Premium
Unmasking the Structure of Gross Anatomy Laboratory Sessions During Covid‐19
Author(s) -
Dennis Jennifer,
Attardi Stefanie,
Bentley Danielle,
Brown Kirsten,
Farkas Gary,
Goldman Haviva,
Harmon Derek,
Harrell Kelly,
Klein Barbie,
Ramnanan Christopher,
Barremkala Malli
Publication year - 2021
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.2021.35.s1.01781
Subject(s) - gross anatomy , test (biology) , covid-19 , medical physics , session (web analytics) , medical education , medicine , psychology , anatomy , computer science , pathology , biology , infectious disease (medical specialty) , paleontology , world wide web , disease
/OBJECTIVE Covid‐19 created immediate challenges to anatomy education. The traditional format of gross laboratory sessions experienced a direct impact and few reports documented curricular delivery changes specific to laboratory format. The purpose of this study was to assess the adaptations incorporated in gross anatomy laboratories by anatomists, during May‐August 2020, in response to Covid‐19. MATERIALS/METHODS Data were collected through the IRB‐approved Virtual Anatomy During Covid‐19 survey that consisted of 20 questions, including open‐ended prompts asking participants to describe the structure of a “typical” laboratory session during Covid‐19. Responses were solicited from professional anatomy associations during June 2020. Open‐ended responses describing anatomy laboratory teaching methods used during Covid‐19 were coded. Descriptive codes were applied to the data according to published methods to summarize verbatim responses. Responses were tabulated and converted to frequencies and percentages. Chi square test assessed differences among the responses when applicable. Alpha<5%. RESULTS Descriptions of gross anatomy lab teaching during Covid‐19 were coded into four categories : (1) delivery format, (2) format of laboratory practice, (3) type of anatomy digital resources used, and (4) format of student teaching groups. In the first category, synchronous (46.7%), asynchronous (15.6%), and/or a combination of the two (18.8%) were the most frequent laboratory delivery formats (P<0.001). In the second category, student‐led dissection (17.2%), prosection (10.9%), and/or utilization of commercial and/or in‐house anatomical resources (26.2%) were the most frequent laboratory practices (P<0.001). Within this category, a subcategory was discovered in which physical distancing and personal protective equipment practices were reported (15.6%). Concerning the third category, anatomy digital resources (26.2%) were used for asynchronous laboratory preparation and laboratory sessions. In the final category, student small groups (29.7%) were used in remote sessions where “breakout rooms” permitted students to meet with peers and/or faculty. Large groups (9.4%) were used for faculty to review and present the assigned laboratory topic. CONCLUSION Anatomists largely taught through a remote, synchronous delivery format that relied on cadaveric specimens and digital anatomy resources, as well as small group learning. SIGNIFICANCE/IMPLICATION: This study shows that anatomists were able to adapt the gross anatomy laboratory sessions to synchronous, virtual mediums; however, the impact of these changes to the learner during this unconventional time remains to be determined.