For faculty and course directors
The donor already has a history. We just never let students read it.
The Donor Medical Record adds a documentation layer to the dissections you already run. Students review their donor's CT, chart what they find in a real electronic health record, and hand off to the alternating group. It does not replace a single session, and it does not ask you to teach anything new.
Sign-in details are in the course site.
What this is
Each group is treated as their donor's last care providers. They read the CT before opening a region, then file what they find to that region, signed, where the group that dissects next will read it.
It matters because those habits are usually picked up later, on the wards, and mostly by exposure. Anatomy is often the first time a student has a whole person in front of them, and the course has not had a place to record what they see.
Today's Tasks
A student signs in, opens their donor from the Patient Finder, and works the same three tasks. One set per session, the same set for everyone.
Label structures on the CT
The session's structures, tagged on the scan before the region is opened. Viewer labels are not yet persisted, so what a student wants on the record goes into the finding.
Complete the GAPP
That session's Gross Anatomy Practical Primer, handed out by the course and done outside the record.
Record observations and findings
Filed to the region on the exam map, signed.
Each donor also gets an intake survey at the start of the year, your external exam from Observations Box I.1, and everything filed later is read against it.
In the record now. The Anatomy Time Out is built. On a lab day the viewer raises a banner until the service has recorded it, and it is answered on the exam map, once per donor per session, before the first incision.
The three questions are objectives, must-find structures, and the critical concern for the region. Whoever answers has their name and the time kept against it, and faculty get a column showing which services recorded one. Whether it also stays something said out loud in the room is a call for the course rather than for us.
The three screens that are yours
Students cannot reach any of these. Click through them below. They are sketches of the real pages, not the live system.
Session 2 · Thoracic wall
| Service | Findings | Who logged |
|---|---|---|
| 3A | 4 | 4 of 4 |
| 3B | 3 | 3 of 5 |
| 4A | 5 | 2 of 4 |
Session 3 · Thoracic cavity
| Service | Findings | Who logged |
|---|---|---|
| 3A | 6 | 4 of 4 |
| 3B | 0 | 0 of 5 |
| 4A | 3 | 1 of 4 |
Session 4 · Abdominal wall
| Service | Findings | Who logged |
|---|---|---|
| 3A | 5 | 3 of 4 |
| 3B | 4 | 4 of 5 |
| 4A | 2 | 4 of 4 |
The requirement is per service, because a group logs its findings between them. Individual counts sit alongside the total anyway, since "the service met it" and "one student did all of it" are different situations and only one of them shows up in a total. Step through the dates and 4A is the second kind twice.
Session 2 · Thoracic wall
- Is there breast tissue present, and does it differ between the two sides?
- Count the ribs. Were any fractured, and were the fractures healed?
Session 3 · Thoracic cavity
- Were you able to remove the lungs easily, or were there adhesions that had to be broken down?
- Describe the pericardium. Was there fluid, thickening, or adhesion?
Session 4 · Abdominal wall
- Is there a hernia at the umbilicus or in the inguinal region?
- Note any surgical scars on the abdominal wall and what they suggest was done.
Forty of these across the year, taken from your Clinical Observations document. They attach to the lab session that exposes the structure rather than to a body region, so a question about lungs appears the day the thorax is opened and not before. You edit the set; students answer it on the way out.
GAPP 07 · Abdominal viscera
Student sheets have the key painted out when the site is built. The un-redacted copies are not in the web root at all, so a student cannot reach one by guessing a filename. Hiding the link would not have been a control.
This is the one panel with nothing to click. The page you are reading is public, and a demo of the key viewer that showed a real key would defeat the point of keeping the files off the web root. You get this one in person.
What it asks of you
- No new sessions and no new hardware. The documentation attaches to the ~10 dissections you already run, in a browser, on the lab iPads and student laptops.
- Documentation from each service each session. That is the third task above: whatever the imaging and the dissection revealed, written down and signed. The labeling and the GAPP leave nothing in the record today, which is a limitation of the viewer and of where the GAPP lives rather than a design choice.
- A grading rubric for finding quality. This is the one genuinely new piece of course design, and the one we would build with you. Lab Participation already answers whether they documented. It cannot answer whether it was any good.
What we would most like from you is the opposite of buy-in. Tell us where this breaks against how your sessions actually run.
Where AI sits
The platform is deliberately conservative about this, and students are told why. The rule is that AI may help produce the work but may not do the parts that are the point.
Supported
- Drafting and refining documentation the student has already reasoned through
- Organizing and cross-referencing the accumulating longitudinal record
- Image reconstruction and denoising applied to the CT itself
Deliberately excluded
- Automated identification of abnormalities on CT, which is the perceptual skill students are here to build
- Model-written findings. Deciding what is worth filing for the seven or eight others on your donor who were not in the room is the judgment being trained, and fluent-but-wrong is the failure mode that matters
Students see this same distinction, with the reasoning, in their guide.
Donor privacy and dignity
- Every DICOM image, the format the scanner writes, is stripped of identifying information before loading, and studies are keyed to a cohort slot rather than to a person.
- The chart is not a health record. It holds basic measurements and post-mortem findings, and nothing else.
- Access is restricted to enrolled students and course faculty. The system sits behind a login and an encrypted connection, and the dataset is not redistributed.
- No donor imaging appears on this public site, and students are told not to record anything identifying in a note.
Open questions we would rather raise than bury
- Where the Anatomy Time Out lives. It is not a tab in the platform, and it is not built yet. It could open the session on the exam map, sit on the donor's chart, or stay out of the software entirely and remain something said out loud in the room. We would rather have that answer from you than guess at a screen.
- How much of the EHR to keep. The current build trims presentation only, with no capability removed. Where the floor should sit is a course decision, not ours.
- Whether image annotation should persist. Measurements drawn in the viewer are not stored server-side, so students transcribe the number into the note. Making labels durable is a viewer change we can make if the course wants it.
- Assessment. Finding quality is the thing worth measuring and the thing hardest to measure. Participation is already tracked. The quality rubric is not written.
- Where it lives long term. The prototype runs on cloud infrastructure, and moving into UCI-managed hosting is the intended path.
See it
If you have not been through it with one of us, take the fifteen minutes. It is faster than credentials and a guess at where to click, and your questions are the useful part.
Request a walkthroughSee what students are asked to do
Project team. Dr. Peter Chang (technical, Institute for Precision Health / Center for Artificial Intelligence in Diagnostic Medicine), Dr. Alan Detton (anatomy course), Dr. Julie Youm (compliance and educational technology), Dr. Alisa Wray (Clinical Foundations). Built by medical students Sam Kho and Jordan Jessen.