Survey of body donation programs in the US concerning the use of donor personal information with medical students

Many Anglo-American universities have undertaken a paradigm shift in how the dissection of human material is approached, such that students are encouraged to learn about the lives of body donors, and to respectfully "personalize" them as human beings, rather than treating the specimens as anonymous cadavers. For the purposes of this study, this provision of limited personal information regarding the life of a body donor will be referred to as "personalization" of body donors. At this time, it is unknown whether this paradigm shift in the personalization of body donors can be translated into the German-speaking world. A shift from donor anonymity to donor personalization could strengthen students' perception of the donor as a "first patient," and thereby reinforce their ability to empathize with their future patients. Therefore, this study aimed to collect data about the current status of donation practices at German-speaking anatomy departments (n = 44) and to describe the opinions of anatomy departments, students (n = 366), and donors (n = 227) about possible donor personalization in medical education. Anatomy departments in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland were invited to participate in an online questionnaire. One-tenth of registered donors at Ulm University were randomly selected and received a questionnaire (20 items, yes-no questions) by mail. Students at the University of Ulm were also surveyed at the end of the dissection course (31 items, six-point Likert-scale). The majority of students were interested in receiving additional information about their donors (78.1%). A majority of donors also supported the anonymous disclosure of information about their medical history (92.5%). However, this information is only available in about 28% of the departments surveyed and is communicated to the students only irregularly. Overall, 78% of anatomy departments were not in favor of undertaking donor personalization. The results appear to reflect traditional attitudes among anatomy departments. However, since students clearly preferred receiving additional donor information, and most donors expressed a willingness to provide this information, one could argue that a change in attitudes is necessary. To do so, official recommendations for a limited, anonymous personalization of donated cadaveric specimens might be necessary. Anat Sci Educ 11: 282-293. © 2017 American Association of Anatomists.

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anonymous body or first patient? A status report and needs assessment regarding the personalization of donors in dissection courses in German, Austrian, and Swiss Medical Schools

Hasselblatt

Messerer

Keis

et al. 2017

“…This behavior is taught and stressed to students during education in the classroom and clinic; in contrast, participants in the anatomy laboratory often refer to a table number, student‐developed name, faculty‐developed name, living name, or no name at all to identify the cadaver students will learn from. It has been suggested that anatomy students might benefit from knowing personal information about the cadavers in the anatomy laboratory to foster a positive relationship between students and their “first patient” (Granger, ; Escobar‐Poni and Poni, ; Bohl et al, ; Talarico, ; Gerwer and Gest, ), but there has been little agreement about what types of donor information should be shared. Assessing the information that anatomy faculty currently receive about the cadavers with whom they teach, and which portion of this information those instructors share with their students, is a first step toward determining what information could be shared or should be shared.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Naming cadavers in the anatomy laboratory varies across the globe (Williams et al, ; Gerwer and Gest, ; Jones and King, ; Hasselblatt et al, ). Traditionally, anonymity and privacy are high concerns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many anatomists cite HIPAA as a reason for withholding personal information about cadavers from students, while others believe that students benefit by distancing themselves from the humanity of the cadaver in order to enable untethered learning (Talarico, ; Williams et al, ). The International Federation of Associations of Anatomy (IFAA) recommend that donor anonymity is maintained unless direct consent is provided by the donor (IFAA, ) and in some cases by the donor’s family as well (Gerwer and Gest, ). Williams and colleagues () surveyed 1156 anatomy students and faculty at 12 medical schools in the United States and reported that 25% of the students surveyed were provided with their cadaver’s given name.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Naming the Dead: What information do Physical Therapy and Physician Assistant Anatomy Faculty Share With Students?

Cope

Precht²,

Hannah

et al. 2019

In this novel study, the researchers quantify cadaver information provided to Physical Therapy (PT) and Physician Assistant (PA) anatomy faculty and ask what portion of that information is then shared with students. Descriptive statistics were used to the describe demographics of the study respondents and to report survey responses. The majority (60% or greater) of faculty who teach anatomy to PT and PA students have clinical degrees matching the student groups they teach. Chi-square analysis showed no appreciable difference (P < 0.001) between PT and PA anatomy faculty in the amount of cadaver information they receive or then share with students. There was a difference in the type of cadaver information (identifying vs. non-identifying) that is received and then shared by these faculty. Faculty are more likely to receive non-identifying cadaver information (93%) than identifying information (40%) (P < 0.0001) and share non-identifying information (83%) than identifying information (26%) with students (P < 0.0003). Interestingly, there is no consensus as to whether sharing cadaver information is respectful or disrespectful to those who donate their bodies for anatomy education and research. Further research is warranted into the reasons anatomy faculty withhold cadaver information from students and in the value, if any, for students knowing more about the cadavers they are learning from.Anat Sci Educ 12: 636-644.

Profile and Motivations of Registered Whole‐Body Donors in Turkey: Istanbul University Experience

Gürses

Ertaş

Gürtekin

et al. 2019

Little is known regarding the profiles of whole body donors in Muslim majority countries where donation is scarce. Therefore, this study aims to profile registered donors in Turkey by means of a survey. The explored data could be used to improve ongoing campaign efforts and ethical practices such as commemoration services. Registered donors of the donation programs at the two faculties of medicine of Istanbul University were compared with the national population and a cluster analysis was performed to reveal any concealed sub‐groups. Data from 188 respondents were analyzed. The majority of registered donors were married (42%), male (65.4%), aged over 50 years (76%), held a tertiary education degree (49.7%), and were irreligious (58.5%). Cluster analysis revealed two groups with significantly different educational levels, marital statuses, and religious choices. Regarding whether their bodies could be used for education or research, the majority (64.5%) of the respondents left the decision to the anatomy department. Similarly, 73.8% approved indefinite use of their organs, body parts and/or skeletons. The respondents were also willing to share their medical history (94.2%) and personal information (81.6%) if needed. Motivational themes for body donation including usefulness, impermanence, religion, awareness, and kinship were devised after a thematic analysis. Among the respondents, 56.5% were registered organ donors and 63.3% were frequent blood donors. The results of this study provide data that may help revising informed consent forms, developing and implementing thanksgiving ceremonies, and selecting additional targets for supporting body donation campaign activities such as organ and blood donation units.