MINUTES OF THE RENAL PATHOLOGY SOCIETY BUSINESS MEETING

The Renal Pathology Society (RPS) held a business meeting on Sunday evening, February 24, 2002 during the annual meeting of the US-CAP at the Sheraton Chicago in Chicago, Illinois.

The meeting was called to order by Dr. Agnes Fogo, RPS President. Forty-seven members were in attendance.

Dr. Herrera reported on the financial status of the RPS. There was, as of January 31, 2002, a balance of $32,094.53, almost $3,000 more than previously reported 10/01/01. As usual, main expenses are related to receptions at the US-CAP and ASN and dinner at the US-CAP. Dr. Herrera also indicated that the RPS has 211 active members, 163 from the United States, 23 from Europe, 13 from Canada, 7 from Asia, 3 from Australia, and 1 from South America (22% international members).

2. Reports

Membership Committee

The committee met by e-mail and phone during January and February of 2002 including: Dr’s Glen Markowitz, Maria Picken and Patrick Walker, Chair

a. New Members (reviewed and approved by the committee and the RPS):

a. Kirk Foster, M.D., Barnes Hospital, St. Louis, MO (Resident)

b. Sanjeev Sethi, M.D., Ph.D., University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

c. Gilbert Moeckel, M.D., Ph.D., Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN

d. Ian SD Roberts, MBChB, Oxford Hospitals, Oxford, England

e. Xin Gu, M.D., LSUHSC, Shreveport, LA

f. Jiamin Teng, M.D., Ph.D., LSUHSC, Shreveport, LA

g. Eric Steenbergen, M.D., Ph.D., UMC Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands

b. Emeritus Member (reviewed and approved by the committee and the RPS):

a. Tito Cavallo, M.D., University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH (Emeritus)

c. Committee Charge. The committee was charged to determine ways to increase the membership. Dr. Fogo suggested a membership drive focused both here and abroad. In addition, she has challenged each current RPS member to suggest the name of a colleague who is involved in renal pathology but is not currently a member.

d. Membership Drive

A flyer was produced for distribution at the two main Renal Pathology Sessions at the USCAP. The membership committee members, Dr’s Glen Markowitz and Maria Picken, distributed the Flyers with application forms at these sessions and their presence was made known by the session chairs.

Members were encouraged to provide the flyer as information to fellow renal pathologists not already members of the society. Flyers and applications were distributed at the RPS Business Meeting.

A mail-out campaign was discussed by the committee, the Executive Committee and the RPS as a whole at the business meeting. It was decided to approach the ASN and the ISN to determine if a subset of their mailing list could be developed including those in that group identifying themselves as Pathologists. If available, this list would be cross-referenced with the current RPS membership and a flyer sent to the non-members. The committee chair was authorized to obtain exact cost information for flyer production, mailing list cost and postage.

Estimated cost:

a. 200 Flyers: Tri-fold Glossy Brochure Paper $53.45;Color Printing @ $0.06/side = 400*0.06 = $24.00. Total $77.45 for 200 color brochures or $387.25/1000

b. 200 Application forms B&W @ $0.03 = 200*.03 = $6.00. Total $6.00 for 200 application forms or $30/1000

c. Mailing list costs will vary from free (USCAP might provide them) to $300 - $400

d. Postage: we can arrange pre-sorted first class rate of $0.19 - $0.22 per brochure depending on the number sent out at a time. Total about $200/1000 for postage

e. Grand Total = $650-$1000/1000 depending on mailing list cost

Other methods to increase membership and overall RPS visibility

a. Web Site Update. Information from the various committees should be posted to the web-site under the oversight of the communications committee (that committee has also sought input from the RPS membership to this very end). This provides up to date information for prospective members.

b. Dr. Fred Silva, the executive director of the USCAP, may well be our best ambassador as he travels the country visiting Departments of Pathology. Perhaps he should have a supply of our brochures.

Education/Scientific Committee

Dr. Stillman reported on the efforts to improve the RPS web-site to make it more interactive in order to expand collaborative activities.

Training Programs Committee

A brief but spirited discussion of the issue of Board certification for Renal Pathology was led by Lorraine Racusen, representing the Training Programs committee. This topic has been on the table and being explored for some time as a way of making training in Renal Pathology more viable, and potentially more feasible financially. Three major options have emerged:

Maintain the status quo - "ad hoc" fellowships, not formalized, several unfilled, many with trainees from abroad who do not do renal pathology on completion of training;
Accreditation a. by the ACGME. This involves a process, paperwork, and site visits. Also, as official trainees if an accredited program, fellows could not bill directly. Benefits would include: formalization (and a level of recognition) of training programs; would potentially make training programs more attractive and competitive compared to other specialty training options; and accredited programs are more likely to be funded by institutions. There is an existing ACGME "Special Pathology" category which would be an (initial) option toward formal Renal Pathology accreditation. (Options are covered on the acgme web-site, www.acgme.org). b. by a professional organization. The RPS could do this, but would be time-consuming, likely to take a long time to develop, and lack the level of recognition that ACGME accreditation would bring.

c. Board certification. This would be a prolonged process, involving time and effort in winning ABP and ABME approval and in maintaining a testing component.

Dr. Schwartz emphasized the time and effort needed to achieve Board certification. While no formal vote was taken, the consensus emerged that accreditation should be explored as a next step, initially via the "Specialty Pathology" category, with the potential to progress to a separate accreditation for Renal Pathology, and perhaps ultimately to Board certification. Dr. Colvin ended the discussion by emphasizing that, in his opinion, for true development and recognition as a discipline, Renal Pathology should work toward the ultimate goal of Board certification.

An additional bit of information was gleaned from a recent all-day session of the ADASP re: board certification for Surgical Pathology fellowships (they opted for accreditation and not certification). The ADASP is interested in creating SP fellowships that contain a significant exposure to one or more subspecialty areas. While they did not specifically discuss Renal Pathology as part of that scenario, we will be contacting the ADASP to formally propose consideration of this option.

Communications Committee

The committee members, Helen Liapis, Kim Solez and Suzanne Meleg-Smith (chair), communicated by e-mail and telephonically. In accordance with the Committee Charge, conversations focussed on ways to increase communication inside the RPS, and between RPS and other medical societies. Helen Liapis suggested the idea of "RPS yellow pages", that would facilitate the identification of renal pathologists interested in specific issues. Suzanne Meleg-Smith, with input from the Membership and the Research committee members, will design a form to obtain the information for the "yellow pages". Kim Solez will place the "NEPHNPPT E-mail discussion group for renal pathology" under the auspices of the RPS.

The RPS web-site is an important tool for the Communication committee. In order to enhance the communication between renal and general pathologists, a link was established from the USCAP web-site to the RPS Chicago Renal Specialty Conference Cases. A message was sent to all Pathology Residency Directors, to make them aware of the virtual biopsies available on the RPS web-site.

Future plans for the web-site include posting the "RPS yellow pages" and using the site as the communication tool for collaborative studies. To increase RPS visibility, links will be established from other web-sites to ours.

The Communication committee and the web-site are available to support the endeavors of all RPS committees.

Research Committee

Dr. Pullman indicated that the draft of the manuscript relating to the renal biopsy adequacy would be available soon. Research Committee will be reorganized to emphasize 2 major functions: 1-work on RPS projects leading to "position papers" (i.e. renal biopsy adequacy initiative), 2-create a task force to enhance collaborative efforts among members of the Society. The idea is to get people and resources together to facilitate and promote scientific interchange. One of the ideas discussed was to create a Bulletin Board to exchange ideas, create a database for renal diseases, and address concerns of the RPS members. More discussion on this will follow at a later date.

3. A meeting to address the classification of lupus nephritis will take place May 11-13, 2002 in New York. At the Board of Directors meeting, it was approved that the RPS will contribute $5,000 to help defray costs associated with this meeting. Also, donations by several entities (i.e. drug companies) will be made to the RPS to support individuals participating in this meeting.