Anatomical Sciences Education, 2022/06, 15(5):827-838. doi: 10.1002/ase.2205, type of study: ,css,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Full text    (https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ase.2205)

Keywords:

Covid-19 prosection [1]
dissection [14]
gross anatomy education [2]
medical education [684]
osteopathic medical education [9]
student satisfaction [1]
cross sectional study [894]

Abstract:

Few realized the extent of disruption that the Covid-19 global pandemic would impose upon higher anatomical education. While many institutions were obliged to adopt a fully-remote online model, the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine strove to develop a curriculum that would allow medical students to receive an in-person anatomy education. A hybrid model that emphasized learning from prosected cadavers and self-study stations was implemented, with the remainder of the students' time directed toward studying at home. Through an anonymous survey aimed at gleaning student satisfaction, this study demonstrates that this hybrid prosection-based anatomy course aligned with student preferences both assuming no health risk (64.6% agreed) and given the current risk of contracting Covid-19 (78.5% agreed). Generally, students felt that their education was equal to that of previous years (Likert scale = 3.24 ± 1.05), fostered an appreciation for anatomy (4.56 ± 0.59), promoted teamwork (4.13 ± 0.85), and prepared them for practical examinations (4.18 ± 0.74). Linear mixed-effect models demonstrated that specific differences in results could be attributed to students' preconceived preferences toward student-led dissections and to past medical training. Importantly, most students “disagree“ (1.97 ± 1.00) that they were concerned about the risk of exposure to Covid-19 during in-person anatomy laboratory sessions. Areas requiring improvement were identified by the model, including the provision of access to the cadavers outside of the regularly scheduled laboratory times (3.89 ± 1.08). These findings should be utilized when designing future gross anatomy courses in response to the “new normal“.