Needs assessment of essential anatomy: The perspective of adult primary care resident physicians

Curricular development and modification involve first identifying a problem and then performing a needs assessment, which can guide the design of curricular components. Pedagogical changes, coupled with reductions in curricular time for gross anatomy, pose challenges and impose restrictions within m...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Anatomical sciences education 2023-05, Vol.16 (3), p.504-520
Hauptverfasser: Hankin, Mark H., Harmon, Derek J., Martindale, James R., Niculescu, Iuliana, Aschmetat, Adrienne, Mertens, Amy N., Hanke, Rachel E., Koo, Andrew S., Kraus, Anthony E., Payne, James A., Feldman, Michael J., Soltero Mariscal, Enrique
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 520
container_issue 3
container_start_page 504
container_title Anatomical sciences education
container_volume 16
creator Hankin, Mark H.
Harmon, Derek J.
Martindale, James R.
Niculescu, Iuliana
Aschmetat, Adrienne
Mertens, Amy N.
Hanke, Rachel E.
Koo, Andrew S.
Kraus, Anthony E.
Payne, James A.
Feldman, Michael J.
Soltero Mariscal, Enrique
description Curricular development and modification involve first identifying a problem and then performing a needs assessment, which can guide the design of curricular components. Pedagogical changes, coupled with reductions in curricular time for gross anatomy, pose challenges and impose restrictions within medical school curricula. In order to make anatomy education effective and efficient, it is important to determine the anatomy considered essential for medical education through a targeted needs assessment. In this study, 50 adult primary care resident physicians in family medicine (FM) and internal medicine (IM) were surveyed to assess the importance of 907 anatomical structures, or groups of structures, across all anatomical regions from a curated list based on the boldface terms in four primary anatomy texts. There were no statistically significant differences in the ratings of structures between the two groups for any anatomical region. In total, 17.0% of structures, or groups of structures, were classified as essential, 58.0% as more important, 24.4% as less important, and 0.7% as not important. FM residents rated tissues classified as skeleton, nerves, fasciae, anatomical spaces, blood vessels, lymphatics, and surface anatomy (p  0.0056). It was notable that 100.0% of cranial nerves were classified as essential, and 94.5% of surface anatomy structures were classified as essential or more important. It is proposed that results of this study can serve to inform curricular development and revision.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ase.2252
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2762818596</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1376625</ericid><sourcerecordid>2811264403</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3712-fdc097c8120afc5220989d95f985f8b1858d87a12985b0f0239c661dc9f575e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtLJDEUhYM4-Ab_gBJw46acJNWpStw10joOMi7sfUynbjBSL3OrlP73pqd7WhBmlRPOx7n3HkJOObvijImfFuFKCCl2yAHXucx0qdjuVpdinxwivjJWMC7FHtnPi0KIspgckOc_ABVSiwiIDbQD7TxNMqlga2pbO3TN8prOX4D2ELEHN4R3WFG2GuuB9jE0Ni6psxFoBAzVKqR_WWJwwbZ4TH54WyOcbN4jMr-dzW9-ZQ-Pd_c304fM5SUXma8c06VTXDDrnRSCaaUrLb1W0qsFV1JVqrRcpP-CeSZy7YqCV057WUrIj8jlOraP3dsIOJgmoIO6ti10I5p0rVApRRcJvfiGvnZjbNNyJiFcFJMJy78CXewQI3izudRwZlalm1S6WZWe0PNN4LhooNqC_1pOwNkagBjc1p795nmZEJn8bO1_hBqW_x1kpk-zvwM_AVA5k7k</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2811264403</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Needs assessment of essential anatomy: The perspective of adult primary care resident physicians</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Hankin, Mark H. ; Harmon, Derek J. ; Martindale, James R. ; Niculescu, Iuliana ; Aschmetat, Adrienne ; Mertens, Amy N. ; Hanke, Rachel E. ; Koo, Andrew S. ; Kraus, Anthony E. ; Payne, James A. ; Feldman, Michael J. ; Soltero Mariscal, Enrique</creator><creatorcontrib>Hankin, Mark H. ; Harmon, Derek J. ; Martindale, James R. ; Niculescu, Iuliana ; Aschmetat, Adrienne ; Mertens, Amy N. ; Hanke, Rachel E. ; Koo, Andrew S. ; Kraus, Anthony E. ; Payne, James A. ; Feldman, Michael J. ; Soltero Mariscal, Enrique</creatorcontrib><description>Curricular development and modification involve first identifying a problem and then performing a needs assessment, which can guide the design of curricular components. Pedagogical changes, coupled with reductions in curricular time for gross anatomy, pose challenges and impose restrictions within medical school curricula. In order to make anatomy education effective and efficient, it is important to determine the anatomy considered essential for medical education through a targeted needs assessment. In this study, 50 adult primary care resident physicians in family medicine (FM) and internal medicine (IM) were surveyed to assess the importance of 907 anatomical structures, or groups of structures, across all anatomical regions from a curated list based on the boldface terms in four primary anatomy texts. There were no statistically significant differences in the ratings of structures between the two groups for any anatomical region. In total, 17.0% of structures, or groups of structures, were classified as essential, 58.0% as more important, 24.4% as less important, and 0.7% as not important. FM residents rated tissues classified as skeleton, nerves, fasciae, anatomical spaces, blood vessels, lymphatics, and surface anatomy (p &lt; 0.0001) significantly higher than IM residents, but there were no differences in the rating of muscles or organs (p &gt; 0.0056). It was notable that 100.0% of cranial nerves were classified as essential, and 94.5% of surface anatomy structures were classified as essential or more important. It is proposed that results of this study can serve to inform curricular development and revision.