Resident perceptions of anatomy education: a survey of medical school alumni from two different anatomy curricula and multiple medical specialties.

In 2004, the University of Michigan Medical School reduced its gross anatomy curriculum. To determine the effect of this reduction on resident perceptions of their clinical preparedness, we surveyed alumni that included residents from the original and new shortened curricula. A Likert-scale survey was sent to four classes of alumni. Respondents were compared in old curriculum (OC) and new curriculum (NC) groups, surgical specialty (SS) and nonsurgical specialty (NS) groups, and subgroups of SS and NS were compared for differences between OC and NC. Mean response scores were compared using independent samples T-tests. As a single population (n = 110), respondents felt their anatomy education prepared them well for residency, that a more robust anatomy curriculum would be helpful, that dissection was important to their residency preparation, and that a 4th year anatomy elective was effective in expanding their anatomy education and preparing them for residency. No significant difference existed between OC and NC groups, neither as a whole nor as SS and NS subgroups. The SS group felt dissection was more important to their residency preparation than the NS group (P = 0.001) and that a more robust anatomy curriculum would have better prepared them for residency (P = 0.001). Thirty percent of SS respondents who did not take a 4th year elective commented that they wish they had. Fourth year anatomy electives were highly valued by residents, and respondents felt that they should be offered to students as a way of revisiting anatomy following the 1st year of clinical training.