS Annual Meeting
had grown from a workshop into a 3-hour plenary session,
which attracted a standing-room-only crowd. The presentations generated intense discussion and many questions, such
as, “How do you assess communications skills?” and “How
do we teach residents to play well with others?”
Emerging from the hour-long question-and-answer
format were several themes and several suggested tools,
solutions, and actions. Also as a result of this discussion the
Work Group on Laboratory Management was constituted
to forward these findings into the development of a draft
consensus curriculum for full vetting by the PRODS and for
presentation at the 2010 APC Annual Meeting.
Through a series of conference calls, the proposed
curriculum was formulated to serve as a resource guide
rather than a mandate for all programs. In addition, this
curriculum was converted into a prototype wiki format
intended to become the vehicle for a dynamic resource for
program directors, residents and fellows, and any others in
the pathology community interested in contributing to the
further development of this resource tool. From October
2009 through June 2010, a series of conference calls was
held. The group collected sample curricula, which were then
posted at a Google Group site. By using the results of the
survey and the discussion of these results during the workshop, a draft curriculum was designed by the APF-ASCPPRODS Work Group and presented to the PRODS listserv
and to the APC/PRODS Annual Meeting attendees for feedback and discussion before and during the July 14-16, 2010,
annual meeting. The curriculum was finalized based on the
feedback from these sources. A prototype wiki was built by
Dane Falkner, Surgeworks, Salt Lake City, UT (http://www.
surgeworks.com). This prototype was moved to the ASCP
© American Society for Clinical Pathology
AJCP / Special Article
for final design, development, and deployment. The Web
site is a cobranded initiative of the American Pathology
Foundation (APF), ASCP, and PRODS and can be accessed
at www.lab-management.info.
Results
Following is a brief survey of responses to each of the
questions.
Question 1
Over the course of the residency, how much time does
your training program dedicate to lectures for residents on
practice and laboratory management topics?
The responses ❚Table 1❚ were bimodal in frequency, with
the largest number of programs (32%) devoted to the least
number of contact hours (1-10 hours), and the next most frequent number of programs (28%) devoted to the most number
of contact hours (≥40 hours). Of the programs, 52% devoted
20 or fewer hours and 48% devoted more than 20 hours.
Question 2
How much time do residents in your program spend on
practice and laboratory management responsibilities
(junior laboratory directorship)?
For 31% of the programs, residents were able to spend at
least 1 month in this form of graduated responsibility ❚Table
2❚. Of the programs, 17% do not offer this opportunity and
11% offer it only as an elective.
Question 3
How often are your residents exposed to laboratory
management topics through your training program?
The majority (57%) of the programs provide at most
weekly exposure to management topics, with 30% of programs doing so at least monthly (Table 1). In 13%, exposure
is only through a dedicated management course.
Question 4
At what point in your program are practice or laboratory
management topics taught?
Nearly one third of programs expose residents to management topics as soon as their residency starts ❚Table 3❚. A
small minority (6%) do so only near the end of their training.
Management is integrated into the rotations of 42% of the
programs, with the inference from the results that this occurs
primarily during CP rotations and not during AP rotations.
❚Table 1❚
Time Dedicated to Lectures on Laboratory Management
and Frequency of Exposure to Management Topics During
Training
Time and Frequency of Management Training
Contact hours
>40
31-40
21-30
11-20
1-10
None
Frequency
Monthly
Once every 2 wk
Once per wk
Infrequently
Through a dedicated course
Other
% of Programs
28
9
11
20
32
0
30
9
18
13
13
17
❚Table 2❚
Time Spent by Residents in a “Junior Laboratory
Directorship” Role
Time
% of Programs
>2 mo
1-2 mo
<1 mo
Elective time only
None
Other
5
26
19
11
17
22
Question 5
What general laboratory management topics does your
program cover?
The top 4 responses were quality assurance (51%), laboratory inspections (51%), regulatory affairs and accreditation
(48%), and test validation (43%) ❚Table 4❚. The topics rounding out the top 10 responses included risk management, a
variety of financial topics, and leadership and management.
❚Table 3❚
When Laboratory Management Is Taught During the Residency
% of Programs
As soon as resident begins program
Toward the end of the program
Integrated with other subjects
In clinical pathology rotations
In anatomic pathology rotations
As an elective rotation
Within other areas or time frames
© American Society for Clinical Pathology
29
6
42
15
0
2
6
Am J Clin Pathol 2011;136:671-678
673
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPWABWFBU9EYXR
673
673
Weiss et al / Laboratory Management Curriculum
Question 6
What tools are a part of your program’s laboratory
management curriculum?
