W. S. Black-Schaffer, David J Gross, Z. Nouri, Aidan DeLisle, Michael Dill, Jason Y Park, James M Crawford, Michael B Cohen, Rebecca L Johnson, Donald S Karcher, Thomas M Wheeler, Stanley J Robboy
{"title":"重新评估美国专科医生队伍的估算方法","authors":"W. S. Black-Schaffer, David J Gross, Z. Nouri, Aidan DeLisle, Michael Dill, Jason Y Park, James M Crawford, Michael B Cohen, Rebecca L Johnson, Donald S Karcher, Thomas M Wheeler, Stanley J Robboy","doi":"10.1093/haschl/qxae033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Increasing pursuit of subspecialized training has quietly revolutionized physician training, but the potential impact on physician workforce estimates has not previously been recognized. The Physicians Specialty Data Reports of the Association of American Medical Colleges, derived from specialty designations in the American Medical Association Physician Professional Data (PDP), are the reference source for US physician workforce estimates; by 2020 the report for pathologists is an undercount of 39% when compared to the PDP. Most of the difference was due to omission of pathology subspecialty designations. The rest resulted from reliance on only the first of the AMA Physician Professional Data’s two specialty data fields. Placement of specialty designation in these two fields is sensitive to sequence of training and is thus affected by multiple or intercalated (between years of residency training) fellowships. Both these phenomena have become progressively more common and are not unique to pathology. Our findings demonstrate the need to update definitions and methodology underlying estimates of the US physician workforce for pathology and suggest a like need in other specialties affected by similar trends.","PeriodicalId":94025,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs scholar","volume":"16 s3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-evaluation of the methodology for estimating the U.S. specialty physician workforce\",\"authors\":\"W. S. Black-Schaffer, David J Gross, Z. Nouri, Aidan DeLisle, Michael Dill, Jason Y Park, James M Crawford, Michael B Cohen, Rebecca L Johnson, Donald S Karcher, Thomas M Wheeler, Stanley J Robboy\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/haschl/qxae033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Increasing pursuit of subspecialized training has quietly revolutionized physician training, but the potential impact on physician workforce estimates has not previously been recognized. The Physicians Specialty Data Reports of the Association of American Medical Colleges, derived from specialty designations in the American Medical Association Physician Professional Data (PDP), are the reference source for US physician workforce estimates; by 2020 the report for pathologists is an undercount of 39% when compared to the PDP. Most of the difference was due to omission of pathology subspecialty designations. The rest resulted from reliance on only the first of the AMA Physician Professional Data’s two specialty data fields. Placement of specialty designation in these two fields is sensitive to sequence of training and is thus affected by multiple or intercalated (between years of residency training) fellowships. Both these phenomena have become progressively more common and are not unique to pathology. Our findings demonstrate the need to update definitions and methodology underlying estimates of the US physician workforce for pathology and suggest a like need in other specialties affected by similar trends.\",\"PeriodicalId\":94025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health affairs scholar\",\"volume\":\"16 s3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health affairs scholar\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae033\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs scholar","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
对亚专业化培训的日益追求已悄然为医生培训带来了革命性的变化,但其对医生队伍估算的潜在影响却尚未被认识到。美国医学院协会的医生专业数据报告来自美国医学会医生专业数据(PDP)中的专业名称,是美国医生劳动力估算的参考来源;到 2020 年,病理学家的报告与 PDP 相比少计了 39%。大部分差异是由于遗漏了病理学亚专业名称。其余的原因则是只依赖 AMA 医生专业数据的两个专业数据字段中的第一个字段。这两个字段中的专科指定位置对培训顺序很敏感,因此会受到多重或插班(住院医师培训的间隔年)研究金的影响。这两种现象已变得越来越普遍,并非病理学所独有。我们的研究结果表明,有必要更新美国病理学医生队伍的定义和估算方法,并表明受类似趋势影响的其他专科也有同样的需求。
Re-evaluation of the methodology for estimating the U.S. specialty physician workforce
Increasing pursuit of subspecialized training has quietly revolutionized physician training, but the potential impact on physician workforce estimates has not previously been recognized. The Physicians Specialty Data Reports of the Association of American Medical Colleges, derived from specialty designations in the American Medical Association Physician Professional Data (PDP), are the reference source for US physician workforce estimates; by 2020 the report for pathologists is an undercount of 39% when compared to the PDP. Most of the difference was due to omission of pathology subspecialty designations. The rest resulted from reliance on only the first of the AMA Physician Professional Data’s two specialty data fields. Placement of specialty designation in these two fields is sensitive to sequence of training and is thus affected by multiple or intercalated (between years of residency training) fellowships. Both these phenomena have become progressively more common and are not unique to pathology. Our findings demonstrate the need to update definitions and methodology underlying estimates of the US physician workforce for pathology and suggest a like need in other specialties affected by similar trends.