CONTEXT: Use of a variety of nonphysician personnel for surgical pathology gross examination is generally known to be increasing, although detailed information regarding nonphysician use is currently unavailable. OBJECTIVE: To measure and describe the use of nonphysician personnel for surgical pathology gross examination in order to gain a better understanding of the current surgical pathology workforce. DESIGN: A voluntary, mailed questionnaire containing items related to the use of multiple nonphysician personnel types in surgical pathology was distributed to (1) a cross-sectional sample (n = 968) of US pathologists and (2) a purposive sample of pathologist directors of surgical and/or anatomic pathology (n = 77) located at teaching institutions. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, the chi2 test, and 1-way analysis of variance. Staffing ratios were calculated for multiple nonphysician personnel types. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 22% (n = 225). Of the US sample, 56% of respondents reported using nonphysician laboratory personnel to perform gross examinations, compared with 91% of the directors' sample. The most frequently reported personnel type for both samples was pathologists' assistants, but multiple other personnel types were used as well. Significant associations existed between certain practice types and personnel types used, as well as differences in the scope of responsibilities between personnel types. Calculated staffing ratios were variable across personnel types and were highest for pathologists' assistants. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a variety of nonphysician laboratory personnel for surgical pathology gross examination is common, particularly in academic pathology practice. Further studies are needed to examine the impact of physician extenders on laboratory efficiency and quality of care.
CONTEXT: Use of a variety of nonphysician personnel for surgical pathology gross examination is generally known to be increasing, although detailed information regarding nonphysician use is currently unavailable. OBJECTIVE: To measure and describe the use of nonphysician personnel for surgical pathology gross examination in order to gain a better understanding of the current surgical pathology workforce. DESIGN: A voluntary, mailed questionnaire containing items related to the use of multiple nonphysician personnel types in surgical pathology was distributed to (1) a cross-sectional sample (n = 968) of US pathologists and (2) a purposive sample of pathologist directors of surgical and/or anatomic pathology (n = 77) located at teaching institutions. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, the chi2 test, and 1-way analysis of variance. Staffing ratios were calculated for multiple nonphysician personnel types. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 22% (n = 225). Of the US sample, 56% of respondents reported using nonphysician laboratory personnel to perform gross examinations, compared with 91% of the directors' sample. The most frequently reported personnel type for both samples was pathologists' assistants, but multiple other personnel types were used as well. Significant associations existed between certain practice types and personnel types used, as well as differences in the scope of responsibilities between personnel types. Calculated staffing ratios were variable across personnel types and were highest for pathologists' assistants. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a variety of nonphysician laboratory personnel for surgical pathology gross examination is common, particularly in academic pathology practice. Further studies are needed to examine the impact of physician extenders on laboratory efficiency and quality of care.
Authors: M Bortesi; V Martino; M Marchetti; A Cavazza; G Gardini; E Zanetti; M C Bassi; L Ghirotto; M Costantini; Simonetta Piana Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 4.064