Educational Objectives:
1. Understand how to fully comply with changes within the CAAHEP Standards and Guidelines and the Curriculum and Entry-Level Competencies using best practice examples and tools.
2. Understand recent changes to the accreditation review process, specifically annual data collection and reporting, self-study report submission and accreditation cycle/site visit frequency and how they affect your specific program
3. Outline and discuss changes within the CPRC involving its internal structure and operating procedures secondary to expanded sponsorship, and what these evolutionary advances in oversight and assessment will mean for your program and the accreditation process overall
4. Discuss, collaborate and share ideas and programmatic processes involved in maintaining compliance and navigating the accreditation review procedures


The practice and scope of cytotechnology continues to be redefined, with education models and curricula actively evolving. New subject matter, expanded clinical and laboratory expertise, and enhanced and novel modes of education have recently been introduced, with a focus on shared education materials and distance learning. This trend will undoubtedly continue. As such, it is imperative for educators to have the appropriate information and tools necessary to ensure that all implemented changes remain compliant with CAAHEP Accreditation Standards, Curricula and Entry-level Competencies. These significant changes also require substantial changes in the structure, sponsorship, and expertise employed by the Cytotechnology Programs Review Committee (CPRC). The CPRC will discuss (1) recent internal changes to its structure and practice and how these evolutionary changes will affect the accreditation process; (2) tools and strategy suggestions for adapting to current practice model changes while maintaining compliance; and (3) the expanding role of varied allied health care professional organizations in cytotechnology education and oversight and determination of next steps for future collaboration among communities of interest. Best practices of other CAAHEP accredited programs will be offered as examples and serve as points of discussion and debate. Open discussion with CPRC members and CAAHEP representatives will allow for clarification of compliance issues and accreditation processes.

Educational Objectives:
1. Describe historical facts that resulted in the need for a fellowship match.
2. Describe fellowship match process
3. Discuss impact of fellowship match in the selection of applicants


The specialty of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine is in a phase when the four-year sequence of AP/CP residency training is followed by one or more years of subspecialty fellowship training. Such training may occur in one of the American Board of Pathology-recognized subspecialties or any number of non-accredited “subspecialty fellowships.” Unlike the application process for first-year pathology residency, which is run through the National Resident Matching Program, applications for subspecialty pathology fellowships are not coordinated by any consistent schedule. Competition for subspecialty pathology fellowships has consistently resulted in a drift of the fellowship application process to dates that are too early for many fellowship applicants. Responding to widespread dissatisfaction voiced by national pathology resident organizations, in 2007, the Association of Pathology Chairs began evaluation and potential intervention in the fellowship application process. Several years of intense discussion, surveys, and market analysis, have led the Council of the Association of Pathology Chairs to recommend implementation of a Pathology Subspecialty Fellowship Matching Program starting in the 2011 to 2012 recruiting year for those applicants matriculating into fellowship programs in July 2013. This session will provide an update of the Cytopathology Fellowship Matching Program and discuss the pros and cons of this reform process.

Educational Objectives:
1. Define cytopathology informatics and its applications
2. Discuss the rational and the needs for initiating informatics cytopathology training for cytotechology students.
3. Discuss the curriculum for cytopathology informatics training for cytotechnologists including planning, implementation, evaluation, and challenges


Rapid advances are occurring in the field of cytopathology, particularly in the field of digital imaging. Today, digital images are used in a variety of settings including education (E-education), as a substitute to multi-headed sessions, multi-site conferences, publications, cytopathology web pages, cytology proficiency testing, telecytology, consultation through telecytology and automated screening of Pap test slides. Digital imaging is beginning to replace the traditional classroom with microscopes in medical education including cytopathology. Digital imaging undoubtedly offers significant advantages over the traditional light microscope in education and training. As we are moving into a new era of extensive cytopathology informatics utilization, future cytotechnologists should be prepared, educated, and trained to handle such tasks. The curriculum of cytopathology informatics for cytotechology students will help achieve these goals. It includes review of digital imaging and its applications in the field of cytopathology, a hand on WSI and acquiring static images in cytology, digital image management and improving, and preparing a case(s) to be published on online a cytology web site such as the ASC, IAC, etc. This session will highlight our experience in implementation of this new curriculum for our class of 2010-2011.

Educational Objectives:
1. Explain why active learning is a “good” educational strategy and describe the goals to this approach
2. Identify different teaching strategies and their distinguishing characteristics and how they can be applied to Cytopathology
3. Explain why active learning strategies must have active learning assessments


Problem solving skills, application of learned content to challenging cases, critically analyzing sources, and the development of lifelong learning skills are crucial for fellows and cytotechnologists to develop during their cytology training. Currently, the development of these skills through learner-centered curricular revisions is being addressed in many medical schools across the country, including at the Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine. Attending physicians or teachers in these cytology programs must recognize that their role as educators must shift from one of primary sources of information, passive one-way dispensers of information (i.e., lectures) to educators that promote an atmosphere where learning and application is cultivated through student self-directed learning. These learner-active pedagogies that are currently employed on the undergraduate level can be applied to cytology training in order to cultivate a cadre of cytopathologists and cytotechnologists that will be able to apply learned content with challenging cases, critically analyze sources, present information, challenge perceived learned content with one another and problem solve. This session will go over and demonstrate active learning pedagogies currently employed in the curriculum at the Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine through a discussion of our PEARLS small group sessions (Patient-Centered Explorations in Active Reasoning, Learning and Synthesis) which is derived from a hybrid Problem Case-Based approach, as well as other active strategies used in our classrooms and labs. These learner-active pedagogies will then be applied to the training of fellows and technologists in the field of cytology.