Andrew Edwards-Bailey1, Howra Ktayen1, Georgios Solomou2, Emily Bligh3, Abbey Boyle4, Aref-Ali Gharooni5, Guan Hui Tricia Lim6, Adithya Varma7, Susan Standring8, Thomas Santarius5,9, Daniel Fountain1,10. 1. Salford Royal Hospital, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom. 2. Keele University School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, United Kingdom. 3. Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, United Kingdom. 4. Leeds School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 6. University College London Medical School, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 7. Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland. 8. Department of Anatomy, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 9. Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 10. Manchester Centre for Clinical Neurosciences, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical students' perception of neuroanatomy as a challenging topic has implications for referrals and interaction with specialists in the clinical neurosciences. Given plans to introduce a standardised Medical Licensing Assessment by 2023, it is important to understand the current framework of neuroanatomy education. This study aims to describe how neuroanatomy is taught and assessed in the UK and Ireland. METHODS: A structured questionnaire capturing data about the timing, methods, materials, assessment and content of the 2019/2020 neuroanatomy curriculum in the UK and Ireland medical schools. RESULTS: We received 24/34 responses. Lectures (96%) were the most widely used teaching method, followed by prosection (80%), e-learning (75%), tutorials/seminars (67%), problem-based learning (50%), case-based learning (38%), and dissection (30%). The mean amount of core neuroanatomy teaching was 29.3 hours. The most common formats of assessing neuroanatomical knowledge were multiple-choice exams, spot tests, and objective structured clinical exams. Only 37.5% schools required demonstration of core clinical competency relating to neuroanatomy. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey demonstrates variability in how undergraduate neuroanatomy is taught and assessed across the UK and Ireland. There is a role for development and standardisation of national undergraduate neuroanatomy curricula in order to improve confidence and attainment.
BACKGROUND: Medical students' perception of neuroanatomy as a challenging topic has implications for referrals and interaction with specialists in the clinical neurosciences. Given plans to introduce a standardised Medical Licensing Assessment by 2023, it is important to understand the current framework of neuroanatomy education. This study aims to describe how neuroanatomy is taught and assessed in the UK and Ireland. METHODS: A structured questionnaire capturing data about the timing, methods, materials, assessment and content of the 2019/2020 neuroanatomy curriculum in the UK and Ireland medical schools. RESULTS: We received 24/34 responses. Lectures (96%) were the most widely used teaching method, followed by prosection (80%), e-learning (75%), tutorials/seminars (67%), problem-based learning (50%), case-based learning (38%), and dissection (30%). The mean amount of core neuroanatomy teaching was 29.3 hours. The most common formats of assessing neuroanatomical knowledge were multiple-choice exams, spot tests, and objective structured clinical exams. Only 37.5% schools required demonstration of core clinical competency relating to neuroanatomy. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey demonstrates variability in how undergraduate neuroanatomy is taught and assessed across the UK and Ireland. There is a role for development and standardisation of national undergraduate neuroanatomy curricula in order to improve confidence and attainment.
Authors: Jay J Park; Setthasorn Zhi Yang Ooi; Conor S Gillespie; Soham Bandyopadhyay; Yasir A Chowdhury; Georgios Solomou; Melissa Gough; Ulrick Sidney Kanmounye; Alvaro Yanez Touzet; Michael T C Poon; Andreas K Demetriades; Michael D Jenkinson; Alistair Jenkins Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 2.216