Real or mock CAP inspections (51%) and lecture series
(48%) were the 2 most frequent responses ❚Table 5❚. A
defined management project was used by 34% of the programs. Textbooks or manuals, question-and-answer sessions,
❚Table 4❚
Ten Most Common Laboratory Management Topics Covered
Topic
% of Programs
Quality assurance
Laboratory inspections
Regulatory affairs and accreditation
Test validation
Billing and compliance
Risk management
Test cost assessment
Capital equipment purchasing
Financial management and accounting
Leadership and management
51
51
48
43
40
37
37
37
34
32
specific rotations with individual evaluations, use of the
CAP “Current Procedural Terminology Tutorial,” advanced
management electives and rotations at affiliated hospitals or
laboratories, and formal case studies rounded out the top 10
responses.
Question 7
Rate the tools that are part of your program’s laboratory
management curriculum.
Real or mock laboratory inspections were ranked “highly
effective” or “moderately effective” by 96% of the programs
❚Table 6❚. This tool was followed by lectures/didactics for
93% of programs. More than 60% of programs similarly
rated the use of textbooks or manuals, defined projects, rotations with individual evaluations, and question-and-answer
sessions as effective. Formal case studies, formal examinations, resources outside the program, and the use of a research
laboratory setting were less frequently rated as highly or
moderately effective.
Question 8
What are the titles and specialties of the faculty members
who teach practice or laboratory management education
topics in your training program?
❚Table 5❚
Ten Most Commonly Used Teaching Tools
Tool
% of Programs
Real or mock laboratory inspection
Lecture series
Defined project
Textbook or manuals
Question-and-answer sessions
Rotations with an individual faculty member or other
College of American Pathologists CPT Tutorial
Advanced laboratory management elective
Rotations at an affiliated hospital or laboratory
Formal case studies
51
48
34
30
27
25
21
15
15
13
The most frequent response ❚Table 7❚ was the laboratory
medical director/clinical laboratory director (44%), followed
by the administrative laboratory director (41%) and the residency program director (33%). Other positions were reported
with lesser frequency, including the anatomic pathology
director (18%), the department chair (18%), and a variety of
hospital staff, other university faculty, outside medical staff,
and other regulatory staff.
CPT, current procedural terminology.
❚Table 6❚
Most Effective Teaching Tools
% Rated as “High” or
“Moderately” Effective
Tool
Real or mock laboratory inspections
Didactic lectures
Textbook and/or manual
Defined projects
Rotation with an individual faculty member
or other
Question-and-answer sessions
College of American Pathologists
CPT Tutorial
Formal case studies
Resources outside of the program
Formal examination
Research laboratory
96
93
65
63
63
62
42
24
20
20
11
❚Table 7❚
Responsibility for Teaching Laboratory Management
Title of Person and/or Specialty
% of Programs
Laboratory medical director/clinical laboratory
director
Administrative laboratory director
Program director
Blood transfusion services
Core laboratories
Administrative staff outside the department
Anatomic laboratory director
Department chair
Anatomic pathology
Director of laboratory outreach
Hospital medical director
Faculty from other colleges
44
41
33
30
23
21
18
18
18
17
9
9
CPT, current procedural terminology.
674
674
Am J Clin Pathol 2011;136:671-678
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPWABWFBU9EYXR
© American Society for Clinical Pathology
AJCP / Special Article
Question 9
What are the major obstacles your program faces in
teaching practice and laboratory management to residents?
Although 1 respondent indicated “no major obstacles,”
the most common responses ❚Table 8❚ could be described as
lack of time, lack of interest, and lack of sufficient resources
for residents and responsible faculty.
Question 10
In what areas do you want your program to improve
teaching practice and laboratory management to residents?
Respondents were asked to supply free-form answers
❚Table 9❚. The responses emphasized the need for increased
focus on practical experiences and activities that are more
likely to engage the interest of the residents, such as “apprenticeships” (junior directorship) and graded responsibilities,
exercises integrated into rotations, and more meaningful
interactions with laboratory supervisors and managers. From
the faculty perspective, there was a clear interest in having
a better defined curriculum in management, readings and
other supplemental teaching materials, more focused teaching
methods, and more interactions with others in management,
including outside the pathology department. There were no
surprises in the topic areas the respondents focused on: financial management, personnel, regulatory and accreditation
issues, and leadership.
❚Table 8❚
Major Obstacles to Teaching Laboratory Management
Obstacle
% of Programs
Lack of faculty time
Lack of resident interest
Lack of evaluation tools
Lack of resident time
Not enough faculty to cover the subjects
Lack of faculty interest
Lack of resources
Other
56
54
50
46
41
39
33
7
❚Table 9❚
Desired Improvements to Existing Training in Management
For resident learners
Establish or expand on junior laboratory directorships
More day-to-day, practical, hands-on management experience
on all rotations
More interaction with laboratory supervisors/managers related
to management issues
Graded responsibility in laboratory management
Development of resident interest in these topics
For teachers/faculty
A more comprehensive, coherent, and better defined curriculum
Supplemental materials, reading lists, and a set of proven
effective lectures
Better teaching methods, more informed and focused teachers,
and more active learning opportunities
Enlistment of others in the effort, eg, hospital and outside
administrators
Topics to be taught/learned
Financial management, accounting, budgeting, and billing
Personnel management
Regulatory issues
Leadership
Laboratory accreditation
Question 11
What tools and resources would help your training program
to implement these improvements/changes?
This question was also posed in a way to solicit freeform answers. The responses could be lumped ❚Table 10❚ into
needs for better teaching tools and resources (support and
commitment) and a consensus curriculum.
❚Table 10❚
Tools and Resources That Would Be Most Helpful to
Implement Improvements to Management Training
Tools and Resources
% of Programs
Textbooks, Web resources, evaluation tools
Better institutional and/or departmental support
for teaching management
National consensus on curriculum
43
30
7
Question 12
Describe any unique methods your program utilizes which
have been particularly effective in teaching laboratory
management and/or engaging residents in the learning
process for these topics.
The free-form responses fell into several common themes.
They were as follows: participation in CAP inspections and/
or inspector training, 6 responses; participation in quality
assurance/quality improvement meetings and/or projects, 4
responses; providing a special “management” lecture series,
4 responses; doing a management project, such as a major
equipment justification for purchase, 3 responses; spending a 1-month rotation with the laboratory medical director
or the administrative director, 2 responses; or serving as a
junior medical director or in a management apprenticeship, 2
responses. The remaining responses included rotations to outside community hospital settings, incorporating management
topics into every case review, and use of the CAP Virtual
Management College online tool, plus several admissions that
nothing was particularly unique or effective.
Question 13
How does your program measure and evaluate resident
success in learning and applying laboratory management
topics?
© American Society for Clinical Pathology
Am J Clin Pathol 2011;136:671-678
675
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPWABWFBU9EYXR
675
675
Weiss et al / Laboratory Management Curriculum
The most common measure of effectiveness ❚Table 11❚
was performance on the ASCP RISE (Resident In-Service
Examination) examination (85%), followed by an evaluation
of the ability to perform assigned management-related responsibilities during a rotation (51%), completion of a project
(35%), the use of a follow-up postgraduate survey (23%), follow-up survey of employers (5%), and the use of a dedicated
course with a final examination (4%). Of the respondents, 8
indicated that they had no formal evaluation process or tool.
Question 14
Choose the setting(s) which best describes your training
program.
Not unexpectedly, the most common training environment is in academic centers (40), followed by community
hospital–based training programs (14). One respondent also
indicated it had an affiliated independent commercial laboratory. Another respondent also described itself as a university
in a large multisite private hospital system.
How many accredited residency positions does your
program have?
The range in residency program size was from 8 to 38
residents. The mean size was 18, the median was 16, and the
mode was 12 residents.
Question 16
How many residents does your program typically have in
each of the following tracks?
For respondents whose program has an AP track only,
39% indicated that they had 1 to 5 residents in this track,
with 8% indicating 6 or more. Similarly, for programs with
a CP track only, 26% indicated 1 to 5 residents in this track,
with 8% indicating 6 or more. One could infer from the
responses that about 54% and 67% of programs do not have
an AP-only or a CP-only track, respectively. Within the AP/
❚Table 11❚
Evaluation Tools Most Commonly Used
Tool
% of Programs
Performance on the ASCP Resident In-Service
Examination
Evaluation of ability to perform assigned tasks
within a rotation
Completion of a project
Follow-up postgraduate survey
Follow-up survey of employers
Dedicated course with final examination
85
Am J Clin Pathol 2011;136:671-678
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPWABWFBU9EYXR
Question 17
What questions would you like us to ask or ideas would
you like us to present during the APC/PRODS workshop
“Moving Toward Solutions: Lab Management Training
for Residents”?
Several common themes emerged from this free-form
question. The most common request was for help with curriculum development and standardization (9 responses),
followed closely by creating interest in/appreciation of management activities (for trainees and faculty) (8 responses),
devise meaningful experiential activities in management (5
responses), teaching methods and tools (4 responses), and
the creation of assessment tools for measuring effectiveness
(3 responses).
Results From the Workshop Discussion
and Work Group Efforts
Question 15
676
676
CP track, 35% had 16 to 20 residents, followed by 31% with
11 to 15, and 19% with more than 20 residents.
51
35
23
5
4
A PRODS workshop discussion was held at the APC
meeting on July 15, 2009. Feedback received as a result of the
report of this Working Group to the APC/PRODS, July 14-15,
2010, was incorporated into refinement of the curriculum.
Hyperlinks in the curriculum are intended to provide access to
more detailed content for the curriculum’s subject matter. The
wiki was transferred to the ASCP for maintenance, user input
designs, and deployment as an accessible Web site endorsed
by APF, ASCP, and PRODS (www.lab-management.info).
Discussion
The initial PRODS survey and workshop discussion produced several important, recurring themes. The importance
of how best to deliver content, and, in turn, effectively foster
needed skills development was a dominant theme. Several
participants debated the value of time spent in didactic presentations as compared with meaningful practical exercises
and experiences. Providing opportunities as “assistant medical directors” or “junior laboratory directors” was offered by
several as examples of complex, longitudinal experiences
over a broad array of management issues. These experiences
serve to reinforce didactic presentations on management topics. The challenge pointed out in implementing these experiences is the inconsistency between how programs define the
responsibilities of these roles and in the mentorship given
by the faculty and management staff to facilitate them. Very
good communication among the resident, the faculty, and the
© American Society for Clinical Pathology
AJCP / Special Article
staff is necessary for these arrangements to work effectively.
If constructed well and managed effectively, most if not all
rotations in the residency can provide management learning
opportunities. Finally, a one-size-fits-all approach will not
work for every resident. It is critical to match knowledge and
skills development to not only resident needs and interests but
also program resources, including faculty expertise.
An important outcome of this more than year-long
effort was the development and deployment through APC/
PRODS, the APF, and the ASCP of a consensus curriculum
guideline on laboratory management training. The incorporation of this curriculum into a dynamic tool—the wiki—is
intended to serve as an evolving tool and resource set for
programs, faculty, and residents in practice and laboratory
management training.
Why Today?
The Work Group believed it important for residency
program directors to understand why the need for laboratory
management training is even more important today than ever.
That rationale is presented in a preamble to the curriculum.
An excerpt from that document follows:
“If management, communication, and interpersonal
skills have been important and lacking for the past few
decades, despite efforts of residency program directors to
enhance curricula with such training, why does this deserve
additional attention now? Every organization that has looked
at the future of pathology has reached similar conclusions.
Today and in the future, even more than in the past, the
profession needs practitioners who can exert their influence
beyond the laboratory. The ASCP has conducted two task
forces on the future of pathology. Among other things, these
task forces have concluded that it is essential for pathologists
to change the way in which we relate to patients, physicians,
and the wider health care community, establishing ourselves
as an indispensable source of information and guidance. In
similar language, the CAP’s Transforming Pathologists initiative stresses the importance of repositioning pathologists
as the center of the health care team. Clearly, the future of
the profession depends on just those skills that pathologists
seem to be lacking, at least as they emerge from their graduate medical education.”
From the 1Department of Pathology and ARUP Laboratories,
University of Utah, Salt Lake City; 2Department of Pathology,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; 3American Pathology
Foundation, Laguna Beach, CA; and 4American Society for
Clinical Pathology, Chicago, IL.
Presented in part at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the
Association of Pathology Chairs; July 14-16, 2010; Seattle, WA.
Address reprint requests to Dr Weiss: Dept of Pathology,
ARUP Laboratories, University of Utah, 500 Chipeta Way, Salt
Lake City, UT 84108.
