141 - Does Gross Anatomy Laboratory Design and Delivery Impact Team Charter Effectiveness?

Poster Board Number: 141
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Alex Meredith - Department of Anatomy & Neurobiology VCU SOM; Kelly Harrell - Department of Anatomy & Neurobiology VCU SOM

Abstract Body : Introduction & Objective

Over the past two decades there has been a push in medical education to design curricula that promotes teamwork. Medical gross anatomy, especially the laboratory component, provides a well-established framework to support pre-clinical teamwork training, as students are placed into dissection teams with a common set of goals. Past experience has shown that, while most teams are successful, some exhibit various levels of dysfunction. To address this gap, a Team Charter (TC) intervention was developed. TC established a framework to help teams create a shared mental model that included team roles, expectations, goals, and approaches to conflict resolution and debriefing. TC was implemented across four, first-year medical student cohorts enrolled in the medical gross anatomy curriculum. Due to mandated pandemic-related limitations, each cohort experienced different versions of medical gross anatomy. This mixed-methods study examines the hypothesis that the TC intervention can serve as an effective pre-clinical tool for building teamwork, independent of course design and delivery.

Materials & Methods

Gross anatomy laboratory teams (n=128) received instructions on the TC intervention. The TC consists of: TC1: team-building assignment; TC2: mid-course team survey; and TC3: end-of-course, individual evaluation. Assignment and survey data were collected, de-identified, and organized for qualitative and quantitative analyses. Mid-course and end-of-course Likert-scale data were analyzed to investigate impact of the intervention across cohorts (and course delivery formats) on both team and individual learner levels. Thematic analysis of qualitative TC data is underway.

Results

Completion rates of TC1 and TC2 were 96.1% (n=123/128) and 97.7% (n=125/128) across cohorts . At the mid-course mark, all cohorts agreed/strongly agreed that team expectations (mean=3.87; SD+/-0.07) and goals (mean=3.83; SD+/-0.05) were being met and team members contributed to tasks completion (mean=3.83; SD+/-0.09). TC3 revealed that the most effective and ineffective elements of the TC were setting expectations and establishing tasks/roles, respectively, across all cohorts. Teaching faculty did not observe overt team dysfunction.

Conclusion

Results suggest that a priori identification of clearly-defined team elements and mid-course reflection, promote teamwork and reduce team dysfunction in the gross anatomy laboratory, independent of course design and delivery.

Significance/Implications

Team-based gross anatomy, regardless of design, can serve as a landing pad for integration of early, pre-clinical team-building interventions. Ultimately, early exposure can have positive implications for their future clinical team-based practice.