Rrirish Joirnial of Medical Education, 1975, 9, 205-214
Home bases for private work and study Are multidisciplinary laboratories the best answer?
IAN A. OLSON’, FREDERICK C. TREEBY, and ROGER E. WHJBLEY The Multidisciplinary Laboratories, The Medical School, University Park, Nottingharn NG7 2RD K e y words ‘EDUCATlON, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE ‘SCUOOLS, MEDICAL *LABORATORIES STUDENTS, MEDICAL HOUSING CURRICULUM QUESTIOYNAIRES ENGLAND
In 1924 Leake proposed that the use of multidisciplinary laboratories (MDLs) would (a) unify the medical curriculum, (b) save space and equipment by avoiding unnecessary duplication, and (c) provide students with office and workshop facilities at any hour. This last provision would in turn stimulate independent investigation and provide closer personal contact betwen staff and students. In a previous papzr describing the use of the first United Kingdom multidisciplinary laboratories at Nottingham Medical School (Olson, Treeby, and Whibley, 1974). we were able to support Leake’s economic argument concerning the saving of space, facilities, and equipment; we were, however, unable to conclude that the provision of central facilities automatically produced a unified curriculum, though, conversely, the integrated curriculum at Nottingham had facilitated the provision and organization of multidisciplinary facilities (Olson, 1971b; Whibley, Treeby. and Olson, 1973). Leake’s final idea of providing students with personal ‘office’ space within such laboratories has been supported by the majority of authors commenting on the use of multidisciplinary laboratories; by 1972, Kaushanpour and Baum were even prepared to state that, ‘the home base idea remains valid and accrues new support and emphasis’. We have, however, ‘Requests for reprints to Dr Ian A. Olson, Faculty of Medicine. Kuwait University, P.O.Box 5969 Kuwait, Arabian Gulf.
LIBRARIES, MEDICAL
found only one report which has actually measured and evaluated the provision of such ‘home base’ facilities (Jaussi, Baum, Swaner, and Burford, 1971). In this paper we have attempted both to measure and to evaluate our own experience with such home bases at Nottingham Medical School since 1970. Private study facilities in general Most medical schools provide one or more of the following facilities for private study.
1. The library The facilities here may range from non-reservable open table seating to fully reservable sound-proof carrells containing locker space. Library places are commonly available until late evening, but hours of opening may be restricted during vacations and at weekends. 2. Study bedrooms These are usually in halls of residence (‘dormitories’) and house no more than two students. They may be on-campus or at a distance and the regulations concerning noise and other disturbances vary from monastic to nonexistent. 3. Laboratory accommodation This may or may not mean access to a permanent area of bench, and such space may be provided by individual departments or by multidisciplinary (Levy and Lee, 1971) or multifunction (Marchand and Steward, 1974) 205
206
Ian A . Olson,Frederick C . Treeby, and Roger E . Whibley
laboratories. Multidisciplinary laboratories may vary from the simple ‘Stanford’ type (Fuhrman, 1968) in which students work around a central conference table or the ‘Southern California’ type (Lee and Bamberger, 1964; Strassman, Taylor, and Scoles, 1969) in which students are provided with carrell-type accommodation and locker facilities. The amount of equipment and audiovisual aids provided may vary considerably, as may the hours of access. The number of students accommodated in the laboratory n a y be small or large (Spilman, 1966, 1973).
4. Study cubicles Some schools have provided such facilities separately from either the library or the laboratories (Harrell, 1962, 1964, 1968, 1969; Haft, 1972).
disturb piles of books and papers. Sixteen lockable private study carrells are available in the library, and may be reserved on a weekly basis during term. The library houses copies of most of the textbooks recommended for the course and usually restricts at least one copy for reference use within the library itself. During term the library is open from 9 a.m. until 10 p.m. on weekdays and from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. on Saturday, though borrowing is not usually permitted after 12.30 on Saturday. The Medical Librarian and his staff go to great lengths to encourage student use of the, library. They have a positive, welcoming approach and at present are able to devote a great deal of time to assisting students.
2. Study bedrooms. The majority of our first year students and about two-thirds of our second year students live in halls of residence Situation at Nottingham Our students usually enter the Medical School on the campus, which mostly provide individual at the age of 18 and spend three years studying study-bedrooms containing a desk or writing for a Bachelor of Medical Sciences (B.Med. surface, chairs, and bookshelves. The nearest Sci.) degree before entering a two-year course hall is 500 metres (6 minutes) and the furthest in clinical medicine leading to the Bachelor of hall 1 300 metres (16 minutes) from the MediMedicine and Bachelor of Surgery (B.M., B.S.) cal School. The hall fees include a charge for degrees. The first two years of the B.Med.Sci. meals and no refund is usually given for meals course are organized on an integrated, inter- not consumed; the students must, therefore, departmental basis using multidisciplinary make at least four journeys a day between hall laboratories (Olson, 1971a, b); Whibley et al.. and medical school. The evening meal may be 1973; Olson et al., 1974) and are the part of a somewhat formal affair and is usually at 6 p.m., thus taking the student away from the the course described in this paper. Medical School in the early part of the evening. At present the Medical School is housed on Rising ground of modest height occupies the the main University campus (Fig. 1) in build- centre of the campus and when combined with ings designed as the future School of Phar- bad weather conditions this presents a psymacy, pending the completion of the Medical chological barrier at least against additional Sciences portion of the Medical School/Teach- journeys. Students, furthermore, are not ing Hospital adjacent to the campus in 1975. allowed to have motor cars on the campus and We have a present intake of 48 students per must, therefore, walk or cycle to the MDLs. annum.
Facilities provided 1. Library (Fig. 1) At present our Medical Library is housed within the Science Faculty Library which is close to the Medical School. Fifty places are set aside for our students, but overflow into adjacent areas is permitted. Students study at open conference tables, 6 to a table. Strictly speaking these may not be reserved, but the library staff do not usually
3. Multidisciplinary laboratories (Olson et al.. 1974). At present we possess two multidisciplinary laboratories (MDLs) each accommodating one year of 48 students.
Every student has his own place within the laboratory around a low level bench of the ‘Stanford’ type. Each bench place is 0.85 metres wide by 0.65 metres deep and possesses an electric power point. A lockable microscope
Use of M D L s as home bases
Fig. 1. Mcip of itniversi1.v crimpits.
207
I a n A . Olson, Frederick C . Treeby, and Roger E . Whibley
208
locker is provided under the bench which houses a binocular microscope with x4, x40 and xl00 (oil) objectives, together with boxes containing sets of microscope slides. A comfortable, mobile typist’s chair which can be adjusted for height and tilt fits under the bench. Adjacent to this low bench place is an area of high bench (0.94m) accommodation, 0.76m by 0-76m, with small turrets carrying gas, electricity, and water. Under the high bench is a drawer and a lockable cupboard which contains three adjustable shelves. Except for microscopes, instruments and chemicals are not housed at individual places. Every student is free to use this home base during weekdays when teaching is not in progress untiI 10 pm., from 9 a.m. unti1 5 p.m. on Saturdays, and from 11 a.m. until 8 p.m. on Sundays. We provide preprogrammed calculating machines for statistical calculations, skeletons, and teaching aids such as tape-slides packages. The Medical Students’ Society also provides copies of some of the standard texts in the first year laboratory. The students are informed (see Appendix) that apparatus can be provided on request and that the staff are willing to supervise extra laboratory work; this is rarely requested. Normally, there is no staff supervision in MDLs a t unscheduled hours, but a book is
provided at the porters’ desk in the adjacent entry hall which is signed by students when they enter and leave in order to help the security staff supervise and close up the labordtories. The laboratory lights cannot be switched off except by a special key. No laboratory fees or deposits are required.
Factors affecting use of MDLs 1. Curriculum and examinations The course is organized on an interdepartmental basis in three main themes: ‘the cell’ (theme A), ‘man’ (theme’B), and ‘the community’ (theme C) which run concurrently, though with varying emphasis, throughout the first 2 years. A course in general pathology starts in the second year (Table 1).
Each 10-week term is spread over 11 calendar weeks; the assessments occur throughout the course, usually in the last weeks of term and the results are cumulative. There are 72 units of assessment, each of equal weight, which are taken over 2 to 3 days as follows:
Year 1 Term 1: Week 11 - 7 units Term 2: Week 11 - 9 units Term 3: Week 10/11 -14 units
Table 1. Summary of medical curriculum over first t w o years of B.Med.Sci. course Year
Term
Theme A
Theme B
Theme C
1
1
Introduction to nervous system
2
Cell structure and function; cell excitation; cell biochemistry Cell biochemistry
Organization of medical care; social anthropometry SociaI psychology
1 1
3
Cell biochemistry
2
4
Cell biochemistry; general pathology
2
5
2
6
Cell biochemistry; biochemical pharmacology: general pathology Cell biochemistry; pharrnacogenetics; general pathology
Cardiovascular system; respiratory system; Respiratory system; locomotor system; lymph-vascular system; haemopoietic-l ymphoid system Alimentary system; excretory system; reproductive system Central nervous system; metabolism and nutrition; developmen tal psychology Metabolism and nutrition; endocrine system
Normal psychology
Behaviour of human population Human populations and medicat problems of population change Evaluation oE medical care
.
Use of M D L s as home bases
Term 4: Week 11 -10 units - 9 units Term 5 : Week 11 Term 6: Week 7 -23 units A wide variety of assessment is used, ranging from traditional essays, practicals, and (oral examinations) to computer-marked yes/ no examinations, completion tests, extended essays, and project assessments. In general one unit usually represents some 30 minutes of examination time.
Year 2
2. Timetabied laboratory classes These represent some 20 per cent of total teaching time in the curriculum (Table 2). Such classes might be expected to stimulate further out-of-hours work in the MDLs were it not for the fact that time for recording observations, analysing results, and writing up practical classes has been set aside within the total number of hours allocated to each practical class. The principal exception to this rule is during the first Autumn term when a number of seminars have to be prepared in the students’ own time for the Measurement in Medicine course.
