Essential Anatomy for Required Clerkships: A Clinical Perspective
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Recent changes in undergraduate medical education (UME) include greater integration of basic and clinical sciences and a shorter preclinical curriculum. Kern’s six‐step approach to curriculum development first identifies a problem and then conducts a needs assessment. A problem identified in previous studies was a gap in anatomical knowledge as learners transitioned to clerkships. The purpose of this study was to focus solely on the perspective of clinical faculty in clerkships that are required by at least 50% of U.S. medical schools (AAMC, 2021) regarding the essential anatomy content for clinical practice. We hypothesized that clinicians in Family Medicine (FM), Emergency Medicine (EM), and General Surgery (GS) would rate anatomical structures in each region higher than Internal Medicine (IM), Pediatrics (PD), OBGYN (OB), Neurology (NU), and Psychiatry (PS). Methods A survey was distributed to clinical faculty at 38 institutions in the U.S. and Canada. The survey asked participants to rank anatomical structures from seven body regions on a 1‐4 Likert‐scale (4=essential, 1=not important). The 3 and 4 rating response frequencies for each structure formed a basis for classifications of importance: structures rated 3 or 4 by ≥75.0% were essential, 50.0‐74.9% more important, 25.0‐49.9% less important, and 0.0‐24.9% not important. Kruskal‐Wallis non‐parametric 1‐way ANOVA determined if differences existed between clerkships. Results A total of 606 clinicians completed the survey: EM (N=40), FM (N=110), GS (N=85), IM (N=152), PD (N=80), OB (N=73), NU (N=47), PS (N=19). FM rated anatomical structures significantly higher than at least one other clerkship (p=0.006) in all regions. For all body regions, EM (p=0.005) and GS (p=0.002) rated anatomical structures higher than at least one other clerkship except for the back (EM and GS), and head and neck (GS). Combining the 606 responses, all anatomical structures were classified as essential or more important except the spinal meninges, neurovasculature of the thoracic wall, vessels of the face, the thymus, pelvic and cervical fascia, and lymphatics of the back, upper limb, and lower limb. Conclusions Clinicians within FM, EM, and GS consistently rated anatomical structures significantly higher than clinicians within other required clerkships. The majority of anatomical structures were considered essential or more important across all seven regions by respondents in the eight required clerkships. Significance/Implications: Devising a curriculum that explicitly addresses the gap in anatomical knowledge for learners transitioning to clerkships should be considered a priority for anatomy education. In this study, clinicians that teach within the required clerkships provided a curricular roadmap of the most essential anatomy for clinical practice. The data from this study can assist educators in focusing anatomical learning in the medical curriculum to the most essential content in order to best prepare their students for the required clerkships and future clinical practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».