Simulation techniques in the anatomy curriculum: review of literature

• Autorzy: Torres K. , Torres A. , Pietrzyk L. , Lisiecka J. , Blonski M. , Bacik-Donica M. , Staskiewicz G. , Maciejewski R.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Modern medical education faces a problem of combining the latest technology, procedures and information with classic teaching methods. Simulation is a technique, which replaces or amplifies doctor–patient experiences in controlled conditions and therefore evokes or replicates substantial aspects of the real world in a fully interactive manner. The basic course of anatomy in medical education could be recognised as the best example of implementing new educational techniques such as simulation, into the traditional medical curriculum. The PubMed database was searched using specific key words. Finally 72 articles were accepted and were divided into 3 basic categories of teaching methods: Category 1 — cadaveric dissection, Category 2 — simulator based education and Category 3 — other. A state of the art anatomical curriculum offers numerous possibilities and solutions including the oldest like cadaveric dissection and newest like simulators. Different simulation techniques are used with different intensity; however cadaveric dissection is still the most popular method. The second most frequent method is simulation-based training, in which North America is the leading country. The identification of anatomical structures during virtual surgical procedures or laparoscopic robotic procedures can be integrated into the traditional anatomy course. New technologies are supportive and beneficial in anatomy teaching however each excitement of new technologies sometimes should be tempered and evaluated for its usefulness in making the learning process constructive for students and their future practice. (Folia Morphol 2014; 73, 1: 1–6)

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Folia Morphologica
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: 73
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.1-6,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Torres K.

• Laboratory of Medical Simulation, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland

autor

Torres A.

• Human Anatomy Department, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland

autor

Pietrzyk L.

• Laboratory of Medical Simulation, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland

autor

Lisiecka J.

• Human Anatomy Department, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland

autor

Blonski M.

• Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, District Specialist Hospital, Lublin, Poland

autor

Bacik-Donica M.

• Human Anatomy Department, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland

autor

Staskiewicz G.

• Human Anatomy Department, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland

autor

Maciejewski R.

