ABSTRACT
The Association of Pathology Chairs listserv was studied in order to determine its utility in facilitating communication among pathology departments during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Between March 2020 and March 2022, there were 116 pandemic-related entries generated by 49 members that stimulated 395 responses from 109 members. Due to overlap between individuals providing listserv entries and those responding, there were 123 unique participants. The majority of entries (64%) as well as responses (64%) occurred during March and April 2020. The most common categorical theme (32% of entries and 39% of responses) related to COVID-19 testing protocols and procedures with the second most common theme being the proactive sharing of individual institutional experiences in coping with the pandemic (16% of entries and 11% of responses). Additional themes included remote pathologist sign-outs, use of alternative specimens for testing, supply chain issues, in-house preparation of viral transport media and swabs, autopsies on COVID-19 decedents, safety of the blood supply, disinfecting masks, Medicare payment for testing, and creation of a biorepository for specimens. Fifty-two (42%) of the 123 unique participants published 277 COVID-related papers during this time, and one third of COVID-19-related articles published during 2020 and 2021 in Academic Pathology, the official journal of the Association of Pathology Chairs, involved individuals who had contributed to the listserv either by generating entries or responding to them. These data suggest that professional society listservs and journals are effective vehicles for communication during crises by identifying issues, proposing solutions, and exporting this information into the literature.
ABSTRACT
The 2021 Association of Pathology Chairs Annual Meeting included a chairs' session and a premeeting discussion-group webinar sponsored by the Senior Fellows Group (former chairs of academic departments of pathology who have remained active in the Association of Pathology Chairs) focused on generating discretionary income for departments. Discretionary income was defined as revenue that can be used by the department with few, if any, restrictions. Such income is particularly desirable given limitations on departmental budgets. Four discussion-group panelists presented the funds-flow model in their respective institutions and how they derived and used discretionary income. Discretionary income was obtained from both external sources (eg, philanthropy, indirect cost recovery, partnerships with outside entities, medical education courses, research laboratory agreements, clinical trials) and internal sources (eg, core facilities, institutional programmatic support, institutional incentive programs). Significant departmental variations were associated with differences in institutional financial structure and policies, revenue-generating capabilities of the department and individual faculty, practice plan policies, donor intentions, and geographic market forces. Most finances were dependent upon a robust funds-flow model. Uses of discretionary funds included salary support, recruitment expenses (including start-up packages), research equipment, space renovation, social events, support of academic programs, and travel. Panelists also discussed particular challenges of discretionary-fund generation and use during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Notably, each institution had its own unique methodology for generating discretionary income, and no obvious standard approach was identified. The 2 moderators emphasized the importance of identifying and understanding opportunities, issues, and institutional culture surrounding generation and use of discretionary funds.