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1935-9772</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1935-9780</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ase.2252</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36622764</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley</publisher><subject>Adult ; Anatomy ; Anatomy - education ; Curriculum ; Curriculum Development ; family medicine ; Family Practice (Medicine) ; Graduate Students ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; medical curriculum ; Medical Education ; Medical Schools ; Medical Students ; Needs analysis ; Needs Assessment ; Physicians ; Primary care ; Primary Health Care ; undergraduate medical education</subject><ispartof>Anatomical sciences education, 2023-05, Vol.16 (3), p.504-520</ispartof><rights>2023 American Association for Anatomy.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2023 American Association for Anatomy</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3712-fdc097c8120afc5220989d95f985f8b1858d87a12985b0f0239c661dc9f575e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3712-fdc097c8120afc5220989d95f985f8b1858d87a12985b0f0239c661dc9f575e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3958-9468 ; 0000-0002-1508-4206</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fase.2252$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fase.2252$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1376625$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36622764$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hankin, Mark H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harmon, Derek J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martindale, James R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Niculescu, Iuliana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aschmetat, Adrienne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mertens, Amy N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hanke, Rachel E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koo, Andrew S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kraus, Anthony E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Payne, James A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feldman, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soltero Mariscal, Enrique</creatorcontrib><title>Needs assessment of essential anatomy: The perspective of adult primary care resident physicians</title><title>Anatomical sciences education</title><addtitle>Anat Sci Educ</addtitle><description>Curricular development and modification involve first identifying a problem and then performing a needs assessment, which can guide the design of curricular components. Pedagogical changes, coupled with reductions in curricular time for gross anatomy, pose challenges and impose restrictions within medical school curricula. In order to make anatomy education effective and efficient, it is important to determine the anatomy considered essential for medical education through a targeted needs assessment. In this study, 50 adult primary care resident physicians in family medicine (FM) and internal medicine (IM) were surveyed to assess the importance of 907 anatomical structures, or groups of structures, across all anatomical regions from a curated list based on the boldface terms in four primary anatomy texts. There were no statistically significant differences in the ratings of structures between the two groups for any anatomical region. In total, 17.0% of structures, or groups of structures, were classified as essential, 58.0% as more important, 24.4% as less important, and 0.7% as not important. FM residents rated tissues classified as skeleton, nerves, fasciae, anatomical spaces, blood vessels, lymphatics, and surface anatomy (p &lt; 0.0001) significantly higher than IM residents, but there were no differences in the rating of muscles or organs (p &gt; 0.0056). It was notable that 100.0% of cranial nerves were classified as essential, and 94.5% of surface anatomy structures were classified as essential or more important. It is proposed that results of this study can serve to inform curricular development and revision.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Anatomy</subject><subject>Anatomy - education</subject><subject>Curriculum</subject><subject>Curriculum Development</subject><subject>family medicine</subject><subject>Family Practice (Medicine)</subject><subject>Graduate Students</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>medical curriculum</subject><subject>Medical Education</subject><subject>Medical Schools</subject><subject>Medical Students</subject><subject>Needs analysis</subject><subject>Needs Assessment</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Primary Health Care</subject><subject>undergraduate medical education</subject><issn>1935-9772</issn><issn>1935-9780</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEtLJDEUhYM4-Ab_gBJw46acJNWpStw10joOMi7sfUynbjBSL3OrlP73pqd7WhBmlRPOx7n3HkJOObvijImfFuFKCCl2yAHXucx0qdjuVpdinxwivjJWMC7FHtnPi0KIspgckOc_ABVSiwiIDbQD7TxNMqlga2pbO3TN8prOX4D2ELEHN4R3WFG2GuuB9jE0Ni6psxFoBAzVKqR_WWJwwbZ4TH54WyOcbN4jMr-dzW9-ZQ-Pd_c304fM5SUXma8c06VTXDDrnRSCaaUrLb1W0qsFV1JVqrRcpP-CeSZy7YqCV057WUrIj8jlOraP3dsIOJgmoIO6ti10I5p0rVApRRcJvfiGvnZjbNNyJiFcFJMJy78CXewQI3izudRwZlalm1S6WZWe0PNN4LhooNqC_1pOwNkagBjc1p795nmZEJn8bO1_hBqW_x1kpk-zvwM_AVA5k7k</recordid><startdate>202305</startdate><enddate>202305</enddate><creator>Hankin, Mark H.</creator><creator>Harmon, Derek J.</creator><creator>Martindale, James R.</creator><creator>Niculescu, Iuliana</creator><creator>Aschmetat, Adrienne</creator><creator>Mertens, Amy N.</creator><creator>Hanke, Rachel E.</creator><creator>Koo, Andrew S.</creator><creator>Kraus, Anthony E.</creator><creator>Payne, James A.</creator><creator>Feldman, Michael J.