“Where Are They Now?” Experiences and Outcomes of the Anatomy Training Program
Authors: Rompolski Krista Lee 
Published: April 2020

There is known shortage of trained anatomy educators (Wilson et al., 2019). There are also few options for formal post‐graduate training in gross anatomy for motivated individuals. In 2008, the Anatomy Training Program (ATP) was developed as a partnership between the Anatomical Society and the American Association of Anatomy (AAA) to address this need (Fraher & Evans, 2009). The trainee experiences in the program, as well as perceptions of the program, have not be formally captured. It is also unknown how the program completion progressed the trainees’ careers. To address these questions, an anonymous online survey was created by one participant, the presenter, and was approved by the Drexel University IRB and the AAA. The survey consisted of questions capturing demographics, average time spent on the module and the interactions of trainees with their mentors, as well as Likert‐style questions addressing the usefulness of feedback from assessors, clarity of expectations from the handbook, and overall experience as a participant. Open‐ended questions addressed if and how the trainees' careers changed as a result of the ATP. Twenty‐two individuals responded to the survey. Participants were required to have completed at least one module to respond. Twenty of the respondents passed all modules taken. The average time per week spent on the modules was 7.6 hours per week, with the majority reporting 5–10 hours per week. The overwhelming majority (21) of participants felt that the program met or exceeded their expectations. Sixty percent of the respondents met with their mentors less than the recommended time in the handbook (once per week) and despite recommendations, 45% of participants reported that their mentors never set up regular assessments or set their schedules for dissection and learning outcomes. Most participants felt the handbook was “somewhat clear” in preparing them for assessments at the residential school. Since the mentor is described in the handbook as the key link between the trainee and residential school, the group was divided by time spent with mentor every week into two groups ‐ those who did and did not meet on the suggested schedule of once per week. Chi square analysis between these groups revealed that there were no between group differences in perceptions on clarity of the handbook, likelihood of recommending the program, expectations for the program, module completion, or work‐life balance (sig p=.1). The open‐ended questions that asked if the ATP was perceived by potential employers as sufficient training, and how the ATP impacted the trainees' careers, were analyzed using thematic analysis to further explain the survey responses. Despite falling short on mentor interactions, nearly all participants who participated in the survey successfully completed the modules and would recommend the program to others. It is possible that those who did not pass one or more modules chose not to participate, potentially skewing the results. Recommendations based on the survey results and personal experience in the program will be provided.