Objective.—To obtain descriptive information regarding the practice characteristics and utilization of US pathologists' assistants. Design.—A self-administered, mailed, voluntary, anonymous questionnaire was distributed to a cross-sectional sample of 515 US pathologists' assistants registered as members of the American Association of Pathologists' Assistants. The questionnaire contained items relating to subject demographics, practice characteristics, specific task performance, and amount of time spent per day on the performance of specific tasks. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data in terms of measures of central tendency and dispersion. Results.—The response rate was 66.8%. The majority of questionnaires sent and received were from East Coast regions. Of all respondents, 46.6% were women, 57.6% were less than 40 years old, and 60.0% had been practicing 10 years or less. Over half (54.0%) had a master's degree. Almost the entire sample reported working 30 or more hours per week, with 43.4% reporting working more than 40 hours per week. The majority reported earning annual salaries between $56 000 and $75 000. Although task analysis of responses revealed a wide range of responses, the majority of the sample reported spending most of their daily time performing surgical specimen gross examinations (median 300 min/d). Approximately half of respondents also reported spending up to 90 minutes per day on nonspecific tasks such as logging specimens and answering the phone. Most respondents reported spending more daily time on such nonspecific tasks than on autopsy prosection or research. Conclusions.—To our knowledge, this national survey provides the first description of pathologists' assistants across the United States. These data provide a useful tool for tracking changes in the profession.

No abstract

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 χ2 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.

Thomas D. Kinney and Duke University started the first formal university-based training program for pathologists’ assistants in 1969. Over the next 2 years, 2 more university-based programs were established. All 3 programs were affiliated with nearby Veterans Administration Hospitals and were funded as a pilot study by the US Veterans Administration to address a looming shortage of pathologists. Early graduates of these programs discovered that the concept of pathologists’ assistants with well-defined skill sets encompassing both surgical and autopsy pathology was not initially accepted by important elements of organized pathology. Indeed, many academic pathologists were opposed to the concept from the outset. In the face of such opposition, a group of practicing pathologists’ assistants created and incorporated their own professional organization, the American Association of Pathologists’ Assistants, to provide support, advocacy, and continuing education for individual practicing pathologists’ assistants. The history of the American Association of Pathologists’ Assistants and its role in the establishment and success of the pathologists’ assistant profession are described utilizing personal communications as well as published historical sources.