RESUMEN
The anatomy laboratory can incite strong emotional reactions in students, which can in turn facilitate growth in empathy, care for vulnerable others, and professionalism. Despite this, little is known about the relative emotional impacts of different laboratory modalities. The response to the COVID-19 pandemic created an opportunity to compare the emotional experiences of students in similar courses in which one group of students dissected donors and the other group learned from prosected donors. The courses were otherwise the same in content, length, instructional design, and assessment. Students in the dissection-based (Fall 2019) and prosection-based (Fall 2020) courses completed a previously validated survey that used quantitative and qualitative questions to assess their feelings about the donors and the anatomy laboratory experience. Students in both cohorts reported overall appreciation for having had the experience. Negative themes experienced by both groups included feeling anxiety, worries about depersonalizing donors, and physical discomfort in the laboratory. Students in the dissection course reported stronger connections with the donors and the donors' families but also more frequently felt negative feelings such as disgust, anxiety, and feeling alone. Students in the prosection course reported more consistently positive responses but worried about not using the donors to the fullest extent possible. Regardless of pedagogical design, students have complex emotional experiences in the anatomy laboratory and our results indicate that these feelings may be more intense in the context of dissection. Anatomists should foster educational settings that enable students to learn to process complex or challenging emotions.
RESUMEN
Medical institutions have been forced to modify gross anatomy pedagogy to comply with the health restrictions imposed by the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM) is one such institution that temporarily restructured its course. We replaced cadaveric dissection activities with prosections and placed a greater emphasis on a flipped classroom model. This study investigates the effectiveness of new course materials developed to aid these curriculum changes. Course materials were developed for three purposes: (1) preparation before laboratory sessions (orientation videos and Complete Anatomy (3D4Medical, Elsevier) screens); (2) guidance during laboratory sessions (laboratory guides); and (3) review after laboratory sessions (Zoom recitation sessions). We performed a grounded theory thematic analysis of students' responses (80/160, 50% response) to qualitative survey questions and to focus group questions (16 students who self-selected between 4 different sessions). Data from both the survey and focus groups demonstrated that the vast majority of students agreed that the materials helped them navigate through learning gross anatomy. However, laboratory guides were used mostly for post-lab review as opposed to the intended direction during laboratory sessions. Students within all focus groups overwhelmingly touted the value of Zoom recitation sessions, with many stating that they were imperative to course success. When comparing performance data between 2019 (pre-COVID) and 2020 students, we found that the students who took the anatomy course during the onset of COVID had a slightly higher overall average score in all three modules of the course than compared to the 2019 students. We propose that the utilization of course materials that students perceived as time saving and pertinent to their exam performance, when combined with cadaveric prosection, emphasized the benefits of flipped-classroom learning to help students learn gross anatomy effectively and efficiently during the pandemic and beyond. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-022-01524-x.