• Human Anatomy Department, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Akaike M, Fukutomi M, Nagamune M, Fujimoto A, Tsuji A, Ishida K, Iwata T (2012) Simulation-based medical education in clinical skills laboratory. J Med Invest, 59: 28–35.
• 2. Al-Elq AH (2010) Simulation-based medical teaching and learning. J Family Community Med, 17: 35–40.
• 3. Are C, Stoddard HA, Northam LC, Thompson JS, Todd GL (2009) An experience in surgical anatomy to provide first-year medical students with an early exposure to general surgery: a pilot study. J Surg Educ, 66: 186–189.
• 4. Are C, Stoddard HA, Thompson JS, Tood GL (2010) The influence of surgical demonstrations during an anatomy course on the perceptions of first-year medical students toward surgeons and a surgical career. J Surg Educ, 67: 320–324.
• 5. Azer SA, Eizenberg N (2007) Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of first- and second-year students. Surg Radiol Anat, 29: 173–180.
• 6. Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Caprio T, McGaghie WC, Simuni T, Wayne DB (2012) Simulation-based education with mastery learning improves residents’ lumbar puncture skills. Neurology, 79: 132–137.
• 7. Barsuk JH, McGaghie WC, Cohen ER, O’Leary KJ, Wayne DB (2009) Simulation-based mastery learning reduces complications during central venous catheter insertion in a medical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med, 37: 2697–2701.
• 8. Blevins CE, Cahill DR (1973) Gross anatomy: current courses, training programs, and prospective needs. J Med Educ, 48: 264–270.
• 9. Böckers A, Jerg-Bretzke L, Lamp C, Brinkmann A, Traue HC, Böckers TM (2010) The gross anatomy course: an analysis of its importance. Anat Sci Educ, 3: 3–11.
• 10. Boeckers A, Fassnacht U, Boeckers TM (2008) “Theatrum anatomicum”: a revived teaching facility in gross anatomy. Ann Anat, 190: 495–501.
• 11. Bohl M, Francois W, Gest T (2011) Self-guided clinical cases for medical students based on postmortem CT scans of cadavers. Clin Anat, 24: 655–663.
• 12. Brown PM, Hamilton NM, Denison AR (2012) A novel 3D stereoscopic anatomy tutorial. Clin Teach, 9: 50–53.
• 13. Council on Graduate Medical Education (1997) “Preparing Learners for Practice in a Managed Care Environment”. Health Resources and Services Administration, Washington.
• 14. DiLullo C, Coughlin P, D’Angelo M, McGuinness M, Bandle J, Slotkin EM, Shainker SA, Wenger C, Berray SJ (2006) Anatomy in a new curriculum: facilitating the learning of gross anatomy using web access streaming dissection videos. J Vis Commun Med, 29: 99–108.
• 15. DiLullo C, Morris HJ, Kriebel RM (2009) Clinical competencies and the basic sciences: an online case tutorial paradigm for delivery of integrated clinical and basic science content. Anat Sci Educ, 2: 238–243.
• 16. Donnelly L, Patten D, White P, Finn G (2009). Virtual human dissector as a learning tool for studying cross-sectional anatomy. Med Teach, 31: 553–555.
• 17. Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W (2009) Medical education in the anatomical sciences: the winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ, 2: 253–259.
• 18. Evans DJ, Watt DJ (2005) Provision of anatomical teaching in a new British medical school: getting the right mix. Anat Rec B New Anat, 284: 22–27.
• 19. Fruhstorfer BH, Palmer J, Brydges S, Abrahams PH (2001) The use of plastinated prosections for teaching anatomy: the view of medical students on the value of this learning resource. Clin Anat, 24: 246–252.
• 20. Gaba D (2004) The future vision of simulation in health care. Qual Saf Health Care, 13 (suppl. 1): i2–i10.
• 21. Hariri S, Rawn C, Srivastava S, Youngblood P, Ladd A (2004) Evaluation of a surgical simulator for learning clinical anatomy. Med Educ, 38: 896–902.
• 22. Hofer RE, Nikolaus OB, Pawlina W (2001) Using checklists in a gross anatomy laboratory improves learning outcomes and dissection quality. Anat Sci Educ, 4: 249–255.
• 23. Issenberg SB, Chung HS, Devine LA (2011) Patient safety training simulations based on competency criteria of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Mt Sinai J Med, 78: 842–853.
• 24. Kahn RH, Alden RH, Bennett HS, Bridgman CF, Greulich RC, Leblond CP, Matzke HA, Schmidt AJ, Sidman RL, Singer R (1966) Curriculum, faculty, and training in anatomy. Educational Affairs Committee, American Association of Anatomists. J Med Educ, 41: 956–964.
• 25. Kanchan H. Rao, R. Harsha Rao (2009) Perspectives in Medical Education 8. Enhancing Preclinical Education in Japan with a Clinically Focused, Interactive Anatomy Curriculum. Keio J Med, 58: 210–215.
• 26. Kang SH, Shin JS, Hwang YI (2012) The use of specially designed tasks to enhance student interest in the cadaver dissection laboratory. Anat Sci Educ, 5: 76–82.
