How do you learn surgery before anatomy?
I couldn't have said it better myself.There are some progressive medical and podiatry schools (like the one Dr. Satterfield works at) that have virtually eliminated the traditional classroom setting. They "teach" in a group environment with case studies to exemplify the knowledge that is required to correctly identify the pathology, then they go through the medicine involved as well as the anatomic structures in the area and finally how that integrates itself into the presented case. So when discussing a diabetic foot infection, they will likely go through the anatomy of the pancreas, how and why insulin is made, what are the faulty mechanisms that lead to diabetes...etc.
They are not quite learning "surgery" per se, but are learning the surgical anatomy and how it relates to the procedure itself. If I read the post correctly, note that the poster mentions learning the steps needed to address a hammertoe, not necessarily HOW to do the surgery itself, so I imagine, based on the models I've seen, that they learn all the anatomy of the area, then the mechanics and pathomechanics leading to the development of the hammertoe, then some areas of conservative management, followed by the reasons to do a fusion vs. straight arthroplasty...etc. It may be a subtle difference, but it is still a difference.
There is currently ongoing research on how this "new" technique of learning helps to integrate knowledge versus the old school technique of cramming all the information into your head over a couple of years and then the expectation that you can regurgitate that information while developing the skill of integration at the same time.
I've read some of the research over the years, and it certainly is an intriguing way to "teach". Is it better? I have no idea, but intriguing none the less.
I find this interesting because it seems quite different from my experiences so far. Couple questions.I couldn't have said it better myself.
That's a pretty good summary of the curriculum at Western. Especially in your 2nd year. They have done away with the traditional "lecture" style and all of our learning is in small groups with cases -podiatry classes and basic science with the DO students. We work the case up from beginning to end and cover the anatomy, physiology, histology, pharmacology etc etc.
For example, we just had our PMP (Principles of Podiatric Medicine) final the other day. We have a written portion and an oral portion. For the oral we go into a room with a facilitator and a case on a powerpoint up on the TV (I actually got Dr. Satterfield for my pes planus case) We start with the initial presentation and have to provide a differential diagnosis list. We then tell what we would like to do next (imaging, physical, etc). They will ask random questions about anatomy, radiographs, angles, biomechanics, etc etc and then we have to end up with providing a suitable treatment plan -both conservative and surgical.
We do similar type of learning in our basic science classes with the DOs. We are divided into small groups where we have some cases to go through. We then meet up in the lecture hall later on in the week and go through the cases in a large group format. All of the classes are system based i.e. we are in respiratory right now, so we do a review of the anatomy and then also do the histology, physiology, pharm, clinical etc. all together, not as separate classes. No oral exams though -thanks goodness.
Like was said earlier, it is different. Some love it -others not so much. Their intention in going this direction was to help with thinking like a clinician and hopefully the info would stick better for the boards than a plain lecture.
I find this interesting because it seems quite different from my experiences so far. Couple questions.
Is this what you expected? As in is this what was explained to you at your interview?
Why are students unhappy? Is it because they for some reasons had other expectations?
Has administration changed anything for the 2nd overall class (2014)?
I had no idea that they we going to change to this structure for our 2nd year -at least for the basic sciences. I don't know if any of the other students did either. I knew it was a system based learning model, that was really stressed during the interview and was one of the reasons I choose the school.Is this what you expected? As in is this what was explained to you at your interview?
Some students are not used to the "no lecture" idea. But I think the biggest complaint is that there seems to be a lack of direction on what to exactly study for the exam. Not only do we have the actual cases to study, but we are given readings in Harrison's, sometimes journal articles, and also most of the faculty members have a primer that goes along with the case. It's a lot of info to go through, especially if there is not direction on what to focus on. This also varies by system, as each system will have a different course director with a different style.Why are students unhappy? Is it because they for some reasons had other expectations?
PMP has changed significantly, mostly due to our feedback. But that is about it. Basic science classes will be the same for them -1st year lecture style covering micro, immune, anatomy, etc, and 2nd year case based systems. Hopefully they will have better direction on study material though. However, the DO students (class of 2014) have switched to a pass/fail system. I don't think CPM has though -I know they have flirted with the idea.Has administration changed anything for the 2nd overall class (2014)?
Will this cost us on the boards? I don't think so one bit. If anything it is over preparing us for the boards -especially for the NBPME (APMLE now). Myself and a few classmates went through the practice exam on the NBPME website and about died looking at the question style and content. Very basic style questions compared to what we see on our exams (mostly 2nd order, case based, some 3rd order).