Background: The weekly held clinical pathologic case conference popularly known as CPC provides an effective and regular educational media of collaborative learning for inter-disciplinary exchange of knowledge among the faculty members of an institution. CPC has been routinely practiced for the last two decades in School of medical Sciences (SMS) at Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). An hour session primarily involves a case presentation hiding the diagnosis followed by discussion on differential diagnosis and floor interaction on interesting clinical cases. It also gives an opportunity to new teaching staff in the institution to experience an in-house practice of presenting the clinical cases; witch can readily be reproduced as a case report for publication. An effort to follow the original format of CPC is comprehended as an essential outcome of this study to keep up the sanctity of CPC as a case method of learning medicine in future. Methodology: A questionnaire-based survey was recently conducted to evaluate the weekly held CPC in SMS. It was a cross sectional survey in which a questionnaire comprising of 23 items was administered to a targeted population of faculty members of School of Medical Sciences. The items in questionnaire were grouped into 5 clusters. All respondents were adequately briefed through a letter addressing the objectives and importance of survey and its appraisal aiming to revamp the CPC guided by the out-come of study. Questionnaires were administered to 240 academic staff, covering > 80% of the target population of 294 faculty members. 159 (66.2%) members of sample population completed the questionnaires. Total non-responses were 81 (33.7%) and item non-responses were 320 (8.7%) Result: All the items in questionnaire were found significant (p 0.016) except those two items related to, observing a difference in preparing for a case presentation verses a formal CPC presentation and its promotion (p 0.556 and 0.197 respectively). It was also established that the major respondents were unaware of the original format of CPC (p 0.003) in which a presenter select and prepares a case, which is discussed with participating faculty members for its differential diagnoses. 51.6% faculty members did not follow the formal CPC format (p 0.016) in their presentations. A lack of awareness about the format of CPC was shown by (61.0%) faculty members (p 0.003). Conclusion : It was concluded that emphasis to discuss the differential diagnosis by a competent discussant was lacking, as presenters did not follow the formal CPC format. It was critically observed that a number of presentations made in this weekly program deviate from the original format adapted by SMS in USM. However, the out-come appraisal of this survey was the pledge shown by the majority faculty members to adapt the guidelines as a reverence to the formal CPC format.