Acknowledgment: We thank Stephen Black-Schaffer, MD,
Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital,
Boston, for assistance with the development and distribution of the
survey questionnaires.
* The APF, ASCP, and PRODS Work Group Members are as
follows: Brian Datnow, MD, Department of Pathology, University
of California, San Diego; Peter A. Dysert, MD, Department of
Pathology, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX; Kedar
V. Inamdar, MD, Department of Pathology, Henry Ford Hospital,
Detroit, MI; Karen L. Kaul, MD, PhD, Department of Pathology,
NorthShore University HealthSystem, Chicago, IL; Scott A.
Kirkley, Department of Pathology, University of Rochester
Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Jerald E. Mullersman, MD,
PhD, Department of Pathology, East Tennessee State University,
Johnson City; Susan D. Roseff, MD, Department of Pathology,
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond; Constance A.
Stanton, MD, Department of Pathology, Wake Forest School
of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC; Christopher P. Stowell, MD,
PhD, Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital,
Boston; Enrique Terrazas, MD, Department of Laboratory
Medicine, University of California, San Francisco; and, Dani S.
Zander, MD, Department of Pathology, Penn State College of
Medicine/Penn State M. S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA.
References
1. Horowitz RE. The successful community hospital pathologist:
what it takes. Hum Pathol. 1998;29:211-214.
2. Horowitz RE. Expectations and essentials for the community
practice of pathology. Hum Pathol. 2006;37:969-973.
3. Brugnara C, Fenton T, Winkelman JW. Management
training for pathology residents, I: results of a national survey.
Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:559-563.
4. Kass ME, Crawford JM, Bennett B, et al. Adequacy of
pathology resident training for employment: a survey report
from the Future of Pathology Task Group. Arch Pathol Lab
Med. 2007;131:545-555.
5. Brimhall BB, Wright LD, McGregor KL, et al. Critical
leadership and management skills for pathology practice.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:1547-1554.
6. Talbert ML, Ashwood ER, Brownlee NA, et al. Resident
preparation for practice: a white paper from the College of
American Pathologists and Association of Pathology Chairs.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:1139-1147.
7. Burke MD, Lundberg GD, Nuzzo J, et al. Special report:
ASCP Colorado Springs Conference: the future content and
structure of residency training in pathology. Am J Clin Pathol.
1990;93:706-711.
8. Burke MD, Nuzzo J, Prichard RW. ASCP Colorado Springs
Conference IV: clinical pathology residency curriculum
reform. Am J Clin Pathol. 1993;100(4 suppl 1):S7-S14.
9. Conjoint Task Force on Clinical Pathology Residency
Training Writing Committee. Graylyn Conference Report:
recommendations for reform of clinical pathology residency
training. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;103:127-129.
10. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology.
Curriculum content and evaluation of resident competency
in anatomic pathology: a proposal. Am J Clin Pathol.
2003;120:652-660.
© American Society for Clinical Pathology
Am J Clin Pathol 2011;136:671-678
677
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPWABWFBU9EYXR
677
677
Weiss et al / Laboratory Management Curriculum
11. Smith BR, Wells A, Alexander CB, et al. Curriculum
content and evaluation of resident competency in clinical
pathology (laboratory medicine): a proposal. Am J Clin
Pathol. 2006;125(suppl 1):S3-S37.
12. Weiss RL. A clinical laboratory management elective for
pathology residents. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992;116:108-110.
13. Winkelman JW, Brugnara C. Management training for
pathology residents, II: experience with a focused curriculum.
Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:564-568.
14. Sims KL, Darcy TP. A leadership-management training
curriculum for pathology residents. Am J Clin Pathol.
1997;108:990-995.
678
678
Am J Clin Pathol 2011;136:671-678
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPWABWFBU9EYXR
15. Farnsworth RJ, Weiss RL. A mentor-based laboratory
management elective for residents. Am J Clin Pathol.
1999;111:156-160.
16. Horowitz RE, Naritoku W, Wagar EA. Management training
for pathology residents: a regional approach. Arch Pathol Lab
Med. 2004;128:59-63.
17. Hemmer PR, Karon BS, Hernandez JS, et al. Leadership
and management training for residents and fellows: a
curriculum for future medical directors. Arch Pathol Lab Med.
2007;131:610-614.
© American Society for Clinical Pathology