Premium
Bridging the transfer gap: laboratory exercise combines clinical exposure and anatomy review
Author(s) -
Wilson Adam B,
Ross Christopher,
Petty Michael,
Williams James M,
Thorp Laura E
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
medical education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.776
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1365-2923
pISSN - 0308-0110
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03409.x
Subject(s) - syllabus , test (biology) , medicine , clinical practice , context (archaeology) , psychological intervention , medical education , medical physics , psychology , physical therapy , nursing , paleontology , mathematics education , biology
Objectives One of the goals of medical education is to bridge the gap between basic science and clinical practice. Students acquire basic science knowledge during their pre‐clinical years, yet have limited opportunities to apply this knowledge clinically. This hands‐on laboratory exercise was designed to facilitate a review of anatomy in the context of select clinical procedures, highlighting the application of anatomical concepts in clinical practice. Methods In 2008, Year 2 medical students participated in a clinical procedures laboratory taught by senior residents and attending physicians. Before participating, all students completed anatomy and clinical pre‐tests and received syllabi detailing the select procedures and the anatomy pertinent to each. Students were organised into experimental (EG, n = 48) and control (CG, n = 17) groups. The EG observed and practised five procedures on cadavers and the CG participated in a traditional anatomy review laboratory with no procedural demonstrations or practice. Anatomy and clinical post‐tests were administered to both groups following the 3‐hour interventions. Surveys and focus sessions were used to assess student opinions. Results Scores on the anatomy pre‐ and post‐tests were compared and were found to have significantly increased ( P ≤ 0.015) in each group, with the EG performing better than the CG ( P = 0.001). The EG also showed significant improvement in clinical post‐test scores ( P < 0.001). Clinical test scores in the CG did not improve ( P = 0.393). Conclusions Review of anatomy coupled with the teaching of clinical procedures results in an anatomical review superior to that of traditional methods, enhances knowledge of clinical procedures, and heightens students’ awareness of the relationships between basic science and clinical practice.