• 27. Kerby J, Shukur ZN, Shalhoub J (2011) The relationships between learning outcomes and methods of teaching anatomy as perceived by medical students. Clin Anat, 24: 489–497.
• 28. Lempp HK (2005) Perceptions of dissection by students in one medical school: beyond learning about anatomy. A qualitative study. Med Educ, 39: 318–325.
• 29. Lofaso DP, DeBlieux PM, DiCarlo RP, Hilton C, Yang T, Chauvin SW (2011) Design and effectiveness of a required pre-clinical simulation-based curriculum for fundamental clinical skills and procedures. Med Educ Online, 16.
• 30. Lufler RS, Zumwalt AC, Romney CA, Hoagland TM (2010) Incorporating radiology into medical gross anatomy: does the use of cadaver CT scans improve students’ academic performance in anatomy? Anat Sci Educ, 3: 56–63.
• 31. Maran NJ, Glavin RJ (2003) Low-to high-fidelity simulation: a continuum of medical education? Med Edu, 37: 22–28.
• 32. McLachlan JC (2004) New path for teaching anatomy: living anatomy and medical imaging vs. dissection. Anat Rec B New Anat, 281: 4–5.
• 33. Nugent E, Shirilla N, Hafeez A, O’Riordain DS, Traynor O, Harrison AM, Neary P (2013) Development and evaluation of a simulator-based laparoscopic training program for surgical novices. Surg Endosc, 27: 214–221.
• 34. Nutt J, Mehdian R, Parkin I, Dent J, Kellett C (2012) Cadaveric surgery: a novel approach to teaching clinical anatomy. Clin Teach, 9: 148–151.
• 35. O’Byrne PJ, Patry A, Carnegie JA (2008) The development of interactive online learning tools for the study of anatomy. Med Teach, 30: e260–e271.
• 36. Passiment M, Sacks H, Huang G (2001) Medical Simulation in Medical Education. Results of an AAMC Survey. Association of American Medical Colleges; https://www.aamc.org/download/259760/data/.
• 37. Patel KM, Moxham BJ (2008) The relationships between learning outcomes and methods of teaching anatomy as perceived by professional anatomists. Clin Anat, 21: 182–189.
• 38. Pernar LI, Shaw TJ, Pozner CN, Vogelgesang KR, Lacroix SE, Gandhi TK, Peyre SE (2012) Using an Objective Structured Clinical Examination to test adherence to Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goal--associated behaviors. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf, 38: 414–418.
• 39. Rüsseler M, Weber R, Braunbeck A, Flaig W; Lehrteam des Zentrum Chirurgie, Marzi I, Walcher F (2010) Training of practical clinical skills in surgery: a training concept for medical students. Zentralbl Chir, 135: 249–256.
• 40. Saxena V, Natarajan P, O’Sullivan PS, Jain S (2008) Effect of the use of instructional anatomy videos on student performance. Anat Sci Educ, 1: 159–165.
• 41. Seixas-Mikelus SA, Adal A, Kesavadas T, Baheti A, Srimathveeravalli G, Hussain A, Chandrasekhar R, Wilding GE, Guru KA (2010) Can image-based virtual reality help teach anatomy? J Endourol, 24: 629–634.
• 42. Seropian MA, Brown K, Gavilanes JS, Driggers B (2004) Simulation: not just a Manikin. J Nurs Educ, 43: 164–169.
• 43. Solyar A, Cuellar H, Sadoughi B, Olson TR, Fried MP (2008) endoscopic sinus surgery simulator as a teaching tool for anatomy education. Am J Surg, 196: 120–124.
• 44. Swartz WJ (2006) Using gross anatomy to teach and assess professionalism in the first year of medical school. Clin Anat, 19: 437–441.
• 45. Swick HM (2006) Medical professionalism and the clinical anatomist. Clin Anat, 19: 393–402.
• 46. Takkunen M, Turpeinen H, Viisanen H, Wigren HK, Aarnio M, Pitkäniemi J (2011) Introduction of real patients into problem-based learning in preclinical first-year anatomy curriculum. Med Teach, 33: 854–856.
• 47. Tang L, Chung MS, Liu Q, Shin DS (2010) Advanced features of whole body sectioned images: Virtual Chinese Human. Clin Anat, 23: 523–529.
• 48. Turmezei TD, Tam MD, Loughna S (2009) A survey of medical students on the impact of a new digital imaging library in the dissection room. Clin Anat, 22: 761–769.
• 49. Turney BW, Gill J, Morris JF (2001) Surgical trainees as anatomy demonstrators: revisited. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 83 (suppl.): 193–195.
• 50. Wang J, Zhang W, Qin L, Zhao J, Zhang S, Gu J, Zhou C (2010) Problem-based learning in regional anatomy education at Peking University. Anat Sci Educ, 3: 121–126.
• 51. Waterston SW, Stewart IJ (2005) Survey of clinicians’ attitudes to the anatomical teaching and knowledge of medical students. Clin Anat, 18: 380–384.
• 52. Wilson DR, Nava PB (2010) Medical student responses to clinical procedure teaching in the anatomy lab. Clin Teach, 7: 14–18.
• 53. Zaid H, Ward D, Sammann A, Tendick F, Topp KS, Maa J (2010) Integrating surgical skills education into the anatomy laboratory. J Surg Res, 158: 36–42.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5603/FM.2014.0001