4.3 Article

Using Checklists in a Gross Anatomy Laboratory Improves Learning Outcomes and Dissection Quality

Journal

ANATOMICAL SCIENCES EDUCATION
Volume 4, Issue 5, Pages 249-255

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ase.243

Keywords

gross anatomy; gross anatomy laboratory; dissection quality; practical examinations; checklists; assessment; medical education

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Checklists have been widely used in the aviation industry ever since aircraft operations became more complex than any single pilot could reasonably remember. More recently, checklists have found their way into medicine, where cognitive function can be compromised by stress and fatigue. The use of checklists in medical education has rarely been reported, especially in the basic sciences. We explored whether the use of a checklist in the gross anatomy laboratory would improve learning outcomes, dissection quality, and students' satisfaction in the first-year Human Structure didactic block at Mayo Medical School. During the second half of a seven-week anatomy course, dissection teams were each day given a hardcopy checklist of the structures to be identified during that day's dissection. The first half of the course was considered the control, as students did not receive any checklists to utilize during dissection. The measured outcomes were scored on four practice practical examinations and four dissection quality assessments, two each from the first half (control) and second half of the course. A student satisfaction survey was distributed at the end of the course. Examination and dissection scores were analyzed for correlations between practice practical examination score and checklist use. Our data suggest that a daily hardcopy list of anatomical structures for active use in the gross anatomy laboratory increases practice practical examination scores and dissection quality. Students recommend the use of these checklists in future anatomy courses. Anat Sci Educ 4: 249-255. (C) 2011 American Association of Anatomists.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available