respondents do not represent 72 schools since more than one ... cal schools were represented). ... tic Institute, 3301 Alumni Drive, Tampa, FL 33612-9413.
Clinical Anatomy 7:50-51 (1994)
EDITORIAL
Results of Questionnaire on Teaching Imaging Anatomy T h e demand for a knowledge of sectional (imaging) anatomy necessitated by the increasing clinical utilization of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has had a variable effect on basic medical education in the United States and abroad. A questionnaire to be completed in 10 minutes or less was given to the attendants at the American Association of Clinical Anatomists meeting in Seattle in June, 1993, to determine how they were responding to the need and how the exposure might be improved. I t was anticipated that inferences drawn from a statistical analysis would be inappropriate because of a relatively small sample size, incomplete questionnaires, inclusion of both US and foreign institutions, and many different curricula. T h e following review of the responses, however, is revealing both in the attitudes of the respondents and the diversity of teaching programs. Of the 72 who kindly returned the form, 57 (78%) were professors or associate professors, 61 (85%)were affiliated with a College of Medicine or MedicineIDentistry, 61 (85%) were in a department of Anatomy/Cell Biology/Neurobiology/etc., 8 were Surgeons, and 2 were Radiologists. Other disciplines represented included: Biomedical science, Chiropractic, Dentistry, Naturopathic Medicine, Optometry, Osteopathy, Physical Therapy, and undergraduate Biology. T h e respondents do not represent 72 schools since more than one representative was present from a single institution (one could speculate that about 20% of US medical schools were represented). No attempt was made to identify individual schools and we have no doubt there are differences of opinion in any given department. Enthusiasm varied from one professor who was of the opinion that imaging anatomy was not, and should not, be in the curriculum to one professor who taught imaging anatomy as a part of the curriculum in all 4 years of medical school and also conducted CME courses. T h e British attendants were,obviously doing more teaching of imaging anatomy than most in the United States. Imaging anatomy, however, was reported as being taught by 59 (82%) of the respondents. 0 1994 Wiley-Lies, Inc.
Of the 12 who noted it was not currently a part of their teaching program, 7 stated that it was planned; 48 (67%) reported that imaging anatomy was currently included in gross anatomy. T h e amount of time devoted to it could not be ascertained, since many, however, include it in an informal manner where it is largely self-instruction from available material (scans, cadaver sections, computer programs, etc.), while others have a more formal presentation with as much as 20 hours devoted to sectional anatomy in the course in gross anatomy. Inclusion of imaging anatomy into the course in gross anatomy was thought desirable by 61 (85%); 12 thought a separate course desirable but, interestingly, twice as many (23) did not want a separate course. Several suggested (directly or indirectly) that an introductory course incorporated into gross anatomy should be followed by an advanced course; 15 thought imaging anatomy should be directed by a clinical department (Radiology or Surgery), and an almost equal number (16) believed it should be directed by Anatomy alone, but the majority indicated that the course should be codirected by Anatomy and a Clinical department (Radiology or Surgery). One comment was “Imaging anatomy is a useful, integrative, relevant, portable (more than dissection, at least) method to learn/reinforce/ teach in most all medical disciplines.” All of the medical and dental specialities, including family practice, were listed by one or another as specialities in which imaging anatomy would be useful. Of the material available or needed, most (43) reported they had adequate prosections or sections but 9 indicated they needed additional anatomic sections; 28 reported having plastic sections and 6 individuals needed additional plastic embedded sections. Most thought they had adequate CTs (46) and MRIs (36)but 15 needed additional C T s and 14 needed additional Received for publication August 20, 1993. Address reprint requests to H. N. Schnitzlein, University Diagnostic Institute, 3301 Alumni Drive, Tampa, FL 33612-9413.
Teaching Imaging Anatomy
51
MRIs. Atlases seemed to be adequate (46); however, Anatomists has an opportunity to influence the avail11 indicated they would desire additional. Most had ability of educational material and to encourage the adequate lecture slides (36) but 16 needed additional utilization of gross or “naked eye” anatomy (whether slides for lecture presentations. Adequate self-instruc- seen on the cadaver or view box) in many different tional material was reported by 16 individuals but 35 programs as well as to assure the availability of trained indicated a need for additional computer programs or anatomists for the future. self-instructional material. As one anonymous individual succinctly wrote, the H. N. Schniblein survey was not scientific, but it was most revealing as to the diversity of enthusiasm with which members of the D. R. Hilbelink Department of Anatomy Association are approaching the changes and increase Department of Radiology in the clinical utilization of anatomy. A paucity of young University of South Florida instructors and an absence of graduate students at the Tampa, Florida 33620 meeting was evident from the questionnaires returned. It may be suggested that the Association of Clinical
