A Survey of Human Gross Anatomy Laboratories in DPT Programs across the United States

Abstract

Purpose: The purposes of this study were to 1) describe the current teaching methodology used in Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) human gross anatomy (HGA) labs, 2) examine the demographics and perceptions of HGA instructors and compare responses based on years of experience, 3) determine the utilization and instructor perceptions related to cadaver dissection and other methods of instruction, and 4) determine which safety/security protocols are used in HGA laboratories. Method: All DPT programs (N=250) in the United States (US) accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) were eligible to participate. The anonymous, 89-item online survey was completed by either an HGA instructor or DPT program director in March of 2020. Seventy-four individuals responded for a response rate of 29.6%. Results: Respondents represented programs from 65.2% private and 34.8% public institutions. Fifty percent of respondents dedicated 31-60% of their HGA course to face-to-face lab time, with 68% reporting an instructor to student ratio in lab of 1:15 or smaller. Seventy percent of instructors were US licensed PTs, and 78% of those PTs held an academic doctorate. The average years of anatomy teaching experience was 11.3. Ninety-six percent of programs utilized cadavers. Most programs (86%) had students perform hands-on cadaver dissection. Overall, 90% of instructors incorporated learning activities into lab beyond dissection. Ninety-four percent of instructors reported enjoyment teaching HGA, and a majority felt they had adequate teaching support and academic preparation. Sixty percent of respondents felt that cadavers were the only way to teach lab, while 90% felt that cadavers were the best way to teach lab. Regarding safety, 38% of instructors had concerns regarding chemical exposure in lab, and 11% believed their health was at risk. Comparative analyses found significant differences in instructor perceptions based on years of anatomy teaching experience (+/- 10 years). Less experienced faculty were more likely to believe that a non-cadaver approach to teaching HGA can be as effective as using cadavers given the right technology, while more experienced faculty were more likely to believe that teaching HGA with cadavers was the best way to teach lab. Conclusions: DPT program directors and instructors may find this study valuable to compare their HGA course(s) to other programs in the US. Although there is a clear preference for including cadavers in HGA laboratories, it is evident that most instructors are incorporating other learning approaches in their HGA laboratories.

How do practicing physical therapists perceive anatomy education?

“…In fact, there were no significant training programs, with a recent survey indicating that up to 95% of programs are still using anatomical donors and 86% of those are student dissection. 28 Similar studies were conducted in 1994 and 2013 and show that while change is occurring, it is very slow; in 1994, 100% of programs surveyed were utilizing dissection, compared with 92% in 2013. 27,29 The Mitchell study 28 and the results from our early-career participants refute the findings of a 2012 study 20 which predicted that time dedicated to learning from anatomical donors in physical therapy school would decrease by the year 2020, with a greater amount of time devoted to surface anatomy, palpation, imaging, use of prosection and computerized labs.…”

“…A survey of physical therapists' gross anatomy experiences found that 90% of instructors felt anatomical donors were the best way to learn and 60% felt they were the only way to learn. However, less experienced faculty were more likely to believe that a dissection‐free approach can be just as effective for learning 28 . Dissection is frequently lauded for exposing students to their first provider‐patient relationship, teamwork, professionalism as well as concepts of death and dying and dealing with complex emotions 40 .…”

“…26 Research surveying changes to anatomy content and teaching methodologies in physical therapy programs show continued reliance on dissection or prosection laboratory experiences and increased use of computer assisted learning. [27][28][29] A study by Simons 13 demonstrated that anatomy instructional method had a slight impact on a physical therapist's current anatomy knowledge, as regions of the body where no laboratory instruction was available contributed to less anatomical knowledge compared to regions learned through dissection or prosection, rendering greater anatomical retention. Pascoe and Rapport surveyed core faculty, clinical instructors, and recent graduates of one entry-level physical therapy program in the United States to determine essential anatomy content in physical therapy education.…”

“…However, less experienced faculty were more likely to believe that a dissection-free approach can be just as effective for learning. 28 Dissection is frequently lauded for exposing students to their first provider-patient relationship, teamwork, professionalism as well as concepts of death and dying and dealing with complex emotions. 40…”

“…Likewise, 46% of practicing PTs in Turkey found their anatomy education to be clinically deficient 26 . Research surveying changes to anatomy content and teaching methodologies in physical therapy programs show continued reliance on dissection or prosection laboratory experiences and increased use of computer assisted learning 27–29 . A study by Simons 13 demonstrated that anatomy instructional method had a slight impact on a physical therapist's current anatomy knowledge, as regions of the body where no laboratory instruction was available contributed to less anatomical knowledge compared to regions learned through dissection or prosection, rendering greater anatomical retention.…”