Premium
Assessing Higher Education Policy for Pregnant and Lactating Women in Traditional Cadaveric Laboratories
Author(s) -
Bolton Cameron,
Considine Jordan,
Carrero Jessica,
Luster Roxanna,
Boissonnault Jill
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.s1.05000
Subject(s) - cadaveric spasm , medicine , embalming , health care , medical education , family medicine , surgery , political science , anatomy , law
There continues to be a growth of women obtaining jobs in health care professions and in academics related to health care and anatomical sciences. The didactic portion of many health professional programs includes gross human anatomy education with participation in a traditional cadaveric laboratory. Traditional cadaveric laboratories utilize embalming chemicals such as formaldehyde and phenol. Existing literature regarding the effects of formaldehyde and other embalming agents on pregnancy and lactation is limited and conflicting. Additionally, there is minimal, poor quality literature on the spectrum of policies addressing participation of pregnant and/or lactating women in traditional cadaveric laboratories. Objective The purpose of this study was to determine the existence and breadth of policies on pregnant and/or lactating female students, lab personnel, and faculty in traditional cadaveric laboratories. Methods A survey instrument was developed and piloted to the Virginia Association for Human Anatomical Sciences for validation. The survey was then electronically distributed to the Anatomy Educators Special Interest Group of the American Physical Therapy Association, the American Academy of Clinical Anatomists, and the American Association for Anatomy by a post on discussion boards of the respective organizations. Results The survey yielded 42 respondents, totaling 103 programs of different disciplines (i.e. medical school, dentistry, physical therapy, occupational therapy, physician assistant, etc.), utilizing traditional cadaveric laboratories. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. 55% of respondents primarily participate in cadaveric laboratories in a public institution granting doctoral degrees. Approximately 40% of the respondents reported having written policies currently established for pregnant and/or lactating women participating in cadaveric laboratories. When written policies were present, 41% of respondents reported the course coordinator as being involved in developing the written policy, 18% industrial hygienist, 14% program administration, 14% academic subdivision administration, 5% university/community college level administration, and 8% as students. When written policies were absent (60%), respondents noted the implementation of verbal precautions such as seeking consultation from an obstetrician‐gynecologist and wearing additional personal protective equipment (PPE), including a respirator. Conclusion & Significance There are a lack of written policies in place for pregnant and/or lactating women involved in traditional cadaveric laboratories across a variety of health care disciplines. Common recommendations, in lieu of a written policy, include additional PPE layering and the recommendation to follow up with an obstetrician‐gynecologist. Future studies should investigate specific written policy content and the generation of policy at specific institutional and program levels.