Call for improvement in medical school training in genetics: results of a national survey.

PURPOSE: To assess, from the student perspective, medical school training in genetics and genomics. METHODS: In 2019, the Undergraduate Training in Genomics (UTRIG) Working Group developed genetics-related survey and knowledge questions for the RISE-FIRST, an exam administered to postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) pathology residents in the United States during their first months of training. Survey questions focused on perceived knowledge in genetics and the structure and quality of training with responses compared with those in control areas. RESULTS: There were 401 PGY1 pathology residents who took the 2019 RISE-FIRST (65% of those in the United States). There was significantly lower perceived understanding of genetics compared with nongenetics topics. Respondents also reported less time spent learning genetics and lower quality training compared with control areas. Only 53% indicated an interaction during medical school with a medical geneticist. Residents also did not perform as well on the UTRIG-developed knowledge questions than those in other areas of pathology. CONCLUSION: The RISE-FIRST is a useful tool in assessing the current state of medical school training in genetics. This needs assessment may serve as a call to action to improve medical school genetics education and promote greater understanding of the role of genetics professionals in patient care.

Integration of Genomic Medicine in Pathology Resident Training.

OBJECTIVES: To assess current pathology resident training in genomic and molecular pathology. METHODS: The Training Residents in Genomics (TRIG) Working Group has developed survey questions for the pathology Resident In-Service Examination (RISE) since 2012. Responses to these questions, as well as knowledge questions, were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2,529 residents took the 2019 RISE. Since 2013, there has been an increase in postgraduate year 4 (PGY4) respondents indicating training in genomic medicine (58% to approximately 80%) but still less than almost 100% each year for molecular pathology. In 2019, PGY4 residents indicated less perceived knowledge and ability related to both genomic and traditional molecular pathology topics compared with control areas. Knowledge question results supported this subjective self-appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: The RISE is a powerful tool for assessing the current state and also trends related to resident training in genomic pathology. The results show progress but also the need for improvement in not only genomic pathology but traditional molecular pathology training as well.

Does Taking the Fellowship In-Service Hematopathology Examination and Performance Relate to Success on the American Board of Pathology Hematology Examination?

OBJECTIVES: The biannual Fellow In-Service Hematopathology Examination (FISHE) assesses knowledge in five content areas. We examined the relationship between taking the FISHE and performance on it with outcomes on the first attempted American Board of Pathology Hematology subspecialty certifying examination (ABP-HE). METHODS: The pass rate between the ABP-HE candidates who took the spring FISHE and those who did not were compared. The likelihood of fellows passing the ABP-HE based on their percentiles on the FISHE was also assessed. RESULTS: ABP-HE candidates who took the spring FISHE had a higher pass rate (96.4%) than those who did not (76.1%, P < .001). Spring FISHE performance, including total percentile and percentiles in four of five FISHE content areas, was only a weak predictor of passing the ABP-HE. CONCLUSIONS: Candidates who take the spring FISHE do better on the ABP-HE than those who do not. Most fellows passed the first attempted ABP-HE regardless of FISHE performance. Whether this is due to fellows making use of the FISHE as a self-evaluation tool to help identify and then correct their knowledge deficiencies remains to be determined.

The current state of resident training in genomic pathology: a comprehensive analysis using the resident in-service examination.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the current state of pathology resident training in genomic and molecular pathology. METHODS: The Training Residents in Genomics (TRIG) Working Group developed survey and knowledge questions for the 2013 pathology Resident In-Service Examination (RISE). Sixteen demographic questions related to amount of training, current and predicted future use, and perceived ability in molecular pathology vs genomic medicine were included, along with five genomic pathology and 19 molecular pathology knowledge questions. RESULTS: A total of 2,506 pathology residents took the 2013 RISE, with approximately 600 individuals per postgraduate year (PGY). For genomic medicine, 42% of PGY-4 respondents stated they had no training, compared with 7% for molecular pathology (P < .001). PGY-4 residents' perceived ability, comfort in discussing results, and predicted future use as a practicing pathologist were reported to be less in genomic medicine than in molecular pathology (P < .001). Based on PGY, knowledge question scores showed a greater increase in molecular pathology than in genomic pathology. CONCLUSIONS: The RISE is a powerful tool for assessing the state of resident training in genomic pathology and current results suggest a significant deficit. The results also provide a baseline to assess future initiatives to improve genomics education for pathology residents such as those developed by the TRIG Working Group.

Senior pathology resident in-service examination scores correlate with outcomes of the American Board of Pathology certifying examinations.

The Resident In-Service Examination (RISE) addresses 1 area of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Outcome Project; RISE results demonstrate progressive attainment of pathology knowledge during training. We compared RISE scores with primary pathology board certification success for residents graduating in 2008 and 2009. Overall RISE and nearly all sectional scores in anatomic and clinical pathology were significantly higher for residents passing all certifying examinations at the first attempt vs residents who failed any examination. The risk of failing increased with each lower quartile of overall RISE score, such that 34% (2009) and 54% (2008) of residents in the lowest quartile failed at least 1 certifying examination. Two thirds of graduating residents with lowest quartile scores had a similar quartile ranking in the previous RISE, identifying them as at risk. Residents passing the American Board of Pathology certifying examinations have a higher level of medical knowledge in general and specific pathology disciplines as assessed by senior RISE scores.