The anatomy demonstrator of the future: An examination of the role of the medically-qualified anatomy demonstrator in the context of tomorrow's doctors and modernizing medical careers

Clinical Anatomy

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 455-459

  Lockwood, Alistair M ^a,b   Roberts, A M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b ROYAL CORNWALL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Anatomy; Future; Medically qualified anatomy demonstrator; Modernizing medical careers; Teaching; Tomorrow's doctor

Indexed keywords

CAREER; CURRICULUM; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TEACHER; UNITED KINGDOM;

ANATOMY; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, GRADUATE; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; STUDENTS, MEDICAL;

EID: 34247237887     PISSN: 08973806     EISSN: 10982353     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ca.20427     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Allen SS, Roberts K. 2002. An integrated structure-function module for first year medical students: Correlating anatomy, clinical medicine and radiology. Med Educ 36:1106-1107.
2. British Medical Association. 2003. Medicine in the 21st Century. London: British Medical Association.
3. Brynhildsen J, Dahle LO, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, Rundquist I, Hammar M. 2002. Attitudes among students and teachers on vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum. Med Teach 24:286-288.
4. Carmichael S, Markwald R. 2004. Coalition of American Societies for Anatomy. Anat Rec B New Anat 277:1.
5. Clark J. 2005. Five futures for academic medicine: The ICRAM scenarios. BMJ 331:101-104.
6. Clark J, Smith R. 2003. BMJ Publishing Group to launch an international campaign to promote academic medicine. BMJ 327:1001-1002.
7. Dahle LO, Brynhildsen J, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, Rundquist I, Hammar M. 2002. Pros and cons of vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum: Examples and experiences from Linkoping, Sweden. Med Teach 24:280-285.
8. Department of Health. 2003. Modernising Medical Careers. The Response of Four UK Health Ministers to the Consultation on Unfinished Business: Proposals for Reform of the Senior House Officer Grade. London: Department of Health.
9. Department of Health. 2005. Medically- and Dentally-Qualified Academic Staff: Recommendations for Training the Researchers and Educators of the Future. (Report of the Academic Careers Sub-Committee of Modernising Medical Careers and the UK Clinical Research Collaboration). London: Department of Health.
10. Edwards A. 2001. Demonstrating anatomy and the MRCS examination. Ann Roy Coll Surg Eng 83 (Suppl):294-295.
11. Evans DJ, Watt DJ. 2005. Provision of anatomical teaching in a new British medical school: Getting the right mix. Anat Rec B New Anat 284:22-27.
12. General Medical Council. 1999. The Doctor as Teacher. London: General Medical Council.
13. General Medical Council. 2003. Tomorrow's Doctors. Recommendations on Undergraduate Medical Education. London: General Medical Council.
14. Gossage JA. 2002. The importance of anatomy demonstrating for the surgical trainee. Surgery (Scalpel) 20:1-2.
15. Gossage JA, Horner B, Ellis H. 2003. The anatomy demonstrator has an important role in medical student education. Med Educ 37:1056.
16. Heylings DJ. 2002. Anatomy 1999-2000: The curriculum, who teaches it and how? Med Educ 36:702-710.
17. Hinduja K, Samuel R, Mitchell S. 2005. Problem-based learning: Is anatomy a casualty? Surgeon 3:84-87.
18. Holsinger JW Jr, Beaton B. 2006. Physician professionalism for a new century. Clin Anat 19:473-479.
19. Koshi R, Holla SJ. 2001. Experience of anatomy demonstrators in Tamil Nadu, India. Clin Anat 14:278-281.
20. Lempp HK. 2005. Perceptions of dissection by students in one medical school: Beyond learning about anatomy. A qualitative study. Med Educ 39:318-325.
21. McLachlan JC. 2004. New path for teaching anatomy: Living anatomy and medical imaging vs. dissection. Anat Rec B New Anat 281:4-5.
22. Miles KA. 2005. Diagnostic imaging in undergraduate medical education: An expanding role. Clin Radiol 60:742-745.
23. Monkhouse WS. 1992. Anatomy and the medical school curriculum. Lancet 340:834-835.
24. O'Connor JP, Kanga DR. 2004. Academic medicine: Time for reinvention: Medical education, training, and research are under threat because academic medicine is undervalued. BMJ 328:45-46. Author reply 49.
25. Older J. 2004. Anatomy: A must for teaching the next generation. Surgeon 2:79-90.
26. Patel KM, Moxham BJ. 2006. Attitudes of professional anatomists to curricular change. Clin Anat 19:132-141.
27. Pearse E, Parkin I. 2000. Undergraduate medical students' views on the value of dissecting. Med Educ 34:493.
28. Peck D, Skandalakis JE. 2004. The anatomy of teaching and the teaching of anatomy. Am Surg 70:366-368.
29. Prince KJ, Scherpbier AJ, van Mameren H, Drukker J, van der Vleuten CP. 2005. Do students have sufficient knowledge of clinical anatomy? Med Educ 39:326-332.
30. Pryde FR, Black SM. 2005. Anatomy in Scotland: 20 years of change. Scott Med J 50:96-98.
31. Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2002. MRCS Regulations and Syllabus. London: Royal College of Surgeons of England.
32. Swick HM. 2006. Medical professionalism and the clinical anatomist. Clin Anat 19:393-402.
33. van Mameren H. 2004. Source of future teachers of anatomy. Anat Rec B New Anat 280:4-5.
34. Waterston SW, Stewart IJ. 2005. Survey of clinicians' attitudes to the anatomical teaching and knowledge of medical students. Clin Anat 18:380-384.