109 - Qualitative Assessment of a Pilot Workshop Integrating Cadaveric Anatomy with Precision Medicine

Poster Board Number: 109
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Colleen Cheverko - Rush University; Lin Kang - Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine; Kasia Michalak - Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine; Pawel Michalak - Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine

Abstract Body : With the increase in direct-to-consumer genetic testing and the lack of trained genetic counselors, particularly in rural areas, today’s physicians have a responsibility to be comfortable evaluating and translating clinical genomic data for their patients. A workshop was hosted by anatomists and geneticists at VCOM-Louisiana to teach second-year osteopathic medical students to interpret genomic data alongside anatomical observations. Mock next-generation sequences were produced and analyzed in Galaxy, an open source, web-based platform for bioinformatic analysis. Students compared the bioinformatic analysis results with student-written descriptions of pathologies and variations discovered during dissection. The causes of death for each donor were cardiovascular disease, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, or senile degeneration. The chosen causes of death provide a spectrum of genetic and environmental causes to challenge the student’s ability to synthesize information across a range of conditions. A pre- and post-workshop survey was administered that included Likert-scale responses and open-ended questions to allow for free response. The pre-workshop survey was given before the start of the workshop and the post-workshop survey was distributed a week after the workshop. This poster presents an analysis of the qualitative responses from these surveys. Data from the free responses were analyzed for common themes and coded with subthemes to assess changes in student perception about precision medicine. Sixteen OMS-II students completed both surveys. The average word count from these responses increased from approximately 20 words per response to 31 words. Mentions of diagnosis and prevention remained the same pre- and post-survey, while there was a small increase in the mentions of treatment. The most substantial difference in the subthemes between the pre- and post-workshop surveys was the sharp increase in discussion of limitations of genomic reports and precision medicine (e.g., privacy, patient misunderstanding, and psychological distress). Despite its promise in the identification and treatment of disease, participants were more comfortable after the workshop identifying and discussing the limitations of precision medicine. Although the current sample is small with only 16 participants, the qualitative results suggest that we can integrate genomic and anatomical information to train future physicians who recognize the potential role of precision medicine reports in medical care and can successfully help their patients understand such reports.