Pawlina, Wojciech

This article explores the assessment of professionalism within a cohort of medical students during a sequential 13‐week medical school histology and anatomy course. Across seven data points, students were asked to identify a professionalism role model from amongst their peers and to score Likert‐structured rationales for their decision. Based on density scores, an initial social network analysis identified six peer‐nomination “stars.” However, analysis of these stars revealed considerable variability and random‐like “noise” in both the nomination and explanation data sets. Subsequent analyses of both data sets explored the possibility of underlying patterns in this noise using tests of reliability, principal components factor analysis, and fixed‐effects regression analysis. These explorations revealed the presence of two dimensions (professional vs. supportive) in how students sought to explain their nomination decisions. Although data variability remained quite high, significantly less variability was present in the professional than in the supportive dimension, suggesting that academic helpfulness rationales are both empirically distinct and more mutable than rationales grounded in professionalism‐related factors. In addition, data showed that the greater the stability in one's choice of a professionalism role model nomination over the T1–T7 data periods, the more stable one's reasons for that nomination—both for professionalism and supportive dimensions. Results indicate that while peer assessment of professionalism by first‐year medical students may not be very reliable, students can differentiate between more personal and professional factors, even at this early stage in their professional development. Formal instruction within the pre‐clinical curriculum should recognize and address this distinction. Anat Sci Educ. © 2018 American Association of Anatomists.

ObjectivesTo identify any anatomic barriers to local anesthetic spread between the sciatic nerve (SN) and the posterior femoral cutaneous nerve (PFCN) at the level of the infragluteal crease and to describe a potential technique for an ultrasound (US)‐guided subgluteal PFCN block in a cadaveric model.MethodsBilateral US‐guided subgluteal injections of a colored latex solution were performed around the SN (15 mL) and PFCN (10 mL) in 4 unembalmed cadavers, for a total of 8 cadaver thighs. The specimens were dissected after latex polymerization to observe the spread of the latex solutions.ResultsWith US guidance, the PFCN was visualized deep to the gluteus maximus and slightly superficial or lateral to the SN at the level of the infragluteal crease. The SN and PFCN were found on dissection to be coated with their respective colored latex in all 8 thighs. The SN and PFCN were consistently separated by the deep investing muscular fascia of the thigh, with only 2 thighs showing substantial mixing of latex injectates.ConclusionsThe deep investing muscular fascia of the thigh appears to impede the spread of injectate between the SN and PFCN in a most unembalmed cadaver specimens. A US‐guided subgluteal PFCN blockade may be a feasible technique to complement an SN block when complete anesthesia of the posterior thigh is required.

Quality of healthcare delivery is dependent on collaboration between professional disciplines. Integrating opportunities for interprofessional learning in health science education programs prepares future clinicians to function as effective members of a multi‐disciplinary care team. This study aimed to create a modified team‐based learning (TBL) environment utilizing ultrasound technology during an interprofessional learning activity to enhance musculoskeletal anatomy knowledge of first year medical (MD) and physical therapy (PT) students. An ultrasound demonstration of structures of the upper limb was incorporated into the gross anatomy courses for first‐year MD (n = 53) and PT (n = 28) students. Immediately before the learning experience, all students took an individual readiness assurance test (iRAT) based on clinical concepts regarding the assigned study material. Students observed while a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician demonstrated the use of ultrasound as a diagnostic and procedural tool for the shoulder and elbow. Following the demonstration, students worked within interprofessional teams (n = 14 teams, 5–6 students per team) to review the related anatomy on dissected specimens. At the end of the session, students worked within interprofessional teams to complete a collaborative clinical case‐based multiple choice post‐test. Team scores were compared to the mean individual score within each team with the Wilcoxon signed‐rank test. Students scored higher on the collaborative post‐test (95.2 ±10.2%) than on the iRAT (66.1 ± 13.9% for MD students and 76.2 ±14.2% for PT students, P < 0.0001). Results suggest that this interprofessional team activity facilitated an improved understanding and clinical application of anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 11: 94–99. © 2017 American Association of Anatomists.

Objectives To determine the ability to sonographically identify the posterior cutaneous nerve of the forearm (PCNF) and its distal epicondylar branches using sonographically guided perineural injections in an unembalmed cadaveric model. Methods A single experienced operator used a 12–3‐MHz linear array transducer to identify the PCNF and its distal epicondylar region branches in 10 unembalmed cadaveric specimens (6 right and 4 left) obtained from 10 donors. Sonographically guided perineural PCNF injections were then completed with a 22‐gauge, 38‐mm stainless steel needle to deliver 0.25 mL of 50% diluted colored latex at 3 points along the PCNF. The latex location was then confirmed via dissection. Results The 10 donors included 4 male and 6 female cadavers aged 48 to 94 years (mean, 73 years) with body mass indices of 19 to 37 kg/m 2 (mean, 26 kg/m 2 ). The operator sonographically identified the PCNF and several distal branches traversing over or directly adjacent to the lateral epicondyle in all 10 specimens. Only 7 of 10 specimens showed a distinct PCNF bifurcation into anterior and posterior divisions, and all 7 were accurately identified and localized on sonography. There was no evidence of latex overflow to clinically relevant adjacent structures or injury to regional vessels or nerves. Conclusions High‐resolution sonography can identify the PCNF and its distal epicondylar branches. Sonographic evaluation of the PCNF should be included in the evaluation of patients presenting with refractory or atypical lateral elbow pain syndromes. Diagnostic and therapeutic sonographically guided procedures targeting the PCNF or its lateral epicondylar branches are feasible and warrant further investigation.