Search

Medical and dental curricula, together with anatomical sciences courses, are increasingly having to change, mainly because there is a drive to being what is termed, without adequate definition, "clinically relevant." The concept of "clinical anatomy" has accordingly been invented and it is expected that, at all times, the teaching of anatomy is directly focused on clinical scenarios, meaning almost invariably the disease-based model of medicine and dentistry. Furthermore, students are not expected to have a detailed knowledge of gross anatomy and the time devoted to teaching and learning the subject has decreased significantly. The notion being fostered is that knowledge is not required "just in case" but "just in time." However, the absence of agreed core syllabuses that are internationally accepted complicates a discussion about what is relevant practically and what does not need to be taught. In this article, we critique such an utilitarian and instrumentalist approach to the teaching of gross anatomy within medical and dental curricula. We draw attention to the need to embrace the functionality-based model of medicine and dentistry by returning to an understanding that the role of the medical or dental practitioner is to value health and to restore to functionality the ill person or the pathologically affected region/organ/system. A fuller knowledge of anatomy than is presently taught is regarded as a prerequisite for appreciating normality and health. A further problem with the instrumentalist approach to medical education is that, by concentrating on what is seen to be at the time "useful" or "clinically relevant," there is the danger of undermining, or discouraging, future developments that rely on what contemporaneously seems "useless" and "irrelevant" knowledge. Finally, the reliance instrumentalism has on just what is pragmatic and regardless of scientific validity is contrary to the ethos and practice of a university education that values deep learning and the development of learnèd professions. Clin. Anat. 30:912-921, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Clinical relevance in the teaching of biomedical sciences within health care courses presupposes that there is internationally agreed core material within the curricula. However, with the exception of a syllabus for neuroanatomy and gross anatomy of the head and neck for medical students, core syllabuses within many of the specialized anatomical sciences have yet to be developed. The International Federation of Associations of Anatomists aims to formulate internationally accepted core syllabuses for all anatomical sciences disciplines initially using Delphi Panels that comprise anatomists, scientists, and clinicians who evaluate syllabus content. Here, the suggestions of a Delphi Panel for embryology and teratology are presented prior to their publication on the website of the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists. Hence, to obtain a more definitive syllabus, it is required that anatomical and embryological/teratological societies, as well as individual anatomists, embryologists and clinicians, freely comment upon, elaborate and amend, this draft syllabus. The goal is to set internationally recognized standards and thereby provide guidelines concerning embryological and teratological knowledge when involved with course development. Clin. Anat. 30:159-167, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The use of optional (elective) courses within the medical curriculum is increasingly being seen as a way of allowing students to pursue their studies according to their personal interests. For anatomy, particularly where the subject is being taught in an integrative curriculum and by means of a systemic approach, the development of elective regional anatomy courses is being employed to reintroduce regional anatomy and/or dissection by students. However, there is presently little evidence that objectively evaluates optional/elective courses. In this paper we critique the concept and practice of using elective courses and assess whether their deployment is ultimately in the interests of medical education, the medical profession, society in general and the layperson (potential patient) in particular. Clin. Anat. 29:702-710, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)