Premium
Essential Anatomy for Clerkships and Electives–A Multi‐Site Survey of Clinical Educators
Author(s) -
Harmon Derek,
Hankin Mark,
Martindale James,
Farias Anna,
Cotter Meghan M,
Royer Danielle,
Topping Daniel B.,
Latacha Kimberly,
Zumwalt Ann,
Lopez Elisabeth K.N.,
McNary Thomas,
Giannaris E. Lela,
Kar Rekha,
Sakaguchi Alan,
Notebaert Andrew
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.2019.33.1_supplement.607.1
Subject(s) - curriculum , medical education , ranking (information retrieval) , medicine , medical school , clinical practice , clinical clerkship , rank (graph theory) , psychology , family medicine , computer science , pedagogy , machine learning , mathematics , combinatorics
In the era of radical medical curriculum reform, the preclinical anatomy curriculum should not only prepare students for USMLE Step 1, but also provide sufficient knowledge for clinical clerkships and electives. Unfortunately, data regarding the anatomical knowledge considered essential for any given clerkship or elective is lacking. Aim This IRB study addresses the lack of data on the anatomical knowledge required for clinical clerkships and electives using an online survey provided to clerkship/elective educators to evaluate the importance of 98 anatomical items (tissues and structures) across all body regions using a 1‐to‐4 scale (1 = not important, 4 = essential). Methods For each clerkship/elective, the average ranking for each survey item was calculated for each body region; subsequently, an average ranking was calculated across all body regions for each clerkship/elective, as well as a “meta‐rank” for groups of clerkships/electives that were classified as Primary Care, Surgical/Procedural (further subdivided into specialties that ranked all anatomy in all regions vs. those that ranked only specific anatomy in some regions), or Non‐Surgical/Procedural. Results The initial data was from 165 clinical educators (clerkship/elective directors, attending physicians, residents, fellows) in 19 clerkships/electives at 13 medical schools. The table shows the average rankings for each clerkship/elective across all body regions, as well as a “meta‐rank” for broad practice areas. Discussion and Conclusions This expanding database represents the first comprehensive evaluation of the importance to clinical educators of specific tissues and structures in each anatomical region. While some of the average anatomy rankings for specific clerkships/electives were as might be expected (e.g., most surgical/procedural fields ranked anatomy highly whereas psychiatry ranked it very low), there were surprises (e.g., primary care fields as a whole ranked anatomy relatively highly). The rankings of specific anatomy within each region in this database (to be presented at the meeting) will provide detailed information regarding specific anatomical content that anatomists and medical schools can use to focus on in the preclinical years to prepare their students for success in their undergraduate and graduate medical clinical experiences.Average Rankings Across Body RegionsThis abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .