10/18/2026
Before reopening a difficult pathology search, it may be worth asking whether the role itself needs to change.
Over the last three or four months, we’ve seen increasing demand for subspecialty-trained pathologists among smaller private groups.
We’re seeing recruiting challenges in both smaller communities and larger cities.
Sometimes the difficulty is location. Other times, it’s the combination of subspecialty expertise, broader case coverage, and on-site responsibilities the group needs one person to handle.
Some candidates want to practice primarily within their fellowship-trained subspecialty. The group needs someone willing and qualified to handle a broader caseload.
Recruiting harder may not resolve that mismatch.
Leadership may need to step back and look at how the work is distributed:
• Which cases require subspecialty expertise?
• Which can appropriately be handled by a broader surgical pathologist?
• Could digital pathology expand access to subspecialty support while preserving the on-site coverage the practice needs?
Digital pathology deserves a place in that discussion, where appropriate for the cases and workflow.
But flexibility has to work for the whole group.
A remote arrangement that attracts one pathologist while leaving the same colleagues carrying every on-site responsibility can create a retention problem alongside the recruiting problem.
The goal is a fair, workable balance of caseload, expertise, and coverage.
From our recruiting conversations, I believe more groups will need to reconsider how the role is structured—not just where they advertise it.
Pathology practice leaders: what changes to case distribution or coverage have made the biggest difference in your recruiting?