First-year medical students were surveyed by questionnaire to assess levels of stress and physical symptoms resulting from their experience of the anatomy room. There was a 100% response rate from the 188 students. Most students (95%) found the prospect of their first visit to the anatomy room exciting. A small number initially experienced physical symptoms, but these had improved significantly 10 weeks later. Most students suffered very little or no stress (80%) on their first visit with only 2% of respondents rating their stress levels as high. Ten weeks later, 87% experienced little or no stress with only 1% stating that they had high stress levels. The anatomy room was rated to be less stressful than workload and assessments. Students reported that the anatomy room provoked thoughts of mortality, and 27% suggested that there should be more preparation before the first visit to the anatomy room. Our findings support previous studies suggesting that American/Canadian students in particular find anatomy stressful. However, the wisdom of interpreting adverse reactions as symptomatic of post-traumatic stress disorder is questioned. This study shows the anatomy room to be a positive learning experience for the students of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.
Tomorrow's Doctors, published by the General Medical Council of the UK in December 1993, has prompted far‐reaching changes to medical education in Britain. We draw attention to some inconsistencies in the document and to those aspects of it that we maintain are undesirable. We question the emphasis in Tomorrow's Doctors on change in view of the unchanging nature of the structure and function of the human body. We doubt the wisdom of exhorting students to learn through curiosity and experiment, such methods being wasteful of time and resources when used in the context of accepted core material. We do not accept that the information overload is an automatic result of traditional methods of delivering education, and we are by no means convinced that the university model is the right one for medical education. In the face of experts being unable to agree on or to define scientific method, we wonder if consideration of this is appropriate in an undergraduate medical course, and we doubt that ethics and criticism are rightly placed in the undergraduate curriculum. The drawbacks of systems‐based teaching are considered in the light of the disease process, and we draw attention to the lack of evidence for the document's condemnation of departmental structures and its uncritical espousal of integration. Finally, we consider some of the ways in which these changes have affected anatomy. Clin. Anat. 12:131–134, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
The innervation of the rat external auditory meatus has contributions from several nerves. Fluoro-gold, a retrograde neuronal tracer, was used to determine the relative contributions from neurons in cranial and spinal ganglia, and to distinguish any difference in the sensory and motor innervation between the outer cartilaginous and inner bony portions. The following ganglia were examined: the trigeminal, geniculate, glossopharyngeal, vagal, superior cervical, and dorsal root (C2-C4) ganglia. All selected ganglia demonstrated innervation of the external ear canal, particularly the trigeminal, glossopharyngeal, facial, and vagal ganglia. The geniculate and glossopharyngeal ganglia contributed more innervation to the inner osseous portion than to the outer cartilaginous portion of the external ear canal, and the vagal ganglion contributed relatively equally.
These findings show that the perirenal spaces communicate with each other across the midline and with the pelvic extraperitoneal spaces. Clinical implications are that perinephric collections can potentially flow into the pelvis or across the midline.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
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.