{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01623686723973257, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028653295128939827, 'mean_word_length': 5.8019480519480515, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Can continuing medical education prepare the current practitioner for the 21st century?

The traditional approach to continuing medical education (CME) will be inadequate to prepare the practicing pathologist for the 21st century. Seminars at regional or national meetings, audiovisual presentations, and similar CME activities are useful to provide updates or to fill in more detailed information in the basic knowledge that all pathologists must acquire during their training. Different, more imaginative approaches will be necessary for the pathologist wishing to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to utilize the newly developing techniques in pathology, such as flow cytometry, image analysis, and the myriad diagnostic procedures based on molecular biology. Self-directed learning will continue to be an essential approach to CME, and the availability of computer programs, including videodisks, will be increasingly effective. However, it should be acknowledged that self-directed learning has been available since the invention of the printing press. The current pressure for public accountability of medical practitioners clearly indicates that pathologists must accept the reality that CME will not be recognized unless it is provided by an accredited organization and attendance is documented. Pathologists should anticipate institution of recertification procedures involving peer review, which will require documentable CME. This CME will be based on needs assessment, educational objectives, more effective formats, and evaluation of whether CME, in fact, improved the pathologist's effectiveness in practice. The academicians have their sabbaticals to refresh their knowledge and explore new fields; perhaps minisabbaticals should be arranged for both the academicians and the practicing pathologist who cannot be away from his or her responsibilities for 6 months or 1 year. The medical specialty societies are the most suitable groups for organizing these programs, although the actual programs must be provided in the laboratories that actually perform the procedures.