1. Development of Video Cases for an Anatomy-Based Clinical Reasoning Workshop 3.9% 23.5% 2.4% 14.6% PROBLEM STATEMENT We developed 6 video cases for an anatomy-based clinical reasoning workshop to facilitate a self- directed learning exercise for MS I students. RATIONALE Our workshop was designed to add dimension to the 1 st year Human Anatomy course. Our video cases also incorporated radiographic images (plain radiographs, CT scans, ultrasound images or videos) to further highlight the diagnostic work up. The cases focused on 6 clinical conditions that emphasize various aspects of the thoraco- abdominal anatomy recently reviewed in the students coursework. -Case 1: Pericardial tamponade -Case 2: Ectopic pregnancy -Case 3: Hiatal hernia -Case 4: Splenic rupture -Case 5: Thoracic aortic dissection -Case 6: Nephrolithiasis Video cases portrayed an emergency physician performing a focused H&P, role modeling professional behavior and provided the MS I students an opportunity to view first hand, doctor- patient interactions. METHODS A case script was developed for each video case. Two standardized patients were each trained on 3 cases. A doctor-patient interaction was filmed in our simulation center highlighting an initial evaluation and a discussion of the suggested diagnostic plan. Video editing was performed by one of the authors. All video cases had a standardized format, cases were approximately 7-8 minutes in length. Cases can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt9Aewkrev7FuCw431PXusA.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt9Aewkrev7FuCw431PXusA For each 2 hour workshop (6 total sessions), students were assigned to 6 groups of 5-6 students; each group was assigned 1 case. Groups worked together to solve the case. One or more anatomy and clinical faculty members attended each session. Student instructions were provided 1 week prior to the workshop. Each group prepared a 10 minute Power Point presentation for the workshop with the goal of teaching their fellow classmates about their assigned clinical case. Presentation guidelines for the students: Review the normal and abnormal anatomy relevant to their case. Provide teaching points (epidemiology, clinical presentation, etc.). Develop a treatment plan. Develop a multiple choice question focused on key aspects of structure or function. At the conclusion of each presentation, faculty further highlighted key concepts and provided formative feedback to the groups. Each group presentation was evaluated on a 12 point scale using an internally derived rubric focusing on professionalism, presentation content and presentation skills. RESULTS 106 students completed the post course evaluation. Most students (90, 84.9%) reported that the workshop achieved its stated objectives and 91 (85.8%) reported that it was a valuable learning experience. -Workshop Preparation Almost all students (104, 98.1%) reported that it took an appropriate amount of time to prepare for the workshop All students viewed their video case prior to the workshop. Almost half (49, 45%) viewed their case 2 times. 33 (31.1%) viewed their case 3 times. Most student groups (66, 62.3%) met 2 times before the workshop. 39 students (36.8%) reported that they spent 2-3 hours to prepare for the workshop, 34 (32.1%) spent 1-2 hours and 19 (17.9%) spent 3-4 hours to prepare. -Video Case Characteristics 101 (95.%) reported that their case was at an appropriate level of difficulty. 82 (77.4%) agreed the video cases were of high quality. Most (80, 75.5%) agreed the radiographic images were of high quality. Most students (93, 87.8%) felt the physicians in the videos role modeled professional behavior. 48% felt the video case was too long. -Presentations 69 (65.1%) reported that developing a PowerPoint presentation was a worthwhile experience. 89 (84%) reported that the other group presentations were educational. -Case Comparison to Prior Workshops (Paper vs. Video) Regarding promoting critical thinking, student’s chose; Paper cases (6%) Video cases (41%) Cases were equivalent (53%) Regarding quality of cases, students chose; Paper cases (13%) Video cases (39%) Cases were of equivalent quality (48%) Future workshops, students prefer; Paper cases (31%) Video cases (33%) No preference (36%) LESSONS LEARNED Our video cases were well received; most students described the workshop as a valuable learning experience that achieved the learning objectives. Some students reported no difference between the quality of video cases compared with paper cases from a prior workshop. Students do not seem to have a preference for case format for future workshops. David A. Wald, DO 1, Jason Hine, MD 1, Evan Suzuki, MD, 1 Steven Popoff, PhD, 2 Department of Emergency Medicine 1 Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology 2 Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania