Assessment of anatomical knowledge for clinical practice: perceptions of clinicians and students.

PURPOSE: In anatomy education, assessment may be done by written, practical or oral methods. These are used to varying degrees in UK medical schools with no consensus on the preferred approach. The purpose of this article is to highlight changes to methods of anatomical knowledge assessment utilised in medical schools since the early 1990s and to present recommended methods of assessment according to the level of medical training. METHODS: Medical students, trainees and specialists in the London (UK) area were surveyed to: (1) identify methods experienced in anatomy education at medical school and (2) gather recommendations. Medical student, trainee and specialist responses were compared using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-eight individuals responded to the survey giving a response rate of 53%. Subjects who graduated before 2005 were assessed significantly more frequently by practical (94.2 vs. 33.3%) and oral (84.5 vs. 13.1%) methods than those whose graduation year was 2005 or later. Subjects whose graduation year was 2005 or later were assessed significantly more frequently by written methods, such as EMQs than those whose graduation was before 2005 (68.7 vs. 25.2%). Practical examination was identified as the most recommended method of assessment in anatomy education by medical students (59.1%), trainees (all stages combined; 54.2%) and specialists (51.7%). CONCLUSION: Practical assessment is recommended over written and oral methods for the assessment of anatomical knowledge. A formal evaluation of the relative benefits and limitations of available assessment tools is required.

Is the structure of anatomy curriculum adequate for safe medical practice?

INTRODUCTION: Anatomy has been considered a core subject within the medical education curriculum. In the current setting of ever-changing diagnostic and treatment modalities, the opinion of both students and trainers is crucial for the design of an anatomy curriculum which fulfils the criteria required for safe medical practice. METHODS: Medical students, trainees and specialist trainee doctors and specialists from the London (England) area were surveyed to investigate the how curriculum changes have affected the relevance of anatomical knowledge to clinical practice and to identify recommendations for optimum teaching methods. The survey employed 5-point Likert scales and multiple-choice questions. Where the effect of training level was statistically significant (p < 0.05), post-hoc analysis was carried out using Mann-Whitney U tests. Significance levels were modified according to the Bonferroni method. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-eight individuals completed the survey giving a response rate of 53%. Medical students, trainees and specialists all agreed (mean Likert score 4.51, 4.79, 4.69 respectively) that knowledge of anatomy is important for medical practice. Most of the trainees (88.4%) and specialists (81.3%) used dissection to learn anatomy, but only 61.4% of medical students used this approach. Dissection was the most commonly recommended approach for learning anatomy across all the groups (41.7%-69.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of anatomy is perceived to be important for safe clinical practice. Anatomy should be taught with other relevant system or clinical modules. Newer tools for anatomy teaching need further validation before incorporation into the curriculum.