Student Perspectives on a Lab Restricted Gross Anatomy Experience During the COVID‐19 Pandemic: Lessons for the Future of Cadaveric Based Gross Anatomy Lab in Undergraduate Medical Education

Abstract

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVEDuring the COVID‐19 pandemic, gross anatomy laboratory sessions for first year medical students at Drexel University College of Medicine were drastically altered to comply with social distancing restrictions, resulting in increased reliance on virtual resources, limited prosection access and no dissection. We evaluated student perceptions of the various instructional modalities used, importance of dissection versus prosection, and virtual versus donor‐body experiences in order to assess the value of each for gross anatomy learning.MATERIALS/METHODSGross anatomy laboratory sessions during the pandemic included both virtual (Complete Anatomy 3D software over Zoom) and prosection (rotations through stations guided by custom videos) components. An optional “Dissection Experience” was offered after the course to those who wanted to gain hands‐on skills of dissection. A voluntary IRB‐approved survey was distributed to students after completion of all gross anatomy activities. Likert‐scale (1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree) and slider (0= prosection/virtual resources, 100= dissection/physical resources) type questions assessed components of the gross anatomy thread and overall view of anatomy learning in medical education.RESULTSA total of 97/265 first‐year medical students completed the survey and 62% of students completed the “Dissection Experience” elective. 83% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that cadaveric material is essential to medical students learning anatomy. When asked about the preferred amount of prosection (0) to dissection (100) in a gross anatomy course, the responses were the following: 0‐24=8%, 25‐49=23%, 50‐74=42% and 75‐100=27%. 70% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they were satisfied with the prosection lab component. Only 41% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the virtual software was critical to their preparation for the prosection lab. 80% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that cadaveric‐based anatomy teaching should be replaced by virtual/augmented reality applications or other computer‐assisted methods. When asked about the preferred amount of virtual resources (0) to physical resources such as cadaveric material or bones (100), the responses were the following: 0‐24=6%, 25‐49=5%, 50‐74=41% and 75‐100=48%.CONCLUSIONSIn a unique time of restricted lab use during the COVID‐19 pandemic, students were most satisfied with the prosection component of the course over virtual learning. Most students preferred a learning experience with cadaveric material and not fully replacing it with virtual software, and a majority of students completed an optional “Dissection Experience.” These results suggest that most students still wanted the hands‐on dissection component of anatomy learning.SIGNIFICANCEThis study demonstrates the importance of maintaining a cadaver‐based learning experience during times of restricted lab use. It also suggests that medical students may not be as satisfied with programs offering prosection only or virtual anatomy labs.