Relevance of anatomy to medical education and clinical practice: perspectives of medical students, clinicians, and educators

Introduction: Against a backdrop of ever-changing diagnostic and treatment modalities, stakeholder perceptions (medical students, clinicians, anatomy educators) are crucial for the design of an anatomy curriculum which fulfils the criteria required for safe medical practice. This study compared perceptions of students, practising clinicians, and anatomy educators with respect to the relevance of anatomy education to medicine. Methods: A quantitative survey was administered to undergraduate entry (n = 352) and graduate entry students (n = 219) at two Irish medical schools, recently graduated Irish clinicians (n = 146), and anatomy educators based in Irish and British medical schools (n = 30). Areas addressed included the association of anatomy with medical education and clinical practice, mode of instruction, and curriculum duration. Results: Graduate-entry students were less likely to associate anatomy with the development of professionalism, teamwork skills, or improved awareness of ethics in medicine. Clinicians highlighted the challenge of tailoring anatomy education to increase student readiness to function effectively in a clinical role. Anatomy educators indicated dissatisfaction with the time available for anatomy within medical curricula, and were equivocal about whether curriculum content should be responsive to societal feedback. Conclusions: The group differences identified in the current study highlight areas and requirements which medical education curriculum developers should be sensitive to when designing anatomy courses.

Convergence and translation: attitudes to inter-professional learning and teaching of creative problem-solving among medical and engineering students and staff

Background: Healthcare worldwide needs translation of basic ideas from engineering into the clinic. Consequently, there is increasing demand for graduates equipped with the knowledge and skills to apply interdisciplinary medicine/engineering approaches to the development of novel solutions for healthcare. The literature provides little guidance regarding barriers to, and facilitators of, effective interdisciplinary learning for engineering and medical students in a team-based project context. Methods: A quantitative survey was distributed to engineering and medical students and staff in two universities, one in Ireland and one in Belgium, to chart knowledge and practice in interdisciplinary learning and teaching, and of the teaching of innovation. Results: We report important differences for staff and students between the disciplines regarding attitudes towards, and perceptions of, the relevance of interdisciplinary learning opportunities, and the role of creativity and innovation. There was agreement across groups concerning preferred learning, instructional styles, and module content. Medical students showed greater resistance to the use of structured creativity tools and interdisciplinary teams. Conclusions: The results of this international survey will help to define the optimal learning conditions under which undergraduate engineering and medicine students can learn to consider the diverse factors which determine the success or failure of a healthcare engineering solution.

Systems 1 and 2 thinking processes and cognitive reflection testing in medical students

Background: Diagnostic decision-making is made through a combination of Systems 1 (intuition or pattern-recognition) and Systems 2 (analytic) thinking. The purpose of this study was to use the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) to evaluate and compare the level of Systems 1 and 2 thinking among medical students in pre-clinical and clinical programs. Methods: The CRT is a three-question test designed to measure the ability of respondents to activate metacognitive processes and switch to System 2 (analytic) thinking where System 1 (intuitive) thinking would lead them astray. Each CRT question has a correct analytical (System 2) answer and an incorrect intuitive (System 1) answer. A group of medical students in Years 2 & 3 (pre-clinical) and Years 4 (in clinical practice) of a 5-year medical degree were studied. Results: Ten percent (13/128) of students had the intuitive answers to the three questions (suggesting they generally relied on System 1 thinking) while almost half (44%) answered all three correctly (indicating full analytical, System 2 thinking). Only 3-13% had incorrect answers (i.e. that were neither the analytical nor the intuitive responses). Non-native English speaking students (n = 11) had a lower mean number of correct answers compared to native English speakers (n = 117: 1.0 s 2.12 respectfully: p < 0.01). As students progressed through questions 1 to 3, the percentage of correct System 2 answers increased and the percentage of intuitive answers decreased in both the pre-clinical and clinical students. Conclusions: Up to half of the medical students demonstrated full or partial reliance on System 1 (intuitive) thinking in response to these analytical questions. While their CRT performance has no claims to make as to their future expertise as clinicians, the test may be used in helping students to understand the importance of awareness and regulation of their thinking processes in clinical practice.