89 - Reimagining Imaging Anatomy Education

Poster Board Number: 89
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Abstract Body : Introduction and Objective: The laboratory portion of the anatomy course is viewed as an important part of medical school education. However, in practice, most physicians will apply their anatomical knowledge in the context of interpreting imaging. At the same time, studies suggest that medical students are often underprepared to interpret imaging in their clinical rotations and even in residency. VCOM Auburn has begun incorporating imaging assignments into each anatomy laboratory and during the practical exam. This assignment, by design, introduced more topic uncertainty and required more effort which, according to learning science, yields better results. In this educational program evaluation, we aimed to determine whether increased uncertainty and learning effort in imaging anatomy assignments and material yields better performance on examinations compared to tagged structures on donors, with which students felt more comfortable.

Methods: For each lab session, in addition to cadaveric dissection, students are expected to work with their teams to identify and label structures in imaging. They are given access to DICOM files and asked to identify structures that correspond to the structures that they are dissecting that day. Rather than memorizing labeled images for the exam, students must actively practice locating structures on unlabeled imaging files using their knowledge of anatomy. A survey was given to students 3 days before the exam asking whether they felt more prepared for imaging compared to cadaveric structures. The first laboratory practical exam of the anatomy course included 15 imaging questions and 35 cadaver questions, for a total of 50 questions. IRB approval was granted by VCOM for this study.

Results: Table groups (n=30) reported a mean 4.1 +/- .58 (out of 5) confidence in preparation for identifying anatomical structures on donors compared with imaging at 2.4 +/- .79 (out of 5). Mean and standard deviation of exam imaging item performance was 85 +/- 15% correct, which was significantly higher (P= 0.0001) than exam items tagged on donors at 79 +/- 12% correct.

Conclusion: Therefore, although students felt more confident in their ability to correctly answer cadaver questions, and learning imaging anatomy involved more uncertainty and greater effort, students performed better on imaging items in the context of a practical examination.

Significance: Although some studies suggest students may prefer to learn imaging through didactic lectures, these results suggest that didactic lectures may not be the most effective way for students to become competent in reading medical imaging.