Resident education and quality of gross tissue examination practices of benign uteri

Graduate Medical Education in Pathology: A Scoping Review

CONTEXT.—

Pathologists have produced a substantial body of literature on graduate medical education (GME). However, this body of literature is diverse and has not yet been characterized.

OBJECTIVE.—

To chart the concepts, research methods, and publication patterns of studies on GME in pathology.

DATA SOURCES.—

This was a systematic scoping review covering all literature produced since 1980 in the PubMed and Embase databases.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Research on GME in pathology is evenly dispersed across educational topics. This body of literature would benefit from research based on theory, stronger study designs, and studies that can provide evidence to support decisions on educational policies.

The utility of a gross dissection anatomical model for simulation-based learning in pathology

INTRODUCTION

The examination of morphological alterations in tissues is fundamental in Pathology. Traditional training in gross dissection has several limitations, including the risk of transmissible diseases, formaldehyde exposure and limited specimen availability. We describe a teaching method using anatomical simulators.

METHODS

Liquid silicone-based artisan neoplastic anatomical models were used in conjunction with clinical scenarios. Eighty-five medical students participated in a gross dissection experience and were asked to complete a feedback questionnaire. Additionally, a workshop was organized for students to compare three different teaching methods. The first one used still images (Group1-G1), the second a video explanation (Group2-G2), and the third directly observed a pathologist while grossing (Group3-G3).

RESULTS

The knowledge acquisition questionnaire showed an average value of 4.4 out of 5 (1-5) (range 3.4-4.7, σ0.89). The categories 'knowledge of resection margins' and 'macroscopic diagnosis' received the highest values (4.8, σ0.11 and 4.7, σ0.32, respectively), followed by 'understanding of handling and gross examination of the surgical specimen' (4.5, σ0.49), 'prognosis' (4.3, σ0.67) and 'understanding of a tumor resection' (3.9, σ0.96) (p<0.05). Regarding teaching methods, G3 spent less time than G2 and G1 with mean times of 15'39″ (σ2'12″), 16'50″ (σ3'45″), and 17'52″ (σ2'12″), respectively (p<0.05). Gross dissection marks (0-5) showed statistically significant differences (p<0.05). G2 obtained better results (3.7;σ0.54) than G3 (3.4;σ0.94) or G1 (3.1;σ0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary study demonstrates that it is possible to implement a gross dissection simulation module at medical school and thus enable the acquisition of skills in a secure environment.