In many recent studies in the literature have described and commented on “competency based resident training” in pathology. According to this model, competencies are subclassified in 6 main categories: Patient care, medical knowledge, practice based learning and improvement, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, and systems based practice. Assessment of competency forms the main component of this model.

Under the framework of Ankara Society of Pathology, a working group, composed of 11 residents, 6 of which representing the Training and Research Hospitals of Ministry of Health and the rest representing the university hospitals in Ankara, was established in order to participate in the think-tank about resident training in pathology. A questionnaire, composed of 12 questions, was prepared. According to this questionnaire, the number of trainers in the university hospitals is much higher than in the commercial hospitals. While the total number of cases and cases per resident do not differ between the university and commercial hospitals, microscopes used for the educational purposes are significantly less in the commercial hospitals, that is due to less number of binocular microscopes. The amount of resident training program, which consists of intra and intersectional meetings, are similar in the university and commercial hospitals, however, theoretic lectures are given only in 3 departments. Residents working in the university hospitals have obviously heavier burden than in the commercial hospitals. Lastly, residents generally exclaimed that the time dedicated to the macroscopy training is less sufficient than time used for the microscopy training.

The factors affecting the training of resident in pathology are divided into two main groups: 1) Factors directly affecting training (quality of trainer, time dedicated for education, feed back, eg.) and 2) Conditions which waste residents' time. For instant, workload which does need qualified staff and increases the burden on residents may be reassigned to medical secretary or pathology assistants; therefore energy of residents can be saved for educational activities. Optimization of physical working conditions, assortment of training programs, rotation in lacking subjects and consultations will enhance the quality of the education of the resident. Feedback assessment of trainer and trainee is an essential part of a training program.

In conclusion, an ideal resident from the resident's point of view is the person who is endowed with medical and pathological knowledge, orderly interrelates with staff, professionally communicates with clinicians, manages a laboratory and is trained hard to achieve all the above mentioned competencies.