RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
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.