Premium
Essential Anatomy for Primary Care vs. Non‐Primary Care Clerkships and Electives
Author(s) -
Hankin Mark,
Harmon Derek,
Martindale Jim,
Keim Sarah,
Topping Daniel,
Farias Anna,
Harrell Kelley,
Marzban Hassan,
Cotter Meghan,
Royer Danielle,
Davies David,
Lopez Lisa,
Carpenetti Tiffany,
Downs Mary Beth,
McNary Thomas,
Latacha Kimberly,
Zumwalt Ann,
Mork Amy,
Wineski Lawrence,
Sanky Charles,
Laitman Jeffrey,
Reidenberg Joy S.,
Brooks William,
Kirera Francis,
Lewis Steven,
Granite Guinevere,
McWhorter David,
Pratt Rebecca,
Notebaert Andrew,
Miriyala Sumitra,
Gest Thomas,
Doroudi Majid,
Giannaris Eustathia Lela,
Kar Rekha,
Sakaguchi Alan,
Lackey-Cornelison Wendy,
Hisley Kenneth
Publication year - 2020
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.2020.34.s1.05766
Subject(s) - specialty , primary care , medicine , family medicine , ranking (information retrieval) , medical education , osteopathic medicine in the united states , clinical practice , medline , curriculum , alternative medicine , psychology , pathology , artificial intelligence , biology , biochemistry , pedagogy , computer science
To prepare medical students for clinical training and practice, it is critical to understand the anatomical knowledge considered most important for different clinical specialties. Aim To address this issue, a consortium of anatomists in the US and Canada is collecting data from clinical educators in clerkships and electives to identify the anatomy they consider essential for their specialty. Methods An IRB‐approved, online survey (Qualtrics, Seattle, WA) was used to assess the importance of 98 anatomical topics in seven body regions. The study first examined the nominal relationship between groups of primary care (Family Medicine, General Internal Medicine, General Pediatrics) and non‐primary care specialties, and whether they considered a given anatomical region important to their clerkship/elective. Second, the study compared the rank assigned by each specialty to each anatomical topic using an ordinal scale from 1 (not important) to 4 (essential). Results At the time of abstract submission, data had been collected from 598 clinicians (clerkship/elective directors and attending physicians) in 19 clerkships/electives at 33 medical schools (allopathic n=28; osteopathic n=5). Relative to Non‐Primary care physicians, Primary Care physicians showed a statistically significant, higher percentage of “Yes” responses for all seven anatomical regions (Table 1). Further data analysis has identified the highest ranking anatomical topics within each region for Primary Care and Non‐Primary Care Specialties. Discussion and Conclusion This database provides detailed information regarding the most clinically relevant anatomical topics as identified by clinical educators. This information can aid in focusing preclinical learning to best prepare medical students for success in their undergraduate and graduate clinical experiences.Responses to the question: Is the anatomy of this body region important to your clinical specialty?