Anatomical Sciences EducationVolume 14, Issue 6 p. 870-872 Letter to the Editor Introducing medical students to cadaveric dissection: Which aspects of an orientation are most beneficial? Sara Allison Ph.D., Corresponding Author Sara Allison Ph.D. Sara.Allison@med.wmich.edu orcid.org/0000-0001-7837-5054 Department of Biomedical Sciences, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA Correspondence Dr. Sara Allison, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, 300 Portage Street, Kalamazoo, MI 49007, USA. Email: Sara.Allison@med.wmich.edu Contribution: Conceptualization (lead), Project administration (lead), Writing - original draft (lead), Writing - review & editing (equal)Search for more papers by this authorAndrew Notebaert Ph.D., Andrew Notebaert Ph.D. Department of Neurobiology and Anatomical Science, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA Contribution: Conceptualization (equal), Writing - review & editing (equal)Search for more papers by this authorErin Dehon Ph.D., Erin Dehon Ph.D. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA Contribution: Conceptualization (equal), Writing - review & editing (equal)Search for more papers by this author Sara Allison Ph.D., Corresponding Author Sara Allison Ph.D. Sara.Allison@med.wmich.edu orcid.org/0000-0001-7837-5054 Department of Biomedical Sciences, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA Correspondence Dr. Sara Allison, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, 300 Portage Street, Kalamazoo, MI 49007, USA. Email: Sara.Allison@med.wmich.edu Contribution: Conceptualization (lead), Project administration (lead), Writing - original draft (lead), Writing - review & editing (equal)Search for more papers by this authorAndrew Notebaert Ph.D., Andrew Notebaert Ph.D. Department of Neurobiology and Anatomical Science, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA Contribution: Conceptualization (equal), Writing - review & editing (equal)Search for more papers by this authorErin Dehon Ph.D., Erin Dehon Ph.D. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA Contribution: Conceptualization (equal), Writing - review & editing (equal)Search for more papers by this author First published: 28 September 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2140Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume14, Issue6November/December 2021Pages 870-872 RelatedInformation

The national or local lockdowns in response to COVID-19 forced education systems to rapidly shift from in-person to distance learning. The hasty transition undoubtedly imposed tremendous challenges on teachers, students and distance learning infrastructure. The purpose of this study was to investigate how high school science teachers who had previously been trained in flipped-learning and advanced educational technology through the Science Teaching Excites Medical Interest (STEMI) program perceived their transition to distance learning during this pandemic. In this study eleven teachers were interviewed with a semi-structured interview guide. Data were analyzed using the deductive-inductive content analytic approach. Our results indicated that teachers reported having more confidence in using technology for teaching online due in part to their participation in the STEMI program. They also reported internet access as one of the most significant barriers, both for students and teachers. While some teachers thought that students may feel more in control of learning due to absence of time and place limits with distance learning, others may struggle to stay engaged without the classroom support they would normally have received. Teachers generally experienced increased workloads and harder work–life balance with online teaching. In spite of the unforeseen challenges, the pandemic situation afforded teachers with opportunities to adopt different technology in teaching and foresee the need for technology integration in order to better prepare for the unexpected in the future.

Cadaveric dissection offers an important opportunity for students to develop their ideas about death and dying. However, it remains largely unknown how this experience impacts medical students' fear of death. The current study aimed to address this gap by describing how fear of death changed during a medical gross anatomy dissection course and how fear of death was associated with examination performance. Fear of death was surveyed at the beginning of the course and at each of the four block examinations using three of the eight subscales from the Multidimensional Fear of Death Scale: Fear of the Dead, Fear of Being Destroyed, and Fear for the Body After Death. One hundred forty-three of 165 medical students (86.7%) completed the initial survey. Repeated measures ANOVA showed no significant changes in Fear of the Dead (F (4, 108) = 1.45, P = 0.222) or Fear for the Body After Death (F (4, 108) = 1.83, P = 0.129). There was a significant increase in students' Fear of Being Destroyed (F (4, 108) = 6.86, P < 0.0005) after beginning dissection. This increase was primarily related to students' decreased willingness to donate their body. Concerning performance, there was one significant correlation between Fear for the Body After Death and the laboratory examination score at examination 1. Students with higher fears may be able to structure their experience in a way that does not negatively impact their performance, but educators should still seek ways to support these students and encourage body donation.

BackgroundPrior research suggests that medical students with higher fear of death are more likely to feel that providing care to terminally ill patients would have a negative personal impact. This negative perception concerning end‐of‐life care may carry into students’ careers as clinicians. Previous studies have shown that physicians with higher fear of death reported more difficulty in end‐of‐life communication and decision‐making. Because cadaveric dissection serves as an important introduction to death and dying issues, it is important to understand how this experience relates to students’ fear of death.AimThe current study aimed to identify which demographic characteristics are associated with medical student fear of death and describe how fear of death changes throughout the duration of a gross anatomy course with cadaveric dissection.MethodsProcedures were carried out according to the protocol approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Mississippi Medical Center (IRB # 2018‐0221) and informed consent was obtained from all participants. First year medical gross anatomy students’ were surveyed during the fall semester of 2019. Fear of death was surveyed using sixteen items from three subscales of the Multidimensional Fear of Death Scale (MFODS): Fear of the Dead (6 items), Fear of Being Destroyed (4 items), and Fear for the Body After Death (6 items). For each item, students use a Likert type scale to select the degree to which they agree or disagree with the statement, with lower scores indicating a higher fear of death. Baseline fear of death scores and demographic data (age, gender, undergraduate GPA, MCAT, and prior anatomy experience) were collected on the first day of the course, prior to beginning cadaveric dissection. These baseline scores were then correlated to demographics. To determine how fear of death changed throughout the course, the MFODS was also given at each of the four block examinations. This data was analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA.ResultsOf the 170 students invited to participate, 143 (84.1%) completed the baseline survey. Of those students, 57.3% had a prior anatomy experience while only 25.2% had prior exposure to cadavers. At the time of the baseline survey, average scores for the MFODS subscales were: Fear of the Dead (20.13 out of 30); Fear of Being Destroyed (13.57 out of 20); Fear for the Body After Death (22.99 out of 30). Complete data is currently being collected and analyzed.DiscussionResults of this study will determine if medical students’ fear of death is associated with specific demographic characteristics and how fear of death changes throughout a gross anatomy course. Understanding these relationships will allow instructors to implement interventions to support students with higher fear of death and identify a time point at which an intervention would be most beneficial. Ultimately, this would provide another means to support medical students and train physicians who are well equipped to handle end‐of‐life issues.

Introduction To prepare medical students for clinical training and practice, it is critical to understand the anatomical knowledge considered most important for different clinical specialties. Aim To address this issue, a consortium of anatomists in the US and Canada is collecting data from clinical educators in General Surgery clerkships and electives to identify the anatomy they consider essential. Methods An IRB‐approved, online survey (Qualtrics, Seattle, WA) was used to assess the importance of 98 anatomical topics in seven body regions. The study first examined the percentage of General Surgery clinical educators (clerkship/elective directors and attending physicians) that considered each anatomical region important to their specialty. Second, the study examined the rank assigned to each anatomical topic using an ordinal scale from 1 (not important) to 4 (essential). Results At the time of abstract submission, data had been collected from 40 General Surgery clinical educators at 14 medical schools. The percentage of General Surgery clinical educators that considered each anatomical region important to their specialty were (highest‐to‐lowest): Abdomen (100%), Pelvis & Perineum (89.7%), Thorax (82.5%), Head & Neck (71.8%), Upper Limb (61%), Lower Limb (59%), and Back (51.2%). Further data analysis has identified the highest ranked anatomical topics in each body region for the General Surgery clerkship/elective. Discussion and Conclusion This database provides detailed information regarding the most clinically relevant anatomical topics as identified by General Surgery clinical educators. This information can aid in focusing preclinical learning to best prepare medical students for success in their undergraduate and graduate clinical experiences.

Previous research has shown that medical students perform better on first order laboratory practical questions than they do on second order questions. First order questions are defined as requiring the student to only identify a tagged structure. Second order questions ask the student to apply some information about the tagged structure rather than to only identify the structure (i.e. “What is the innervation of the tagged structure?”). This study followed up on the previous research by examining item statistics of first and second order questions to determine individual item quality. Statistics of interest were item difficulty and discrimination index. Item difficulty was defined as the percentage of students getting a particular item correct, so the higher the percentage, the easier the item. Discrimination index (DI) was defined as the difference in percent correct between higher and lower performing students on a particular item. Quality questions typically have a moderate difficulty of approximately 80% correct and a DI of greater than .30. The expectation was that second order questions would continue to show increased difficulty but have a higher DI and potentially be of higher quality than first order questions. The laboratory practical studied was a traditional steeplechase‐style examination where students had a single question at approximately 60 stations. Students had one minute at each station and could not return to any station during or after the examination. During setup, the instructors purposely set about 20% of the items to be second order questions. Responses were analyzed for question difficulty and DI, which was the difference in performance on an item between the top 27% of the class and the bottom 27%. One hundred and seventy two students took the 57‐question examination. There were 13 second order questions (22.8%). The examination average score was 75.04 ± 12.6% and the average DI was .293 ± .14. First order questions averaged 76.18% correct with a DI of .31 while second order questions averaged 72.81% and had a DI of .25. Only one (7.7%) of the second order questions had a difficulty between 75–85% and a DI above .30 while seven (15.9%) of the first order questions achieved these statistics. A post hoc analysis of the 596 total errors made on the thirteen second order questions was also conducted. Examining each of the wrong responses revealed that approximately ten percent of the errors were due to the students giving the first order identification rather than the second order information that was being sought. Initial results indicate that second order questions did not perform better than first order questions in a laboratory practical setting based on traditional item statistics. Instructors need to be aware that these types of assessment questions may not be good indicators of a student’s foundational knowledge as well as their ability to apply that knowledge beyond straight forward identification of anatomical structures. Further investigation should be done to see if these statistics change throughout the duration of a course and to identify factors about the questions that potentially make them poor indicators of anatomical knowledge and application.

IntroductionTo prepare medical students for clinical training and practice, it is critical to understand the anatomical knowledge considered most important for different clinical specialties.AimTo address this issue, a consortium of anatomists in the US and Canada is collecting data from clinical educators in General Surgery clerkships and electives to identify the anatomy they consider essential.MethodsAn IRB‐approved, online survey (Qualtrics, Seattle, WA) was used to assess the importance of 98 anatomical topics in seven body regions. The study first examined the percentage of General Surgery clinical educators (clerkship/elective directors and attending physicians) that considered each anatomical region important to their specialty. Second, the study examined the rank assigned to each anatomical topic using an ordinal scale from 1 (not important) to 4 (essential).ResultsAt the time of abstract submission, data had been collected from 40 General Surgery clinical educators at 14 medical schools. The percentage of General Surgery clinical educators that considered each anatomical region important to their specialty were (highest‐to‐lowest): Abdomen (100%), Pelvis & Perineum (89.7%), Thorax (82.5%), Head & Neck (71.8%), Upper Limb (61%), Lower Limb (59%), and Back (51.2%). Further data analysis has identified the highest ranked anatomical topics in each body region for the General Surgery clerkship/elective.Discussion and ConclusionThis database provides detailed information regarding the most clinically relevant anatomical topics as identified by General Surgery clinical educators. This information can aid in focusing preclinical learning to best prepare medical students for success in their undergraduate and graduate clinical experiences.

IntroductionTo prepare medical students for clinical training and practice, it is critical to understand the anatomical knowledge considered most important for different clinical specialties.AimTo address this issue, a consortium of anatomists in the US and Canada is collecting data from clinical educators in clerkships and electives to identify the anatomy they consider essential for their specialty.MethodsAn IRB‐approved, online survey (Qualtrics, Seattle, WA) was used to assess the importance of 98 anatomical topics in seven body regions. The study first examined the nominal relationship between groups of primary care (Family Medicine, General Internal Medicine, General Pediatrics) and non‐primary care specialties, and whether they considered a given anatomical region important to their clerkship/elective. Second, the study compared the rank assigned by each specialty to each anatomical topic using an ordinal scale from 1 (not important) to 4 (essential).ResultsAt the time of abstract submission, data had been collected from 598 clinicians (clerkship/elective directors and attending physicians) in 19 clerkships/electives at 33 medical schools (allopathic n=28; osteopathic n=5). Relative to Non‐Primary care physicians, Primary Care physicians showed a statistically significant, higher percentage of “Yes” responses for all seven anatomical regions (Table 1). Further data analysis has identified the highest ranking anatomical topics within each region for Primary Care and Non‐Primary Care Specialties.Discussion and ConclusionThis database provides detailed information regarding the most clinically relevant anatomical topics as identified by clinical educators. This information can aid in focusing preclinical learning to best prepare medical students for success in their undergraduate and graduate clinical experiences.Responses to the question: Is the anatomy of this body region important to your clinical specialty?Table 1

Introduction. To prepare medical students for clinical training and practice, it is critical to understand the anatomical knowledge considered most important for different clinical specialties.Aim. To address this issue, a consortium of anatomists in the US and Canada is collecting data from clinical educators in Neurology and Psychiatry clerkships and electives to identify the anatomy they consider essential.Methods. An IRB‐approved, online survey (Qualtrics, Seattle, WA) was used to assess the importance of 98 anatomical topics in seven body regions. The study first examined the percentage of Neurology and Psychiatry clinical educators (clerkship/elective directors and attending physicians) that considered each anatomical region important to their specialty. Second, the study examined the rank assigned to each anatomical topic using an ordinal scale from 1 (not important) to 4 (essential).Results. At the time of abstract submission, data had been collected from 39 Neurology clinical educators at 11 medical schools and 19 Psychiatry clinical educators at 9 medical schools. The percentage of clinical educators that considered each anatomical region important to their specialty were (highest‐to‐lowest): Neurology – Back (97%), Upper Limb (97%), Lower Limb (97%), Head & Neck (97%), Thorax (54%), Pelvis & Perineum (46%), and Abdomen (31%); Psychiatry – Head & Neck (89%), Back (47%), Abdomen (37%), Thorax (32%), Upper Limb (26%), Lower Limb (26%), Pelvis & Perineum (16%). Further data analysis has identified the highest ranked anatomical topics in each body region for the Neurology and Psychiatry clerkships/electives.Discussion and Conclusion. This database provides detailed information regarding the most clinically relevant anatomical topics as identified by Neurology and Psychiatry clinical educators. This information can aid in focusing preclinical learning to best prepare medical students for success in their undergraduate and graduate clinical experiences.

Many professional development programs aim to improve student outcomes by enhancing teacher competencies. Effective evaluation of these programs requires a clear delineation of the competencies to be gained. A competency model was developed to evaluate the impact of a teacher professional program that aimed to improve teachers' ability to effectively implement technologically engaged modules in a flipped classroom setting. Competencies were identified via participatory evaluation techniques and assessments were aligned to the competencies. The competency of teachers in the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for creation and delivery of effective flipped lessons can be tracked using a radar graph to guide tailored professional development.

Human gross anatomy is a foundational course that is consistently covered in the first year of all major health professional education programs. Even though human gross anatomy is a major foundational course, it is not required by all health professional education programs. Most occupational therapy and physical therapy programs do require gross anatomy as a prerequisite course before admission, but often medical and dental schools do not. This leads to incoming students having a variety of exposure levels to the content of human gross anatomy, with many of the students having no exposure at all. It is easy to assess the amount of anatomy exposure that a student has had just by looking at their transcript, the major difference is the quality of the exposure that they have had.In order to assess the quality of anatomy exposure that students have had in the past we needed to create an assessment that covered the foundational information in anatomy. To create this assessment a survey was conducted asking anatomy course instructors what textbooks they used for the health professional education program that they teach. The four most commonly used textbooks were then selected as the major source of information that incoming health professional students will receive in their gross anatomy course. The introductory chapters of these books were reviewed as they contain foundational anatomy information that will be built upon throughout the rest of the human gross anatomy course. A master list of all the foundational structures, terms, and concepts was created from the first chapter of these textbooks and evaluated using a Modified Delphi method. This master list was sent to experts (health professional human gross anatomy course directors) from multiple institutions for validation. After two rounds of the Modified Delphi method any of these topics with a Content Validity Index above 80% agreement were then considered validated foundational information. This new validated list will then be used to create an Anatomy Readiness Assessment.The Anatomy Readiness Assessment is designed to be given to health professional students prior to starting their gross anatomy course. This will assess their understanding of foundational information for anatomy prior to starting the course and may be used to identify students at risk prior to the first examination.

IntroductionIn the last few decades the necessity of cadaveric dissection in anatomy education has come into question. Some anatomists feel that dissection is essential and promotes students' understanding of death and dying issues. Others argue that cadaveric dissection may not be an appropriate way to introduce students to these sensitive issues. This is supported by literature establishing cadaveric dissection as a source of anxiety in anatomy students. Considering general anxiety has been shown to be associated with performance, anxiety caused by cadaveric dissection has the potential to impact exam scores in gross anatomy. What has yet to be studied is how cadaveric dissection influences students' fear of death and how fear of death is related to performance in gross anatomy.AimThis study aims to describe how dental students' fear of death changes with exposure to cadaveric dissection and investigate its relationship to performance in a gross anatomy course.MethodsWith IRB approval, students' fear of death will be surveyed using three subscales from the Multidimensional Fear of Death Scale (MFODS): Fear of the Dead, Fear of Being Destroyed, and Fear for the Body After Death. The survey will be given at the beginning of the semester and again before each exam to determine if there are changes in students' fear of death throughout the gross anatomy course. Students' fear of death scores will also be correlated to written and practical exam scores to determine if there is a relationship between fear of death and anatomy performance. In order to account for potential covariates, such as the students' prior experience with cadavers, time spent in lab outside of scheduled hours, and percentage of time spent actively dissecting the cadavers, these factors will be included in statistical analysis using multiple regression.ResultsData is currently being collected and analyzed.DiscussionResults of this study may reveal a link between fear of death and performance in gross anatomy. Understanding this relationship would allow instructors to implement interventions to modulate fear of death and improve performance in gross anatomy. Possible interventions may include a death education course, as they have been shown to significantly lower fear of death. Ultimately, this would allow for anatomy faculty members to further support their students both emotionally and academically.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

IntroductionIn the era of radical medical curriculum reform, the preclinical anatomy curriculum should not only prepare students for USMLE Step 1, but also provide sufficient knowledge for clinical clerkships and electives. Unfortunately, data regarding the anatomical knowledge considered essential for any given clerkship or elective is lacking.AimThis IRB study addresses the lack of data on the anatomical knowledge required for clinical clerkships and electives using an online survey provided to clerkship/elective educators to evaluate the importance of 98 anatomical items (tissues and structures) across all body regions using a 1‐to‐4 scale (1 = not important, 4 = essential).MethodsFor each clerkship/elective, the average ranking for each survey item was calculated for each body region; subsequently, an average ranking was calculated across all body regions for each clerkship/elective, as well as a “meta‐rank” for groups of clerkships/electives that were classified as Primary Care, Surgical/Procedural (further subdivided into specialties that ranked all anatomy in all regions vs. those that ranked only specific anatomy in some regions), or Non‐Surgical/Procedural.ResultsThe initial data was from 165 clinical educators (clerkship/elective directors, attending physicians, residents, fellows) in 19 clerkships/electives at 13 medical schools. The table shows the average rankings for each clerkship/elective across all body regions, as well as a “meta‐rank” for broad practice areas.Discussion and ConclusionsThis expanding database represents the first comprehensive evaluation of the importance to clinical educators of specific tissues and structures in each anatomical region. While some of the average anatomy rankings for specific clerkships/electives were as might be expected (e.g., most surgical/procedural fields ranked anatomy highly whereas psychiatry ranked it very low), there were surprises (e.g., primary care fields as a whole ranked anatomy relatively highly). The rankings of specific anatomy within each region in this database (to be presented at the meeting) will provide detailed information regarding specific anatomical content that anatomists and medical schools can use to focus on in the preclinical years to prepare their students for success in their undergraduate and graduate medical clinical experiences. Average Rankings Across Body RegionsimageAverage Rankings Across Body RegionsThis abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

Given the foundational importance of gross anatomy in most allied health programs, understanding how to best predict student performance can be beneficial both to admissions and anatomy faculty. The purpose of this research is to better understand the relationship between admissions variables, pre‐requisite courses, and gross anatomy coursework in professional programs. We hope to determine what elements of prerequisites can possibly serve as performance predictors and which factors from prior coursework contributes the most to student success.

Student struggles in gross anatomy coursework at the professional level can result in hours of remediation along with a need to allot time and other resources by both the student and the faculty. Since this course typically occurs in the first semester of the first year, programs can turn to admissions data to try to determine which of these students may struggle. This study looked at two years of medical (n = 280) and dental (n = 78) students to determine if there is a relationship between pre‐admissions anatomy coursework and performance in gross anatomy at the professional school level. Students provided data regarding their past anatomy coursework and final grades in professional school gross anatomy courses were obtained. In addition, students responded to questions regarding their feelings of preparation and how they valued the prior anatomy coursework as it related to the professional course. Statistical analysis showed no difference in final course grade between students with and without prior anatomy in either program. Counter to the numerical data, 96.6% of the students in the study recommended an anatomy course prior to pursuing a health science degree. The primary reasons given for this recommendation were the benefits of repeated content exposure, knowledge of the anatomy terminology, and decreased stress regarding the course. The results from this study suggest that the benefits of prior anatomy may be seen more in the students’ stress and quality of life rather in the numerical performance of course grades.

In 2002, a widely publicized report projected an anatomy educator shortage based on department chairpersons' perceptions. Now, 17 years later, the question lingers: “Does an anatomy educator shortage persist and, if so, how severe is the shortage?” Trends in the number, type, and fill rate of anatomy educator job openings were explored by analyzing job posting in the United States over the past two years. A survey was distributed to leaders of anatomy‐related departments in the United States, Canada, and European Union. Most departmental leaders who responded (65% or more) from the United States/Canada (n = 81) and the European Union (n = 52) anticipate they will have “moderate” to “great” difficulty hiring anatomy educators in gross anatomy, histology, and embryology over the next five years. Within the United States, the number of anatomy educator job postings at medical schools more than doubled from at least 21 postings in 2017 to 52 postings in 2018. Twenty‐one percent of postings between 2017 and 2018 were never filled. While the number of anatomy educator openings within the United States/Canada is perceived to remain in a steady state for the next five years, the European Union estimates a five‐fold increase in the number of openings. Departmental leaders prioritize anatomy educator applicants who have teaching experience (mean ± SD = 4.64 ± 0.84 on five‐point Likert scale), versatility in teaching multiple anatomy disciplines (3.93 ± 1.07), and flexibility in implementing various teaching pedagogies (3.69 ± 1.17). Collectively, these data suggest the shortage of anatomy educators continues in the United States/Canada and the European Union.

Purpose In 2002, a widely publicized report projected an anatomy educator shortage based on the perceptions of department chairpersons. Now, 16 years later, with the number of medical and health professions programs higher than ever, does a perceived shortage of anatomy educators (AEs) continue to persist? If there is a shortage, how severe is it and is it a global phenomenon? Methods This study replicated and expanded upon the previously published 2002 report. Two surveys were internationally distributed to 1) departmental leaders and 2) trainees (i.e., graduate students and postdoctoral fellows) within anatomy‐related departments. Trends in the number and type of AE job openings were also explored by analyzing job postings within the US over the past 2 years. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate perceptions, historic trends, and future projections. Results The majority (51% or more) of departmental leaders who responded from the US/Canada (n=81), the European Union (n=52), and ‘other countries’ (n=26) anticipate they will have ‘moderate’ to ‘great’ difficulty hiring AEs in each of the four classic anatomy disciplines over the next five years. Within the US alone, the number of AE job postings for allopathic and osteopathic medical schools has increased from a minimum of 17 postings in 2017 to 25 postings (and counting) in 2018. While the number of open AE positions within the US/Canada and ‘other countries' is perceived to remain in a steady state over the next 5 years, the European Union estimates a 5 fold increase in the number of openings. Departmental leaders prioritize AE applicants who have teaching experience (90%), the ability to teach multiple anatomy disciplines (72%), and the knowledge/experience of employing different teaching pedagogies (65%). Through the eyes of most (67.2%) trainees, the current job market is perceived to be highly competitive. Conclusions Based on the perceptions of international departmental leaders and trends in documented job postings, the job vacancy gap for AEs continues to widen with the European Union projecting the greatest need for AEs over the next 5 years. Trainees' perceptions that the job market for AEs is competitive might be explained by a mismatch in how AEs are trained and the types of applicants departmental leaders are seeking. Support or Funding Information AAA This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .