|
2010, Volume 26, Number 2, Page(s) 095-106
|
|
DOI: 10.5146/tjpath.2010.01005 |
Pathology Residency Training in Turkey from the Residents' Point of View: A Survey Study |
Kemal KÖSEMEHMETOĞLU1, Ayça TAN2, Tuğçe ESEN3, Kıvılcım EREN ATEŞ4 |
1S.B. Ankara Atatürk Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Patoloji Bölümü, ANKARA 2S.B. Tepecik Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Patoloji Bölümü İZMİR 3Cerrahpaşa Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Patoloji Anabilim Dalı, İSTANBUL 4Çukurova Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Patoloji Anabilim Dalı, ADANA, TÜRKİYE1Departments of Pathology, M.H. Ankara Atatürk Education and Research Hospital, ANKARA 2Departments of Pathology, M.H. Tepecik Education and Research Hospital, İZMİR 3Departments of Pathology, Cerrahpaşa University, Faculty of Medicine, İSTANBUL 4Departments of Pathology, Çukurova University, Faculty of Medicine, ADANA, TURKEY |
Keywords:
Pathology, Residency training, Residents, Turkey |
Objective: Recent insights that have emerged in local meetings
with participation of pathology residents are promising as regards
achieving progress in pathology residency training. Accordingly, in
this study, overall pathology residency training in Turkey is discussed
in detail from the pathology residents' point of view; current data and
suggestions for the solutions of problems are presented.
Material and Method: Two questionnaires were applied to resident
representatives and overall residents, respectively, from 23 institutions
including 12 Universities and 11 Ministry of Health education and
Research Hospitals.
Results: The total number of participating residents was 138; 74
from University hospitals and 64 from Education and Research
Hospitals. An adequate number of cases per resident, widespread
use of multiocular microscopes, increasing number of macroscopy
technicians, ongoing educational meetings and renewal projects
of the physical environment were the positive findings. However,
the lack of autopsy practice, insufficient number of lectures,
communication problems between resident and senior staff due to
inadequate feedback mechanism, insufficient numbers of academic
staff in education and research hospitals and lack of educational
material in some basic branches of surgical pathology were negative
findings. During pathology training, the major stress factor was the
pathology workload inhibiting optimal learning. Feedback provision
and scheduled working habits were the two qualities, which were
needed to be improved by senior staff. Two fields, suggested by the
senior residents to be incompetent were intraoperative consultation
and cytopathology. When overall satisfaction for pathology residency
training was considered, it was near 80% in Universities, while
it remained around 40% in Education and Research Hospitals
(p=0.000).
Conclusion: Positive and negative aspects addressed in this survey
will provide data for the new regulations in pathology residency
training in Turkey.
|
|
|
|