Advertisement

Running a Body Donation Program

  • Andrea Porzionato
  • Veronica Macchi
  • Carla Stecco
  • Raffaele De CaroEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

A reduction in the time devoted to dissecting or examining prosections has been reported by many authors. However, the importance of direct dissection in both undergraduate and postgraduate medical/surgical education and training must be stressed. The availability of anatomical material, together with its correct, effective management in education/training sessions, can only be ensured by well-organized, standardized body donation programs. The main aspects to consider in setting up such programs are legal and ethical references; promotion of body donation and its ethical value; organization of trained staff, including anatomists, technicians, and administrators; facilities for the proper conservation, storage and management in education/training sessions of anatomical material; details of all main and supportive processes of the program, with particular reference to the diffusion of information and acquisition of donors’ consent. In the experience of the Body Donation Program of the University of Padova (Italy), the development of a quality management system and achievement of certification is useful in improving efficiency and quality and stimulating continual improvement.

Keywords

Body Part Quality Management System Continual Improvement Quality Policy Body Donation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Monkhouse WS. Anatomy and the medical school curriculum. Lancet. 1992;340:834–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Turney BW. Anatomy in a modern medical curriculum. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007;89:104–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moxham BJ, Plaisant O. Perception of medical students towards the clinical relevance of anatomy. Clin Anat. 2007;20:560–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: the winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:253–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barton DP, Davies DC, Mahadevan V, Dennis L, Adib T, Mudan S, Sohaib A, Ellis H. Dissection of soft-preserved cadavers in the training of gynaecological oncologists: report of the first UK workshop. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113:352–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McLachlan JC, Bligh J, Bradley P, Searle J. Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ. 2004;38:418–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reed AB, Crafton C, Giglia JS, Hutto JD. Back to basics: use of fresh cadavers in vascular surgery training. Surgery. 2009;146:757–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feigl G, Kos I, Anderhuber F, Guyot JP, Fasel J. Development of surgical skill with singular neurectomy using human cadaveric temporal bones. Ann Anat. 2008;190:316–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McHanwell S, Brenner E, Chirculescu AR, Drukker J, van Mameren H, Mazzotti G, Pais D, Paulsen F, Plaisant O, Caillaud MM, Laforêt E, Riederer BM, Sañudo JR, Bueno-López JL, Doñate-Oliver F, Sprumont P, Teofilovski-Parapid G, Moxham BJ. The legal and ethical framework governing body donation in Europe – A review of current practice and recommendations for good practice. Eur J Anat. 2008;12:1–24.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Riederer BM, Bolt S, Brenner E, Bueno-Lopez JL, Chirculescu AR, Davies DC, De Caro R, Gerrits PO, McHanwell S, Pais D, Paulsen F, Plaisant O, Sendemir E, Stabile I, Moxham BJ. The legal and ethical framework governing body donation in Europe – 1st update on current practice. Eur J Anat. 2012;16:13–33.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Caro R, Macchi V, Porzionato A. Promotion of body donation and use of cadavers in anatomical education at the University of Padova. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:91–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones DG, Whitaker MI. Anatomy’s use of unclaimed bodies: reasons against continued dependence on an ethically dubious practice. Clin Anat. 2012;25:246–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Committee for Bioethics of the Italian Government. Donazione del corpo post mortem a fini di studio e di ricerca. 2013. http://www.governo.it/bioetica/pareri_abstract/Donazione_cadavere_ricerca_20052013.pdf
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (2006, last revised or amended in 2009). http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/anatomical_gift/uaga_final_aug09.pdf
  16. 16.
    Macchi V, Porzionato A, Stecco C, Tiengo C, Parenti A, Cestrone A, De Caro R. Body parts removed during surgery: a useful training source. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4:151–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Richardson R, Hurwitz B. Donors’ attitudes towards body donation for dissection. Lancet. 1995;346:277–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McClea K. The Bequest Programme at the University of Otago: cadavers donated for clinical anatomy teaching. N Z Med J. 2008;121:72–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang L, Wang Y, Xiao M, Han Q, Ding J. An ethical solution to the challenges in teaching anatomy with dissection in the Chinese culture. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1:56–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McClea K, Stringer MD. The profile of body donors at the Otago School of Medical Sciences–has it changed? N Z Med J. 2010;123:9–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bolt S, Venbrux E, Eisinga R, Kuks JB, Veening JG, Gerrits PO. Motivation for body donation to science: more than an altruistic act. Ann Anat. 2010;192:70–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rokade SA, Gaikawad AP. Body donation in India: social awareness, willingness, and associated factors. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5:83–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Armstrong GT. Age: an indicator of willingness to donate? J Transpl Coord. 1996;6:171–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boulware LE, Ratner LE, Sosa JA, Cooper LA, LaVeist TA, Powe NR. Determinants of willingness to donate living related and cadaveric organs: identifying opportunities for intervention. Transplantation. 2002;73:1683–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alashek W, Ehtuish E, Elhabashi A, Emberish W, Mishra A. Reasons for unwillingness of Libyans to donate organs after death. Libyan J Med. 2009;4:110–3.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Park JT, Jang Y, Park MS, Pae C, Park J, Hu KS, Park JS, Han SH, Koh KS, Kim HJ. The trend of body donation for education based on Korean social and religious culture. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4:33–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    da Rocha AO, Tormes DA, Lehmann N, Schwab RS, Canto RT. The body donation program at the Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre: a successful experience in Brazil. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6:199–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hafferty FW. Into the valley: death and the socialization of medical students. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1991.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bertman SL, Marks Jr SC. Humanities in medical education: rationale and resources for the dissection laboratory. Med Educ. 1985;19:374–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Segal DA. A patient so dead: American medical students and their cadavers. Anthropol Q. 1988;61:17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Winkelmann A, Güldner FH. Cadavers as teachers: the dissecting room experience in Thailand. Br Med J. 2004;329:1455–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lin SC, Hsu J, Fan VY. “Silent virtuous teachers”: anatomical dissection in Taiwan. Br Med J. 2009;339:b5001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Morris K, Turell MB, Ahmed S, Ghazi A, Vora S, Lane M, Entigar LD. The 2003 anatomy ceremony: a service of gratitude. Yale J Biol Med. 2002;75:323–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pawlina W, Hammer RR, Strauss JD, Heath SG, Zhao KD, Sahota S, Regnier TD, Freshwater DR, Feeley MA. The hand that gives the rose. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86:139–44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kooloos JG, Bolt S, van der Straaten J, Ruiter DJ. An altar in honor of the anatomical gift. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:323–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Delmas V. Donation of bodies to science. Bull Natl Acad Med. 2001;185:849–56.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tutsch H. An odorless, well-preserving injectable solution for cadavers used in classes. Anat Anz. 1975;138:126–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thiel W. The preservation of the whole corpse with natural color. Ann Anat. 1992;174:185–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Thiel W. Supplement to the conservation of an entire cadaver according to W. Thiel Ann Anat. 2002;184:267–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Porzionato A, Macchi V, Stecco C, Mazzi A, Rambaldo A, Sarasin G, Parenti A, Scipioni A, De Caro R. Quality management of body donation program at the University of Padova. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5:264–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Porzionato A, Macchi V, Parenti A, De Caro R. Vein of Galen aneurysm: anatomical study of an adult autopsy case. Clin Anat. 2004;17:458–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Riederer BM. Plastination and its importance in teaching anatomy. Critical points for long-term preservation of human tissue. J Anat. 2014;224(3):309–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Macchi V, Feltrin G, Parenti A, De Caro R. Diaphragmatic sulci and portal fissures. J Anat. 2003;202:303–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Macchi V, Porzionato A, Parenti A, Macchi C, Newell R, De Caro R. Main accessory sulcus of the liver. Clin Anat. 2005;18:39–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Martínez-Pardo ME, Mariano-Magaña D. The tissue bank at the Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Nucleares: ISO 9001:2000 certification of its quality management system. Cell Tissue Bank. 2007;8:221–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Toniolo M, Camposampiero D, Griffoni C, Jones GL. Quality management in European eye banks. Dev Ophthalmol. 2009;43:70–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Beholz S, Konertz W. Improvement in cost-effectiveness and customer satisfaction by a quality management system according to EN ISO 9001:2000. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg. 2005;4:569–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Karle H, Gordon D. Quality standards in medical education. Lancet. 2007;370:1828.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gordon D, Christensen L, Dayrit M, Dela F, Karle H, Mercer H. Educating health professionals: the Avicenna project. Lancet. 2008;371:966–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dieter PE. Quality management of medical education at the Carl Gustav Carus Faculty of Medicine, University of Technology Dresden. Germany Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2008;37:1038–40.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Da Dalt L, Callegaro S, Mazzi A, Scipioni A, Lago P, Chiozza ML, Zacchello F, Perilongo G. A model of quality assurance and quality improvement for post-graduate medical education in Europe. Med Teach. 2010;32:e57–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    ISO. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management Systems: Requirements. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2008. http://www.isorequirements.com/iso_9001_requirements.html

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Porzionato
    • 1
  • Veronica Macchi
    • 1
  • Carla Stecco
    • 1
  • Raffaele De Caro
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Section of Human Anatomy, Department of Molecular MedicineUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations