Premium
Improved Medical Student Perception of Ultrasound Using a Paired Anatomy Teaching Assistant and Clinical Instructor Model
Author(s) -
Smith Jacob,
Kendall John,
Royer Danielle
Publication year - 2017
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.31.1_supplement.582.23
Subject(s) - likert scale , gross anatomy , test (biology) , medical education , medicine , psychology , anatomy , paleontology , developmental psychology , biology
BACKGROUND Ultrasound (US) is an important component of modern clinical practice, creating the need for US exposure and training during medical school. Incorporating US into medical education allows trainees to develop fundamental skills that help ensure that they are adequately prepared for residency. GOAL This study describes and evaluates a new teaching model for US training during medical gross anatomy at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. METHODS During gross anatomy, students participated in five 1‐hour, small‐group, peer scanning sessions: introduction to US, musculoskeletal, cardiothoracic, abdominopelvic, and head and neck. In the 2014 academic year (AY), US sessions were led by a single clinical instructor; in the 2015 AY, the sessions used a new teaching model comprised of an anatomy teaching assistant (TA) paired with a clinical instructor. Both cohorts (N = 184 each) were invited to complete an IRB‐exempt anonymous questionnaire with five Likert‐scale items (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree) measuring perceptions of US and anatomy. Ratings were compared using the Mann‐Whitney U test. The 2015AY questionnaire also solicited student views on the effectiveness of the anatomy TAs using three Likert‐scale items (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). RESULTS Response rates were 89% (2014AY) and 80% (2015AY). Ratings for “US advanced my ability to learn anatomy” increased significantly from 2.91±0.77 in 2014AY to 3.35±0.68 in 2015AY (p<0.0001). Similarly, responses to the statement “Incorporating US increased my interest in anatomy” increased significantly from 3.05±0.84 in 2014AY to 3.50±0.71 in 2015AY (p<0.0001). There was a significant increase from 3.36±0.63 in 2014AY to 3.54±0.53 in 2015AY for the statement “US is relevant to my current educational needs” (p=0.015), and also a significant increase in students agreeing that US training should start in Phase I (2014AY = 3.36±0.71, 2015AY = 3.56±0.59; p=0.010). However, student responses for “US is a valuable tool for my future medical practice” were not significantly different between cohorts (2014AY = 3.75±0.52, 2015AY = 3.73±0.46; p=0.536). 86% of students who experienced the new teaching model agreed or strongly agreed that the anatomy TAs were sufficiently proficient in US (mean = 4.24±0.86), 85% that the TAs enhanced their understanding of anatomy during US (mean = 4.18±0.86), and 85% that TAs were a valuable aspect of the US sessions (mean = 4.23±0.89). CONCLUSIONS The significant improvement in student perception of US as a tool to enhance anatomy education is attributed to the new teaching model utilizing anatomy TAs paired with clinical instructors. Furthermore, medical students viewed the TAs as knowledgeable in both anatomy and US, and considered them a valuable addition to the US sessions. The anatomy TA‐clinical instructor pair is a simple yet powerful teaching model that can improve student learning of anatomy through US.