The hidden curriculum within medical education has been a topic of recent debate. Consensus opinion regarding the continued relevance of this term, what constitutes the hidden curriculum, and the nature of its impact do not exist. Further research is required to contribute to this debate. This work sets out to investigate which factors beyond taught cognitive knowledge influence medical students in clinical and educational environments and examine how this occurs. Semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted with 39 students from one UK medical school. Fourteen faculty were interviewed individually to triangulate data. Data were analysed using constructivist thematic analysis, informed by grounded theory convention. The presence of the hidden curriculum was clearly demonstrated, acting through role modelling, organizational culture, stereotyping and professional dress. Mentioned frequently were the influences of the hidden curriculum on student professionalism and identity development. Professionalism was perceived as being negatively impacted by the hidden curriculum and seen as an imposition from senior faculty to control students. Students believe medical identity formation begins prior to medical school, in a process known as “anticipatory socialization”, a previously unstudied identity transition. Students felt covert institutional agendas negatively impacted their identity, pushing them further from the identity their institution was encouraging them to acquire. Key messages for educators include the need to explore the hidden curriculum through discussion with students. Improving transparency of organizational culture may allow students to interpret institutional agendas in the way institutions formally intend, reducing orthogonal interpretations of organizational culture and subsequent impact upon identity formation.

The Anatomical Society's core syllabus for anatomy (2003 and later refined in 2007) set out a series of learning outcomes that an individual medical student should achieve on graduation. The core syllabus, with 182 learning outcomes grouped in body regions, referenced in the General Medical Council's Teaching Tomorrow's Doctors, was open to criticism on the grounds that the learning outcomes were generated by a relatively small group of anatomists, albeit some of whom were clinically qualified. We have therefore used a modified Delphi technique to seek a wider consensus. A Delphi panel was constructed involving ‘experts’ (n = 39). The revised core syllabus of 156 learning outcomes presented here is applicable to all medical programmes and may be used by curriculum planners, teachers and students alike in addressing the perennial question: ‘What do I need to know ?’

Anatomical education in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland has long been under scrutiny, especially since the reforms triggered in 1993 by the General Medical Council's “Tomorrow's Doctors.” The aim of the current study was to investigate the state of medical student anatomy education in the UK and Ireland in 2019. In all, 39 medical schools completed the survey (100% response rate) and trained 10,093 medical students per year cohort. The teachers comprised 760 individuals, of these 143 were employed on full‐time teaching contracts and 103 were employed on education and research contracts. Since a previous survey in 1999, the number of part‐time staff has increased by 300%, including a significant increase in the number of anatomy demonstrators. In 2019, anatomy was predominantly taught to medical students in either a system‐based or hybrid curriculum. In all, 34 medical schools (87%) used human cadavers to teach anatomy, with a total of 1,363 donors being used per annum. Gross anatomy teaching was integrated with medical imaging in 95% of medical schools, embryology in 81%, living anatomy in 78%, neuroanatomy in 73%, and histology in 68.3%. Throughout their five years of study, medical students are allocated on average 85 h of taught time for gross anatomy, 24 h for neuroanatomy, 24 h for histology, 11 h for living anatomy, and 10 for embryology. In the past 20 years, there has been an average loss of 39 h dedicated to gross anatomy teaching and a reduction in time dedicated to all other anatomy sub‐disciplines.