</creator><creator>Soltero Mariscal, Enrique</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3958-9468</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1508-4206</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202305</creationdate><title>Needs assessment of essential anatomy: The perspective of adult primary care resident physicians</title><author>Hankin, Mark H. ; Harmon, Derek J. ; Martindale, James R. ; Niculescu, Iuliana ; Aschmetat, Adrienne ; Mertens, Amy N. ; Hanke, Rachel E. ; Koo, Andrew S. ; Kraus, Anthony E. ; Payne, James A. ; Feldman, Michael J. ; Soltero Mariscal, Enrique</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3712-fdc097c8120afc5220989d95f985f8b1858d87a12985b0f0239c661dc9f575e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Anatomy</topic><topic>Anatomy - education</topic><topic>Curriculum</topic><topic>Curriculum Development</topic><topic>family medicine</topic><topic>Family Practice (Medicine)</topic><topic>Graduate Students</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>medical curriculum</topic><topic>Medical Education</topic><topic>Medical Schools</topic><topic>Medical Students</topic><topic>Needs analysis</topic><topic>Needs Assessment</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Primary Health Care</topic><topic>undergraduate medical education</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hankin, Mark H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harmon, Derek J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martindale, James R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Niculescu, Iuliana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aschmetat, Adrienne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mertens, Amy N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hanke, Rachel E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koo, Andrew S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kraus, Anthony E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Payne, James A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feldman, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soltero Mariscal, Enrique</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Anatomical sciences education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hankin, Mark H.</au><au>Harmon, Derek J.</au><au>Martindale, James R.</au><au>Niculescu, Iuliana</au><au>Aschmetat, Adrienne</au><au>Mertens, Amy N.</au><au>Hanke, Rachel E.</au><au>Koo, Andrew S.</au><au>Kraus, Anthony E.</au><au>Payne, James A.</au><au>Feldman, Michael J.</au><au>Soltero Mariscal, Enrique</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1376625</ericid><atitle>Needs assessment of essential anatomy: The perspective of adult primary care resident physicians</atitle><jtitle>Anatomical sciences education</jtitle><addtitle>Anat Sci Educ</addtitle><date>2023-05</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>504</spage><epage>520</epage><pages>504-520</pages><issn>1935-9772</issn><eissn>1935-9780</eissn><abstract>Curricular development and modification involve first identifying a problem and then performing a needs assessment, which can guide the design of curricular components. Pedagogical changes, coupled with reductions in curricular time for gross anatomy, pose challenges and impose restrictions within medical school curricula. In order to make anatomy education effective and efficient, it is important to determine the anatomy considered essential for medical education through a targeted needs assessment. In this study, 50 adult primary care resident physicians in family medicine (FM) and internal medicine (IM) were surveyed to assess the importance of 907 anatomical structures, or groups of structures, across all anatomical regions from a curated list based on the boldface terms in four primary anatomy texts. There were no statistically significant differences in the ratings of structures between the two groups for any anatomical region. In total, 17.0% of structures, or groups of structures, were classified as essential, 58.0% as more important, 24.4% as less important, and 0.7% as not important. FM residents rated tissues classified as skeleton, nerves, fasciae, anatomical spaces, blood vessels, lymphatics, and surface anatomy (p &lt; 0.0001) significantly higher than IM residents, but there were no differences in the rating of muscles or organs (p &gt; 0.0056). It was notable that 100.0% of cranial nerves were classified as essential, and 94.5% of surface anatomy structures were classified as essential or more important. It is proposed that results of this study can serve to inform curricular development and revision.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><pmid>36622764</pmid><doi>10.1002/ase.2252</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3958-9468</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1508-4206</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1935-9772
ispartof Anatomical sciences education, 2023-05, Vol.16 (3), p.504-520
issn 1935-9772
1935-9780
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2762818596
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Adult
Anatomy
Anatomy - education
Curriculum
Curriculum Development
family medicine
Family Practice (Medicine)
Graduate Students
Humans
Internal Medicine
medical curriculum
Medical Education
Medical Schools
Medical Students
Needs analysis
Needs Assessment
Physicians
Primary care
Primary Health Care
undergraduate medical education
title Needs assessment of essential anatomy: The perspective of adult primary care resident physicians
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T15%3A14%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Needs%20assessment%20of%20essential%20anatomy:%20The%20perspective%20of%20adult%20primary%20care%20resident%20physicians&rft.jtitle=Anatomical%20sciences%20education&rft.au=Hankin,%20Mark%20H.&rft.date=2023-05&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=504&rft.epage=520&rft.pages=504-520&rft.issn=1935-9772&rft.eissn=1935-9780&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ase.2252&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2811264403%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2811264403&rft_id=info:pmid/36622764&rft_ericid=EJ1376625&rfr_iscdi=true