Journal of Pathology Informatics Journal of Pathology Informatics
Contact us | Home | Login   |  Users Online: 538  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 


ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 11

Clinical fellowship training in pathology informatics: A program description


1 Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA
2 Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114; Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA
3 Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA
4 Department of Pathology, North Shore Medical Center Salem Hospital, 81 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA 01970, USA
5 Departments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and Public Health, Weill Cornell Medical College, 1300 York Avenue, New York-10065, USA

Correspondence Address:
John R Gilbertson
Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2153-3539.93893

Rights and Permissions

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.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3244    
    Printed217    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded669    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal