Objective: We sought to identify the challenges of paper-based documentation and quantify the benefits of transitioning to a digital platform for resident grossing competency evaluation.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of resident grossing competency documentation and administered surveys to assess satisfaction with an established paper-based system. Following implementation of a digital laboratory information system (LIS)-based process, we reassessed resident grossing documentation, with a 1-month crossover comparison of the 2 methods and a 6-month follow-up evaluation of the LIS-based method.
Results: Overall, resident grossing completion was 37% (745 total completed of 2016 total required) with the paper-based system. Residents forgot documentation "sometimes" (7/17 [41.2%]), "often" (4/17 [23.5%]), or "always" (2/17 [11.8%]); experienced delays in obtaining signatures from attending physicians (14/17 [82.4%]); and reported feeling neutral (6/17 [35.3%]) or dissatisfied (6/17 [35.3%]) with the paper-based system. In the 1-month crossover period, the paper-based system generated 21 competency completions with 3 constructive comments compared with 31 competency completions and 10 -constructive comments collected through the LIS-based process. Documentation levels further increased in the 6-month period following the switch to LIS alone, with means of 97 competencies and 14 constructive comments documented per month.
Conclusions: Transition to a LIS-based system led to greater competency completion capture and constructive feedback. The success of the digital LIS-based system was facilitated by using an easy and familiar system with routine clinical workflows.
Keywords: gross evaluation; pathology education; quality assurance; specimen.
© The Author(s) 2026. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pathology All wrights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.