| |
First, I would like to express gratitude to all those making time to read through the new version of the Grossing Guideline Checklist and participate in a related teleconference. The “vision” of this project has been something of a moving target and your willingness to stay in step is much appreciated. I am also grateful for your questions – indicating your understanding of the vision and introducing new ideas and concepts particular to your subsections. Thank you!
Following the section teleconferences, I participated in a teleconference with the managing editors. This message (sent to all Grossing Guideline volunteers) represents an attempt to put some closing marks on our efforts, and communications to date. In the interest of keeping this to the point, I will not cover the Grossing Guideline Checklist or re-hash the teleconferences here. If you need these items (the checklist or a general recording of the teleconferences), please contact Michelle Sok at the AAPA office.
With regard to wrapping things up and taking the “next steps”:
- All subsections, even those that have already submitted to the content review team have access to their documents. Please use this time to edit your documents bringing them into compliance with the new Grossing Guideline Checklist and teleconference requirements.
- We are encouraging each section to make sure that the total number of contributing authors is at least three (3), i.e. a minimum of two subsection authors and one section author. This will help to ensure that the strengths of personal interaction, collaboration, and breadth of experience are present in our document. Sometimes this is as simple as asking the other members of your section team if they would be willing to spend time working on more than one subsection (this is probably the preferred method). However, if you are still unable to create a subsection of at least three individuals, please contact Michelle Sok at the AAPA office (we have new volunteers and others who are willing to assist).
- We are encouraging each subsection to have at least one teleconference prior to submitting for content review. This is not required, but we have seen the benefit and are inclined to encourage it. Again, Michelle Sok, and the AAPA office can assist with checking teleconference attendees schedules and preparing the call. The process is easy, just tell her who is to participate, and she’ll take it from there. The call in number is toll free for all participants.
- In the near future, Michelle Sok will be sending an email to the sections to restructure the deadlines. We continue to desire an “ambitious” timeline, but want to give you the time needed to complete your sections in compliance with the Grossing Guideline Checklist and teleconference information.
- Some individuals had questions about resources. If you do not have the CAP Checklists, they can be found online (please be sure you are looking at the most recent version). If you need an AJCC Staging Manual, the AAPA will purchase one for you. Again, Michelle Sok is your contact for getting these things. If your subject matter uses another staging source (such as the WHO, FIGO), please include that source, but highlight it as such so we are obtaining proper permissions!
- Remember that the final content review team will return your drafts if there are items they feel need a second look (or third, or fourth). Please do not get offended at the “review” process. We’ve asked the content review team to loop the drafts back to the authors until they are satisfied that all source document materials are in the drafts. However, the content review team will not be doing the “contemplative work” in the same way as the subsection and section authors. If you feel the content review team is incorrect, contact them for resolution.
- Just by way of example, you can rest assured that your subsection will not be alone in this “loop” process. The vagina protocol, which Dennis Strenk and I wrote as an example protocol, recently went through content review and it came back with several suggestions. At first, I thought it impossible that so many changes could be recommended. However, on reviewing the suggestions, the content review team made excellent comments, and recommendations! In the end, I was thankful for their input. Dennis and I have made changes and teleconferenced about the protocol. Now it goes back to content review again (and it may be returned a second time – as this is the process we are requiring).
- Within the next few weeks, the vagina protocol will be forwarded to CAP for review. I will attempt to give some feedback on that process so that you might know what to expect.
- Finally, in the near future we will begin assigning “titles” to the varying responsibilities. We will attempt to provide each title in a way that reflects industry standards. Ultimately, upon receiving peer review status, each participant will be granted some form of “expert status” referring to the subject field they participated in. This status will be conferred by the AAPA and will most likely fall into “content expert” status or “at large expert” status. When conveyed to each of you, this should be kept as a curriculum vitae item – reflecting the conferred title, status, and contribution to medical literature.
As always, thank you for the hard work of becoming an expert, supporting those who engage in the work of surgical pathology at the gross bench, and the patients who benefit from a job well done. Your contribution to this effort is much appreciated!
Kindest regards,
Jon Wagner, PA(ASCP)
Editor in Chief, Grossing Guideline Ad Hoc Committee
Chair, Board of Trustees
|
|
