Anatomists are well placed to tackle the transition from face-to-face to blended learning approaches as a result of the rapidly forced changes brought about by Covid-19. The subject is extremely visual and has therefore previously been a target for the development of technology enhanced learning initiatives over the last ten years. Today's students have come to expect the integration of technology in the classroom and remotely. They adjust quickly to the innovative use of new applications and software and have begun to integrate it within their own workflow for note taking and study aids. Given the intense drive towards blended deliveries of anatomy as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is easy to picture how the benefits of working in partnership with students (in order to achieve many of these aims) would be possible, particularly in difficult subjects like neuroanatomy. In doing so, it provides anatomists with new opportunities to engage students in a way that aligns well with best practice frameworks for engaging students through partnership. The current United Kingdom guidelines set out by Advance HE (a professional membership scheme for promoting excellence in higher education) strongly encourages the higher education community to seek out appropriate academic contexts where a balance of power can be struck between staff and student to create a community of practice. If such an approach can be fully embraced by anatomists, a strong argument can be made for seizing the opportunity to optimize the benefits of student partnership work in this discipline.

Near-Peer Teaching (NPT) is increasingly becoming an integral part of the medical curriculum. When considered alongside the increasing popularity of interdisciplinary education, it seems appropriate to explore NPT within an interdisciplinary context. In these observations, 3rd-year medical students taught 2nd-year psychology students neuroanatomy. The session was evaluated using three objective and subjective assays. A knowledge assessment test showed significant improvement after teaching, and there were significant improvements on self-perceived knowledge/attitudes towards neuroanatomy, as well as positive feedback on the use of NPT. These observations evidence the successful use of Interdisciplinary Near-Peer Teaching (INPT) within a neuroanatomical curriculum.

Aims:The inception of the National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England in 2006 highlighted the fact that the differential diagnosis between the presence of epithelial misplacement and adenocarcinoma occurring in colorectal adenomas is problematic. The pathology Expert Board (EB) was created to facilitate the review of difficult cases by a panel of three experienced gastrointestinal pathologists. This article describes a review of the work of the EB over a 4-year period (2017-2020). Methods and results: Four hundred and thirty polyps were referred to the EB from 193 pathologists and 76 hospitals during this time. The EB diagnosis was benign for 67%, malignant for 28%, and equivocal for 2% (with no consensus in the remainder). The most common diagnosis change made by the EB was from malignant to benign-made in 50% of polyps referred with an initially malignant diagnosis. The level of agreement between the individual EB members was 'good' (kappa score of 0.619) but that between the EB and the referring diagnosis was 'poor' (kappa score of 0.149). Data from one EB member indicated that the presence of lamina propria, features of torsion and cytological similarity between the superficial and deep glands were predictors of a benign diagnosis, whereas the presence of irregular neoplastic glands, a desmoplastic reaction and lymphovascular invasion were commonly observed features in polyps with a malignant diagnosis. Conclusion: Diagnostic agreement between EB members is better than that between the EB and referring pathologists. There was a consistent trend for the EB to change diagnoses from malignant to benign.

Methods of assessment in anatomy vary across medical schools in the United Kingdom (UK) and beyond; common methods include written, spotter, and oral assessment. However, there is limited research evaluating these methods in regards to student performance and perception. The National Undergraduate Neuroanatomy Competition (NUNC) is held annually for medical students throughout the UK. Prior to 2017, the competition asked open‐ended questions (OEQ) in the anatomy spotter examination, and in subsequent years also asked single best answer (SBA) questions. The aim of this study is to assess medical students’ performance on, and perception of, SBA and OEQ methods of assessment in a spotter style anatomy examination. Student examination performance was compared between OEQ (2013–2016) and SBA (2017–2020) for overall score and each neuroanatomical subtopic. Additionally, a questionnaire explored students’ perceptions of SBAs. A total of 631 students attended the NUNC in the studied period. The average mark was significantly higher in SBAs compared to OEQs (60.6% vs. 43.1%, P < 0.0001)—this was true for all neuroanatomical subtopics except the cerebellum. Students felt that they performed better on SBA than OEQs, and diencephalon was felt to be the most difficult neuroanatomical subtopic (n = 38, 34.8%). Students perceived SBA questions to be easier than OEQs and performed significantly better on them in a neuroanatomical spotter examination. Further work is needed to ascertain whether this result is replicable throughout anatomy education.

Background Neurophobia has been identified as a potential barrier to adequate knowledge of neurology in the medical community, and therefore to patient safety. There is a drive to identify the source of neurophobia, in the hope of tackling it. Comparing the learning motivations of standard medical students with those who enjoy neuroanatomy may be a way of doing this. Methods The science motivation questionnaire (SMQ) was modified for neuroanatomy. It was distributed to three cohorts of second year medical students and students attending the extracurricular National Undergraduate Neuroanatomy Competition (NUNC). Cohen’s D test for effect size was used to compare standard medical students and those attending the NUNC. Results Five hundred ninety-seven questionnaires were completed by second year students, and 320 by NUNC attendees. The differences in motivation to learn neuroanatomy between the 2 groups mainly fell into themes of career motivation, personal relevance, intrinsic motivation and assessment anxiety. Conclusion This study has demonstrated the use of the SMQ in neuroanatomy, and found differences in motivators to learn neuroanatomy between self-selecting “neurophiles” and standard medical students, mainly relating to intrinsic motivation and its role in their lives. More research is needed to further explore these differences and how they might apply to interventions in medical school curricula.

Despite well-documented benefits, the effectiveness of some aspects of near-peer (NP) teaching in medical education within anatomy curricula remains unclear. Here, we explored the impact of various permutations of staff/student laboratory-based co-teaching in neuroanatomy by determining the optimal staff and student teaching combination. We assessed student perceptions and knowledge acquisition using three different co-teaching strategies. Second-year medical students at the University of Southampton were co-taught neuroanatomy by faculty staff and third-year medical students (NP teachers). Three cohorts, 2016/2017, 2017/2018, and 2018/2019, were included in the study. Subsequent cohorts experienced increasingly structured NP teaching with more NP teachers. Students completed evaluations for anatomy sessions, which were statistically compared. The 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 cohorts completed lunchtime quizzes matched to the learning outcomes of each practical session, which were analysed. A focus group involving six students was transcribed and thematically analysed. Anatomy practical ratings were significantly higher when both session structure and NP teacher numbers increased from 3 to 5–6 (p = 0.0010) and from 3 to 7–8 (p = 0.0020). There were no significant differences in anatomy practical ratings using 5–6 and 7–8 NP teachers (p > 0.9999). There were no significant differences between the knowledge scores of students who experienced 5–6 and 7–8 NP teachers. Themes detailing the benefits of NP teaching and the importance of faculty involvement were identified, demonstrating that students appreciated NP teaching within a co-teaching environment. Therefore, increased NP teaching may augment students’ perceptions and knowledge acquisition. In this context, the optimal number of NP teachers may sit between 5 and 8.

No abstract