OBJECTIVES: One of the goals of medical education is to bridge the gap between basic science and clinical practice. Students acquire basic science knowledge during their pre-clinical years, yet have limited opportunities to apply this knowledge clinically. This hands-on laboratory exercise was designed to facilitate a review of anatomy in the context of select clinical procedures, highlighting the application of anatomical concepts in clinical practice. METHODS: In 2008, Year 2 medical students participated in a clinical procedures laboratory taught by senior residents and attending physicians. Before participating, all students completed anatomy and clinical pre-tests and received syllabi detailing the select procedures and the anatomy pertinent to each. Students were organised into experimental (EG, n = 48) and control (CG, n = 17) groups. The EG observed and practised five procedures on cadavers and the CG participated in a traditional anatomy review laboratory with no procedural demonstrations or practice. Anatomy and clinical post-tests were administered to both groups following the 3-hour interventions. Surveys and focus sessions were used to assess student opinions. RESULTS: Scores on the anatomy pre- and post-tests were compared and were found to have significantly increased (P <or= 0.015) in each group, with the EG performing better than the CG (P = 0.001). The EG also showed significant improvement in clinical post-test scores (P < 0.001). Clinical test scores in the CG did not improve (P = 0.393). CONCLUSIONS: Review of anatomy coupled with the teaching of clinical procedures results in an anatomical review superior to that of traditional methods, enhances knowledge of clinical procedures, and heightens students' awareness of the relationships between basic science and clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: One of the goals of medical education is to bridge the gap between basic science and clinical practice. Students acquire basic science knowledge during their pre-clinical years, yet have limited opportunities to apply this knowledge clinically. This hands-on laboratory exercise was designed to facilitate a review of anatomy in the context of select clinical procedures, highlighting the application of anatomical concepts in clinical practice. METHODS: In 2008, Year 2 medical students participated in a clinical procedures laboratory taught by senior residents and attending physicians. Before participating, all students completed anatomy and clinical pre-tests and received syllabi detailing the select procedures and the anatomy pertinent to each. Students were organised into experimental (EG, n = 48) and control (CG, n = 17) groups. The EG observed and practised five procedures on cadavers and the CG participated in a traditional anatomy review laboratory with no procedural demonstrations or practice. Anatomy and clinical post-tests were administered to both groups following the 3-hour interventions. Surveys and focus sessions were used to assess student opinions. RESULTS: Scores on the anatomy pre- and post-tests were compared and were found to have significantly increased (P <or= 0.015) in each group, with the EG performing better than the CG (P = 0.001). The EG also showed significant improvement in clinical post-test scores (P < 0.001). Clinical test scores in the CG did not improve (P = 0.393). CONCLUSIONS: Review of anatomy coupled with the teaching of clinical procedures results in an anatomical review superior to that of traditional methods, enhances knowledge of clinical procedures, and heightens students' awareness of the relationships between basic science and clinical practice.