A Clinically Oriented Approach to Anatomy Instruction in Biomedical Engineering Education Utilizing Cadavers – a Collaborative Approach
Authors: Topping Daniel Brian , Kassab Alain J. , Samsam Mohtashem 
Published: June 2021

Objective

There is a growing need for the services of highly trained biomedical engineers and educational institutions are faced with creating innovative, inexpensive and effective experiences for the entering biomedical engineering (BME) students who often have weak backgrounds in the life sciences. In this report, we describe a novel approach utilizing a classroom and laboratory experience in gross anatomy to meet this need.

Design and Methods

A Masters of Sciences in Biomedical Engineering (MSBME) program was approved at the University of Central Florida. Identifying the practical need for anatomy education, two courses were proposed that would combine a classroom and gross anatomy experience for the first‐year MSBME students. The students attended lectures and attended 6 three‐hour gross anatomy sessions and one “hands on” application experience. Few established programs offer an experience involving cadavers; some incorporate a dissection experience that is resource and time consuming while requiring an impractical amount of contact time and faculty oversight. The UCF College of Medicine faculty designed anatomy laboratory sessions that were scheduled to align with the first‐year medical students' anatomy curriculum. Prior to each session, the students were assigned readings from an anatomy textbook, articles and websites related to biomedical devices and a checklist of structures for which they would be responsible. The students also watched videos that discussed the willed body program, and were briefed by the laboratory staff on safety and lab policies. In class the students were polled using an Audience Response System (ARS) and pre‐ and post‐session quizzes were administered prior to a short lecture that was clinically oriented including medical devices. The students would then proceed to the anatomy lab where they would be exposed to the relevant cadaveric anatomy and on several occasions, medical devices. There was an applied learning activity at the end of the first semester. Assessment of the learners was done through attendance, performance on quizzes and a final writing exercise.

Results

12 students that initially enrolled, none had an undergraduate degree in the biological sciences; and a significant number having no biology experience beyond that in high school (42%). There was a improvement (Table 1) in the post‐session quiz performance as compared to pre‐session during both semesters and the students reported less anxiety over time (Table 2). The students wrote a reflection and several themes emerged ‐ appreciation and motivation for their field of study, gratitude to the donors, a more thorough understanding of anatomy, and a direct application to their current research projects.

Conclusion

Most students entering into graduate‐level BME programs do not have strong backgrounds in the life sciences and courses such as these seem to be an effective and satisfying approach to anatomy education for faculty and students alike. While there was an improvement on in‐class quiz scores after exposure to the cadaveric anatomy sessions, it is not known if biomedical engineers with this sort of experience will have an advantage over their peers in other programs. Further iterations of the course are planned with incorporation of practical “hands‐on” experiences, expert demonstrations of medical devices, more active learning (i.e. team based learning activities) and assessment of professionalism, along with follow up after graduation.

This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.