Frontloading gross anatomy: impacts on medical student performance

Year 2021, Volume: 15 Issue: 3, 240 - 246, 31.12.2021

Hana Anderson , Kenneth A. Beck Richard P. Tucker

Abstract

Objectives: The human gross anatomy course offered at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, is part of a partially integrated foundational block in the first year of the medical curriculum. The block organization was implemented in 2006 in part to foster the horizontal integration of four basic science courses. However, simultaneous instruction in multiple courses presented a challenging workload to students, especially considering the large amount of information covered in anatomy. In an attempt to improve student outcomes, the gross anatomy course was compressed and frontloaded to the first 13 weeks of the foundational block while instructions of other courses were shifted later to make room for the frontloaded gross anatomy course. To assess the effect of frontloading of anatomy on students’ performance, we retrospectively compared the anatomy examination scores between before and after frontloading of the anatomy content.
Methods: Student performance in the gross anatomy course was compared between the pre-frontloading (2013–2015) and post-frontloading (2016–2018) cohorts. Average scores of each examination category (quizzes, midterms, practical and written finals, and overall grades) were calculated and compared between the two cohorts.
Results: Scores on the written final and practical final examinations and the overall grade in gross anatomy improved significantly (p<0.05) in the post-frontloading cohort (n=323) compare to the pre-frontloading cohort (n=343).
Conclusion: Moving gross anatomy forward and offering a compressed course may be an option for educators looking to improve student performance without increasing student contact hours, concomitantly allowing focused learning and mastery of anatomy content.

Keywords

anatomical education, assessment, curriculum reorganization, gross anatomy, student performance

References

• Bourgeois JA, Ton H, Onate J, McCarthy T, Stevenson FT, Servis ME, Wilkes MS. The doctoring curriculum at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine: leadership and participant roles for psychiatry faculty. Acad Psychiatry 2008;32:249–54.
• Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE guide no. 96. Med Teach 2015;37:312–22.
• Dahle LO, Brynhildsen J, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, Rundquist I, Hammar M. Pros and cons of vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum: examples and experience from Linköping, Sweden. Med Teach 2002;24:280–5.
• Dolmans D, Schmidt H. The advantage of problem-based curricula. Postgrad Med J 1996;72:535–8.
• Prince KJAH, van Mameren H, Hylkema N, Drukker J, Scherpbier AJJA, van der Vleuten CPM. Does problem-based learning lead to deficiencies in basic science knowledge? An empirical case on anatomy. Med Educ 2003;37:15–21.
• Doomernik DE, van Goor H, Kooloos JGM, Ten Broek RP. Longitudinal retention of anatomical knowledge in second-year medical students. Anat Sci Edu 2017;10:242–8.
• Zill SN. Rethinking gross anatomy in a compressed time frame: clinical symptoms, not case studies, as the basis for introductory instruction. Clin Anat 2021;34:57–70.
• Young JQ, Van Merrienboer J, Durning S, Ten Cate O. Cognitive load theory: implication for medical education: AMEE guide no. 86. Med Teach 2014;36:371–84.
• Zhao C, Hu Y. Reflections on study strategy modifications using cognitive load theory and dual processing theory in the first year of medical school. Med Sci Educ 2021;31:813–8.
• van Merriënboer JJG, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Med Educ 2010;44:85–93.
• Bolender DL, Ettarh R, Jerrett DP, Laherty RF. Curriculum integration = curriculum disintegration: what does this mean for anatomy? Anat Sci Educ 2013;6:205–8.
• Peterson CA, Tucker RP. Undergraduate coursework in anatomy as a predictor of performance: comparison between students taking a medical gross anatomy course of average length and a course shortened by curriculum reform. Clin Anat 2005;18:540–7.
• Ravid R. Practical statistics for educators. 6th ed. London: Rowan & Littlefield; 2020. p. 32–4.
• Smith CF, Mathias HS. Medical students’ approaches to learning anatomy: students’ experiences and relations to the learning environment. Clin Anat 2010;23:106–14.
• Ferguson KJ. Facilitating student learning. In: Huggett K, Jeffries W, editors. An introduction to medical teaching. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014. p. 1–9.
• Kötter T, Wagner J, Brüheim L, Voltmer E. Perceived medical school stress of undergraduate medical students predicts academic performance: an observational study. BMC Med Educ 2017;17:256.
• Slade AN, Kies SM. The relationship between academic performance and recreation use among first-year medical students. Med Educ Online 2015;20:25105.
• Bergman EM, Prince KJ, Drukker J, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ. How much anatomy is enough? Anat Sci Educ 2008;1:184–8.
• Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anat Sci Edu 2010;3:83–93.
• McBride JM, Drake RL. National survey on anatomical sciences in medical education. Anat Sci Educ 2018;11:7–14.
• Peterson CA, Tucker RP. Medical gross anatomy as a predictor of performance on the USMLE Step 1. Anat Rec B New Anat 2005; 283:5–8.
• Kretovics MA, Crowe AR, Hyun E. A study of faculty perceptions of summer compressed course teaching. Innov Higher Educ 2005;30: 37–51.
• Sinclair DC. The place of anatomy in the medical curriculum. Postgrad Med J 1957;33:160–4.
• Muller JH, Jain S, Loeser H, Irby DM. Lessons learned about integrating a medical school curriculum: perceptions of students, faculty and curriculum leaders. Med Educ 2008;42:778–85.
• Farey JE, Bui DT, Townsend D, Sureshkumar P, Carr S, Roberts C. Predictors of confidence in anatomy knowledge for work as a junior doctor: a national survey of Australian medical students. BMC Med Educ 2018;18:174.
• Johnston S, Vaughan B. ‘We need one more hour solely based on anatomy… Give us anatomy!’: Early-year learner perceptions of anatomy within an integrated & case-based learning osteopathy curriculum. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 2020;36:49– 54.
• Daniel M, Morrison G, Hauer KE, Pock A, Seibert C, Amiel J, Poag M, Ismail N, Dalrymple JL, Esposito K, Pettepher C, Santen SA. Strategies from 11 U.S. Medical schools for integrating basic science into core clerkships. Acad Med 2021;96:1125–1130.
• Webb AL, Smyth L, Hafiz M, Valter K. The question of dissection in medical training: Not just “if,” but “when”? A student perspective. Anat Sci Educ 2022;15:281–290.
• Klement BJ, Paulsen DF, Wineski LE. Anatomy as the backbone of an integrated first year medical curriculum: design and implementation. Anat Sci Educ 2011;4:157–69.
• Klement BJ, Paulsen DF, Wineski LE. Implementation and modification of an anatomy-based integrated curriculum. Anat Sci Educ 2017;10:262–75.
• Van der Veken J, Valcke M, De Maeseneer J, Schuwirth L, Derese A. Impact on knowledge acquisition of the transition from a conventional to an integrated contextual medical curriculum. Med Educ 2009;43:704–13.