Medical question (2 Viewers)

[iStudent]

I wouldn't underestimate surgeon trainees...

While this isn't entirely the point of the the thread, I like this article on how much anatomy is done in medicine courses, it's interesting how widely it varies: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=medpapers

I'd say in medicine (at least at UNSW in the early years) the anatomy isn't necessarily just about what's clinically relevant, we definitely learn things in quite a bit more detail than that. But obviously there can't be as much emphasis as a degree majoring in anatomy.

I'm serious. We have a course for surgeon trainees (lasts a few weeks) and the tutors there are medical students who did well in anat100.

 

[Kiraken]

Does the anatomy teaching also need concurrent surgical teaching though? I.e. applications of certain surgical techniques, where and how to perform grafts etc.?

Like i'm assuming a surgical trainee needs more of a practical focus in their education thanthe basic anatomy

 

[iStudent]

Does the anatomy teaching also need concurrent surgical teaching though? I.e. applications of certain surgical techniques, where and how to perform grafts etc.?

Like i'm assuming a surgical trainee needs more of a practical focus in their education thanthe basic anatomy

I'm not too sure. Amirbang might know. I just know the course is somewhat similar to what we do for anat100 (we learn anatomy by doing full body dissections - which obviously includes being taught dissection techniques etc).

 

[Medman]

I suck at anatomy and I'm a doctor. I think that speaks for itself. As for the anatomy covered in med school pales in comparison to what surgeons learn. You will be surprised at how little "medicine" some surgeons know as they ask for consults on minor medical issues in the minds of physicians. When it comes down to anatomy surgeons know their craft and they know the branches of the so and so nerve.

 

[Schmeag]

I'm not too sure. Amirbang might know. I just know the course is somewhat similar to what we do for anat100 (we learn anatomy by doing full body dissections - which obviously includes being taught dissection techniques etc).

Correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds like some kind of short course or part of a Diploma of Anatomy--these would be available for graduates or even medical students to undertake pre-SET.
Some pre-SET trainees like to take up a teaching post as anatomy tutors to medical students to further their knowledge or CV.
Dissecting cadavers is not a formal part of the SET curriculum as far as I am aware.

 

[bangladesh]

Does the anatomy teaching also need concurrent surgical teaching though? I.e. applications of certain surgical techniques, where and how to perform grafts etc.?

Like i'm assuming a surgical trainee needs more of a practical focus in their education thanthe basic anatomy

Nah not really. It's all anatomy teaching but it's very in depth. It's some form of anatomy diploma accredited by the royal australian college of surgeons. From some of the stories our professor tells us, you'd be surprised how limited the knowledge of some of the doctors who come to the course is. (future surgery fellows)

 

[Medman]

Anatomy teaching can be purely anatomical. However cadavers are not the same as real live specimens. I am all for dissection but limited resources limits the capabilities. Would be awesome if virtual reality headsets in the future can bypass limited resources but then you could argue it's still not the real thing.

 

[Schmeag]

Nah not really. It's all anatomy teaching but it's very in depth. It's some form of anatomy diploma accredited by the royal australian college of surgeons. From some of the stories our professor tells us, you'd be surprised how limited the knowledge of some of the doctors who come to the course is. (future surgery fellows)

I think there are a few points that need to be addressed here regarding the expected knowledge of doctors in relation to anatomy.

I agree that the Diploma of Anatomy is more extensive in its anatomy content than in medical school, but this is in part due to the complete focus on anatomy, greater access to dissection and probably an increased motivation from the student. From what I understand, the Dip Anat tends to focus on the specialty of interest, ie for orthopaedics, a candidate might be asked to describe all the landmarks of the femur, but not be examined on other parts. The Dip Anat would be most beneficial to supplement theoretical knowledge in a specific surgical specialty--I do not believe it has a place in supplementing practical experience, given that practical experience is gained by attending theatre. Dissection is good to get a feel of the human body, but is not equivalent. Additionally, technical proficiency accounts only for a small part of a great surgeon and it is important not to get too engrossed in this one subject.

I would regard the perceived lack of knowledge of so-called future surgical fellows with a grain of salt. Many residents with a surgical inclination, but limited surgical experience, view the Dip Anat as a natural stepping stone to enter surgical training, and this is often completed prior to entering SET. As entry into a Dip Anat is not restricted to surgical trainees and Professors in anatomy are reknowned for bemoaning the failures of anatomy teaching in universities, I don't know how much stock I would take in the above comment.

In any case, students undertake a Dip Anat to refresh their memory/supplement existing knowledge, so I guess you can't fault them for not knowing much at the beginning. Rather, it is those that do not accredit themselves in current practice that you should be worried about! Cardiologists may not be accustomed to conducting advanced life support scenarios, general surgeons may not be acclimatised to correcting their vascular complications and gastroenterologists can't fix significant bowel complications from endoscopy. It is perfectly acceptable for doctors to have such limitations with the caveat that they need to recognise and act on these limitations.

I think it is important to reiterate that a significant portion of anatomy taught in medical school becomes obsolete for most doctors and what is important is the clinically relevant material. It is said that the highest point of general knowledge of a doctor was at his/her final exam as a medical student. While I find the concept of medical students teaching surgical trainees rather odd (given that trainees tend to have decent translation from theoretical to practical experience compared to medical students), it could definitely be argued that medical students fresh out of anatomy would have the greatest knowledge of theoretical anatomy.

 

[Queenroot]

Got my marks back for 1st spot test. 83% :/ better luck next time
Although my rank (only reason I care is because i want a prize) is not too bad

 

[Speed6]

Got my marks back for 1st spot test. 83% :/ better luck next time
Although my rank (only reason I care is because i want a prize) is not too bad

Well done Adrita! Thats a good mark I'm sure?!?

 

[Queenroot]

Well done Adrita! Thats a good mark I'm sure?!?

Relative to the cohort average which is 60% yeah. But not good enough to be 1st in course

I try harder

 

[Queenroot]

I have to beat 11 people

 

[Speed6]

I have to beat 11 people

You can do it!!!!!

 

[Speed6]

Medical Students:

What was your current/previous experience with ANAT?

 

[Queenroot]

FUNDUS

 

[Speed6]

bottom

 

[bangladesh]

i hate it. Mostly because our anatomy elective is so hard lol. Med anatomy is fine

 

[Havox]

this will never not be funny :")

Found it rather elbowy.

 

[iStudent]

i hate it. Mostly because our anatomy elective is so hard lol. Med anatomy is fine

Hear hear

 

[Speed6]