In recent years, there has been international debate concerning how students learn anatomy. The rapid increase in scientific knowledge has put pressure on the place of anatomy within the medical and allied health professional curricula, as well as the design and structure of anatomy courses. In this regard, relatively little is known about what medical and allied health professions students want from an anatomy course or how they learn it. To assess students' learning approaches and perceptions of anatomy, a series of psychometric tests were administered to Medical (n=82), Podiatry (n=21), and Pharmacy (n=74) students in the United Kingdom. Analysis of the Anatomy Learning Experience (ALE) questionnaire revealed a predominantly positive attitude towards anatomy and the dissection room, with most valuing cadaveric dissection and not regarding it as a daunting environment. Further to this, analysis of the Approaches to Studying Inventory for Students (ASSIST) revealed predominant preferences for strategic and deep approaches. Personality traits were associated with certain learning approaches; neuroticism with surface (p=0.038), conscientiousness with both a deep and strategic approach (p=0.000 and p=0.060 respectively). Certain personality traits were also found to be associated with anatomy experience e.g. neuroticism and achievement striving felt the most effective way to learn was to get their hands in and feel for structures (p=0.044 and p=0.012 respectively). This study concludes that undergraduate students of medicine, podiatry and pharmacy learn anatomy in slightly different ways. Preparation for classroom activities should centre on the promotion of an optimum learning environment and teaching strategies which promote a deep approach to learning. Understanding students' personality and learning experiences should help teachers improve the students' learning of anatomy for effective application to clinical practice.
Introduction This study evaluates COVID-19 related patient risk, when undergoing management within one of the largest specialist centres in Europe, which rapidly implemented national COVID-19 safety guidelines. Method A prospective cohort study was undertaken in all patients who underwent surgical ( n = 1429) or non-operative ( n = 191) management during the UK COVID-19 pandemic peak (April–May 2020); all were evaluated for 30-day COVID-19 related death. A representative sample of elective/trauma/burns patients (surgery group, n = 729) were selected and also sub-analysed within a controlled cohort study design. Comparison was made to a random selection of non-operatively managed (non-operative group, n = 100) or waiting list (control group, n = 250) patients. These groups were prospectively followed-up and telephoned from the end of June (control group) or at 30 days post-first assessment (non-operative group)/post-operatively (surgery group). Results Complex general (9.2%, 136/1483) or regional (5.0%, 74/1483) anaesthesia cases represented 14.2% (210/1483) of operations undertaken. There were no 30-day post-operative (0/1429)/first assessment (0/191) COVID-19 related deaths. Neither the three sub-speciality plastic surgery, or non-operative groups, displayed increases in post-operative/first assessment symptoms in comparison to each other, or to control. The proportion of COVID-19 positive tests were: 7.1% (1/14) (non-operative), 5.9% (2/34) (burns) and 3.0% (3/99) (trauma); there were however no significant differences between these groups, the elective (0%, 0/54) and control (0%, 0/24) groups ( p = 0.236). Conclusion We demonstrate that even heterogeneous sub-speciality patient groups, who required operative/non-operative management, did not incur an increased COVID-19 risk compared to each other or to control. These highly encouraging results were achieved with described, rapidly implemented service changes that were tailored to protect each patient group and staff.
These documents helped to extract main conclusions about time of intervention, which were split in immediate intervention (industry) and delayed one (pre-hospital and hospital).
Background: Skin cancer represents the most common malignancy worldwide and it is imperative that we develop strategies to ensure safe and sustained delivery of cancer care which are resilient to the ongoing impact of COVID-19.Objective: This study prospectively evaluates the COVID-19 related patient risk and skin cancer management at a single tertiary referral centre, which rapidly implemented national COVID-19 safety guidelines. Method: A prospective cohort study was performed in all patients who underwent surgery for elective skin cancer service management, during the UK COVID-19 pandemic peak (April-May 2020). 'Real-time' 30-day hospital database deceased data were collected. Random selection was undertaken for patients who either underwent operative (surgery group) management or remained on the waiting list (control group); these groups were also prospectively followed-up within a controlled cohort study design and telephoned at the end of June 2020 for the control group or 30 days post-operatively. Results: Of the 767 patients who had operations, there were no COVID-19 related deaths. Both the surgery (n ¼ 384) and control (n ¼ 100) groups were matched for age, sex, ethnicity, BMI, presence of comorbidities, smoking and positive COVID-19 contact. There were no differences in post-operative versus any symptom development (1.3%, 5/384 vs. 4%, 4/100, p ¼ 0.093), or proportion of positive tests (8.6%, 33/ 384 vs. 8%, 8/100; p ¼ 0.849), between the surgery and control groups. Conclusion: These data support continued and safe service provision, and no increased risk to skin cancer patients who require surgical management, which is vital for continuation of cancer treatment in the context of a pandemic.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.