Medical Student University of Vermont College of Medicine Burlington, Vermont, United States
Abstract Body : Introduction: At the University of Vermont College of Medicine, medical students do not receive formal anatomy instruction after completion of their first five-month course. Thus, students utilize 3rd-party resources (e.g., First Aid) in preparation for Step 1. This study aims to provide medical students with a resource to regularly review anatomy content to improve retention and prep for board exams and clerkship.
Methods: Anatomy review sessions targeted 2nd-year medical students. Sessions were 1-hour and delivered by faculty as workshops with a brief review followed by board-style questions or as integrative reviews where students were given board-style questions without prior review. Students completed pre and posttests to assess content knowledge and a post-session survey, via Qualtrics, to assess satisfaction. Results of the pre and posttests for the first two sessions (n=9 and n=16, respectively) were analyzed; the third session was excluded due to small sample size (n=2). Pre and posttest results were analyzed with GraphPad Prism v9 using a paired t-test. Using Qualtrics, we surveyed 124 1st-year medical students asking about the format, frequency, and perceived helpfulness of these sessions. The Institutional Review Board reviewed all test and survey questions and determined these exempt from full review.
Results: Session 1 had a pretest average of 78.1 and posttest of 81.6 (p=0.3). Session 2 had a pretest average of 70.0 and posttest of 75.9 (p=0.58). Post-session surveys showed high satisfaction with an interest in attending future sessions. When analyzing the survey sent to all 1st-year medical students, 40 students responded. Seventy-nine percent of surveyed students indicated they would attend sessions monthly. When asked about content, respondents were able to select multiple options with the highest ranked being anatomy for Step 1 (95%) and anatomy for current courses (55%). Fifty-one percent of respondents preferred a workshop format and 97% indicated Step style questions would be ideal.
Conclusions: While the pre and posttest scores for the two sessions were not significantly different, the data indicate the sessions supported a modest change in scores. Post-session surveys showed that students found the sessions helpful and were highly interested in future sessions. While this reflects immediate benefit of the sessions, long-term advantage for board prep is still to be determined by surveying medical students post-board exam. We plan to provide monthly workshops with Step style questions on content corresponding with current courses.
Significance: We anticipate these sessions will provide a resource for students when studying for board exams as well as improve retention of critical anatomy concepts.
