Benefits of Anatomy‐Centered Interdisciplinary Review Sessions

Curricular reform in undergraduate medical education is emphasizing integration. While integration of anatomy‐based disciplines (gross anatomy, neuroanatomy, embryology, and histology) in a human morphology block is more commonplace, integration of anatomy with disciplines such as microbiology and pharmacology proves to be more challenging. This presentation describes the process of creating integrated (anatomy, histology, pathology, pharmacology, and microbiology) review sessions in systems‐based curricula. Instructional Method Integrated review sessions were piloted in the following undergraduate medical school courses: gastrointestinal, endocrine, and reproductive systems. Anatomy faculty spearheaded the creation and facilitation of these sessions, which were organized around complex patient cases that easily incorporated multiple disciplines. Exemplar cases included: peptic ulcer, viral hepatitis, gastrointestinal parasites causing bile duct obstruction, hypothyroidism, and infertility. Students were arranged into groups of three to six students and presented with a clinical vignette. Following each patient presentation they were asked a series of multiple‐choice questions (MCQs). MCQs were reflective of USMLE Step 1 exam questions. To arrive at the correct diagnosis, students had to answer a series of multi‐step questions and apply broad inter‐topic knowledge. Answers were revealed simultaneously with follow‐up discussion. Results Sessions were offered prior to the course summative exam and attendance was optional. Participation was approximately 60% of the class, which was greater than previous anatomy‐only review sessions. Student feedback for the content and faculty was positive. Comments included: “A really good review and helped synthesize a lot of things”; “I thought it was a great event. The material was presented clearly, and I thought it was a great use of my time during the review week”; “Everyone was great”. Discussion It is our experience that students often compartmentalize anatomy in the systems courses and approach studying content through rote memorization. We believe that coordinating the integrated review and hosting it within the anatomy thread reinforced the importance of anatomy alongside other basic science disciplines in assessing patient disease and treatment. It is our opinion that inclusion and participation of pharmacology, microbiology, and pathology faculty encouraged a more cohesive study of anatomy within the systems courses. Lastly, we believe that integration of the anatomy content with other disciplines during the sessions improved student attendance. Conclusion The integrated review sessions model current trends in medical education for increased integration across disciplines. Recruiting faculty from multiple disciplines to contribute and facilitate questions covering a variety of factors related to the patient cases models the integrative nature of the STEP 1 exam. Students appreciated this opportunity to answer these types of questions collaboratively in conjunction with immediate faculty feedback on their answer choices and thought processes. Ultimately, the sessions encouraged synthesis of anatomy content beyond the morphology‐based disciplines. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .