Clinical laboratory immunology: an indispensable player in laboratory medicine

Diplomate in Medical Laboratory Immunology Certification Examination: A New Chapter for Medical Laboratory Immunology

It is indeed a privilege to be an immunologist in what is arguably the golden age of immunology. From astounding advances in fundamental knowledge to groundbreaking immunotherapeutic offerings, immunology has carved out an enviable niche for itself in basic science and clinical medicine. The need and the vital importance of appropriate education, training, and certification in clinical immunology was recognized by the World Health Organization as far back as 1972. In the United States, Ph.D. scientists with board certification in medical laboratory immunology have served as directors of high-complexity Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments- and College of American Pathologists-certified clinical immunology laboratories since 1977. From 1977 to 2017, board certification for medical laboratory immunology was administered by the American Society for Microbiology through the American Board of Medical Laboratory Immunology examination. The American Board of Medical Laboratory Immunology examination was phased out in 2017, and in the fall of 2019, the American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP) Board of Certification (BOC) examination committee took on the responsibility of developing a new doctoral-level certification examination for medical laboratory immunology. This transition to the ASCP BOC represents a well-deserved and much-needed recognition of the rapid advances in and the highly specialized nature of medical laboratory immunology and its ever-increasing relevance to patient care. This new ASCP BOC certification is called the Diplomate in Medical Laboratory Immunology, and, as of April 1, 2023, it is now available to potential examinees. In this report, we describe the examination, eligibility routes, and potential career pathways for successful diplomates.

Online flipped classroom with team-based learning promoted learning activity in a clinical laboratory immunology class: response to the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Given the rapid development of clinical immunology technologies, students majoring in laboratory medicine should master the technological principles and application of clinical laboratory immunology. However, many are required to take online courses due to COVID-19 restrictions, which highlights the need to revisit teaching strategies. Recently, various medical education courses (such as Biochemistry, Physiology, etc.) have implemented the flipped classroom (FC) and team-based learning (TBL) methods, resulting in more positive teaching evaluations. To promote the students' mastery of the difficult knowledge effectively during the online teaching work, we evaluated the performance of online FC-TBL in a clinical laboratory immunology course.

METHODS

Sixty-two third-year students from two classes majoring in Laboratory Medicine were recruited and divided into two groups, including one group with traditional lecture-based learning teaching strategy (LBL group) and the other group with LBL or online FC combined with TBL teaching strategy (FC-TBL group). We selected three chapters to conduct FC-TBL teaching in class. All participants took in-class quizzes and final examinations that targeted the same knowledge points. Finally, all participants completed anonymous questionnaires asking for their perceptions of the respective teaching models. In addition, we conducted a survey of teaching suggestions by a FC-TBL class of students majoring in Laboratory Medicine.

RESULTS

The FC-TBL group (vs LBL group) had significantly higher scores on the in-class quizzes and final examinations, and also reported high satisfaction with the FC-TBL model. These findings indicate that FC-TBL is suitable for clinical laboratory immunology, as the participants quickly gained essential knowledge. Specifically, FC-TBL helped to "increase learning motivation," "promote self-directed learning skills," "extend more related knowledge," "enhance problem-solving abilities," "enhance clinical reasoning abilities," and "enhance communication skills." For participants' suggestions, 48.38% (15/31) students held positive attitude to FC-TBL teaching strategy compared to 25.81% (8/31) students who considered FC-TBL teaching strategy still needs continuous improvement, and 25.81% (8/31) students reported that they believed FC-TBL teaching strategy was perfect and no further suggestions.

CONCLUSIONS

Online FC-TBL effectively enhanced learning activity among students of a clinical laboratory immunology course. This is particularly useful in the COVID-19 context.

Current Status of Immunology Education in U.S. Medical Schools

Immunology is an integral component of undergraduate medical education because of its critical role in many disease processes. Due to the complexity of the subject, the best practice of immunology education in the undergraduate medical curriculum has not been extensively discussed. This study intended to determine the current status of immunology education in U.S. medical schools with the hope of providing insight into curriculum design pertaining to this subject. Immunology curriculum information was collected from the curriculum Web pages of 199 U.S. medical schools, including multiple campuses. Data pertaining to the setting of immunology education such as subjects that are co-taught with immunology, timing of courses, credit hours, and integration level were recorded in Microsoft Excel for analysis. Of 199 U.S. medical schools studied, 174 posted curriculum information related to immunology online. For course settings, 59 (33.9%) offer immunology with microbiology, 42 (24.1%) offer immunology as part of a foundational sciences course, and 18 (10.3%) offer immunology as a stand-alone course. Ten programs (5.7%) have immunology fully integrated in system-based curriculum. Of 119 medical schools that provide information regarding timing, 94 (71.9%) provide immunology education in year 1 of the curriculum, 16 (9.2%) in year 2, and 9 (5.2%) in both years 1 and 2. Differences exist in allopathic versus osteopathic programs in the immunology curriculum setting. Credit hour data were not complete due to inconsistent availability. Our data suggest that immunology education in U.S. medical schools lacks consensus. Continued discussion on best practices of immunology education across U.S. medical schools is recommended.

Inoculating a New Generation: Immunology in Medical Education

Educating the next generation of physicians is a key means of communicating and disseminating impactful immunologic scientific knowledge, and its practical application to human disease. We present our perspective, using as our model a first-year medical school course entitled Host Defense. As the name suggests, immunology is the overarching principle that links the multiple subjects in the course. We address a range of immunologically relevant topics, including innate and adaptive immunity, vaccines, inflammation, allergy, tumor immunotherapy, transplantation, and autoimmunity. These topics are integrated with the fields of infectious diseases, pathology, clinical laboratory testing, and public health, to illustrate how the basic science discoveries in immunology are relevant to clinical practice. The course objectives are not only to deliver "first principles" and molecular mechanisms, but also to connect these principles with the clinical world of diagnosis and therapy. We detail the different methodologies used to achieve these objectives and to reach today's medical students. This provides a framework for course structure and execution designed to engage both the novice and the more "immunologically experienced" learner. The framework includes classical didactic components and personalized instructor access, aligned with current approaches to self-directed learning and using digital media. We also address some of the challenges of assembling a course like Host Defense in the context of an academic medical center with multiple scientific, educational, and clinical missions. This perspective is not meant be proscriptive, but rather to outline our experiences on the strategies tried, while describing their advantages and drawbacks in teaching immunology.

Current Status of Immunology Education in US Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy

Objective. To determine the extent of immunology education in US Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) programs. Methods. Curricular information on immunology education was collected from the web pages of US PharmD programs (N=142). The data were sorted, comparisons were made, and trends were identified. Results. Of 142 PharmD programs studied, 100% posted curriculum information on their websites. Among them, 73 programs (51.4%) had a dedicated immunology course in their curriculum, either as an independent course or a course combined with another subject. Most immunology education was offered in the first professional year (72.5%). Of the programs that offered immunology as an independent course, the number of semester hours dedicated to the course varied from 1.5 to 3.5 (median=3, mode=3, mean=2.7). More three-year programs offered immunology as a core component in the didactic curriculum than did four-year programs (64.7% vs 49.6%). Similarly, more private programs offered immunology than did public programs (64% vs 37.3%). Conclusion. Immunology education in US schools and colleges of pharmacy lacks consensus. Not all PharmD programs indicated they offered specific, focused immunology education in their curricula. There were also variations in the placement of immunology content within the curriculum among programs offering specific immunology course(s). Lastly, there was discrepancy in the allocation of credit hours to the immunology courses. Continued discussion on standardization of immunology education across US pharmacy schools is recommended.

The Pathology Workforce and Clinical Licensure: The Role of the PhD Clinical Laboratorian in the United States

There has been a recent recognition of the need to prepare PhD-trained scientists for increasingly diverse careers in academia, industry, and health care. The PhD Data Task Force was formed to better understand the current state of PhD scientists in the clinical laboratory workforce and collect up-to-date information on the training and certification of these laboratorians. In this report, we summarize the findings of the PhD Data Task Force and discuss the relevance of the data collected to the future supply of and demand for PhD clinical laboratory scientists. It is clear that there are multiple career opportunities for PhD scientists in academic medical centers, commercial clinical laboratories, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and the federal government. Certified PhD scientists have and will continue to form an important resource for our technologically advancing field, bringing training in scientific methods, and technologies needed for modern laboratory medicine. The data gathered by the PhD Data Task Force will be of great interest to current and future PhD candidates and graduate PhD scientists as they make decisions regarding future career directions.