100 - Scalpels and Screens: Creating and Implementing an "Edissection" Manual in the Gross Anatomy Laboratory

Poster Board Number: 100
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

James Martin - University of Alabama at Birmingham; Christopher Cesiro - University of Alabama at Birmingham

Abstract Body : Introduction: Anatomical donor dissection remains a critical component of gross anatomy education. Shortages of anatomy educators and increased student enrollment often make it difficult to provide a meaningful dissection experience for learners. The use of dissection videos to improve student knowledge has historically shown mixed outcomes. Moreover, the recently reported platforms for creating these videos are outdated, expensive, and inefficient. We propose a simple, time- and cost-efficient way to increase student engagement in the gross anatomy laboratory and discuss the outcomes, pearls, and pitfalls of creating an “eDissection” manual.









Methods: A GoPro camera was mounted to a microphone stand to provide a low-profile, affordable method of creating 42 short donor dissection videos (mean length: 1:36 ± 0:36; median: 1:38; range: 0:34 – 3:02 [MM:SS]). The Rise 360 web-app was used to generate 5 unique training modules with 19 lessons that were exported as HTML and SCORM files and disseminated to learners via a secured webpage or within a learning management system. Students engaged with content prior to or during the dissection laboratory in real time to guide dissection steps and view structure lists using an interactive checklist. GIF images were embedded in the modules to guide dissection cuts; built-in sorting, matching, and flashcard quizzes provided retrieval practice and immediate feedback to learners. Qualtrics evaluation surveys composed of Likert-scale and free-response items to rate and suggest improvements for the “eDissection” manual were completed by users from links within individual modules.









Results: Student ratings and narrative feedback were collected from four modules used in the School of Medicine and one module for a graduate program. Responses (n=52) indicated that students found the modules helpful to guide dissection (8.8/10 ± 1.3) and understand content (8.6/10 ± 1.5). Narrative feedback suggested the modules were easier to follow than traditional dissection manuals and were preferred by students because it helped them feel more prepared and knowledgeable about the specific dissection. Suggestions for improvement included more videos, tagged structures on donors that the students could identify on their own, and more active learning and retrieval practice activities.









Discussion: The use of an institutionally derived “eDissection” manual using a web-app is preferred by students over traditional commercial and in-house dissection manuals. The process to create this web-based manual is cost- and time-efficient. Interactive features of the manual are largely preferred by learners. Continuous quality improvement of the “eDissection” manual will be guided by faculty and student feedback on the creation and utility of the guide.