209
Findings 1. Recorded use of MDLs as home bases We have summarized our records in two ways. In Fig. 2 we present the total number of visits received in any one week of term by the laboratories and it is clear that apart from the Autumn term of the first year this total number of visits is seldom over 12, which thus represents a daily use restricted to the occasional student. In Table 3 we present the use of the MDLs from the point of view of student use. The first two lines present in numerical form the same low use of the MDLs as shown in Fig 2. From the third and fourth lines it can be seen that a rapidly diminishing number of students use the MDLs with a corresponding 22
7
20 18I614-
12IO864-
.P 2 ‘ 5 0-
3. Distractions and diversions The students’ union (Portland building) is at the centre of the campus and is open from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. from Monday to Saturday, and between 2 p.m. and 11 p.m. on Sundays. Meals are usually served until 6.30 p.m. and the bar is open until 10 p.m. On Wednesdays and Saturdays some major item of entertainment is provided. Undergraduate Society meetings are held on the other nights apart from Sunday. The medical students’ society meets infrequently some three to four times a term on Thursday evenings.
f =
2
q 4
2 0
____I
n
Summer term
J-l>+--lt
-.J
2
3
4
5
6 7 Weeks
8
9
1
O
I
I
Fig. 2. Numbers of visits to the M D L per week paid by first and second year students.
Table 2. Practical classes in relation to total teaching A iitirmn
First year Spring
Slimmer
Aiitumn
Second year Spring
Slimmer
Total no. of teaching hours
191
209
219
205
216
96
Laboratory classes (hours)
56
21
34
49
60
17
Ian A . Olson, Frederick C. Treeby. and Roger E . Whible!
210
fall in the number of actual visits made. Thereafter, even the number of students who do use the MDL seldom visit them (3.9 to 1.5 visits per term) regardless of whether or not they live on or off the campus. It is of interest that such visits are on average over an hour and a half in length and are often very much longer.
3. Do any features of the MDL act as positive disincentives to working there? 4. Should we continue to keep them open? For what purpose? 5. List in order of preference your place for private study. Any other comments were also invited.
2. Questionnaires We have also presented our students with questionnaires in order to determine (a) whether or not their estimate of private use coincided with our records, and (b) any reasons for and against the use of the MDL as home bases for private study. The questions asked concerning ‘out-of-hours use’ were: 1. How often do you use the MDL as visits/ week and hours/visit? 2. Does this use vary throughout the term, and between the terms?
In general, the students confirmed our records of use for the MDLs both in number of visits and in hours of use per visit. On the other hand well over half the students were convinced that their use of the MDLs increased considerably towards the end of terms, i.e. before their examinations; our figures, however (which were verified by random checks), showed, if anything, a decline in student use at this time. On the other hand the students claimed an increased use in the early weeks of term 1, and this did show in our records (Fig. 2).
Table 3. Sunimary of recorded use o f M D L s ar out-of-hourshome bases f o r private study ~
Total hours’ use of MDLs Total no. visits received by MDLs Average no. of visits per term all students Y!, students using MDLs Average no. of visits per student using MDLs Average no. of visits per on-campus student Average no. of visits per living-out student Average duration of visits (all students using MDLs) Longest visits recorded
A iitiimii
Year I SprinR
Slimmer
A iiriimn
Spring
Slimmer
250
90
83
I06
24
19
144
56
46
53
13
16
3.0
1.2
0.9
1.1
0.3
0.3
13
50
39
41
16
II
3.9
2.4
2.3
2.5
1.5
I .8
3.8
2.4
2.8
2.3
1.1
I .4
5.6
2.3
2.2
3. I
Ih44m
I h 46m
Ih 5 l m
2h 2m
I h 46m
I h 32m
8 h 45m
3h 45m
6h 15m
9h
6h 50m
8h 30m
Year 2
1.4
Use of M D L s as home bases
Distance was an obvious factor with students living outside, but over half those living on the campus quoted distance as well. A common disincentive was the lack of reference books in the laboratories, but other minor factors listed, included ‘too cold, too noisy. and too quiet’. Virtually every student living on the campus preferred to work in their study bedrooms, as a first choice, especially during the wet winter months. The incentives quoted varied with the type of course running during the day but most students needed to visit the MDLs a t some time in order to use the microscopes, calculators, and skeletons. The majority, however, saw little need for keeping all the MDLs themselves open as study bases in the future, provided that out-of-hours facilities for the use of such equipment were available, e.g. in one or two rooms.
21 1
It is difficult also to estimate whether or not a more la b o r a to j based course than the one we offer would encourage (or force) the students to make more use of the laboratories at night. From the earliest planning stages the Faculty insisted that laboratory classes should attempt to present a complete scientific experience, namely that observations should be recorded, analysed, and written up there and then, and thus we do not expect our students to have to stay in, or return to the laboratories, in order to finish or write up practical classes. Clearly, by insisting on the rather dubious principle that ‘writing-up’ was to be undertaken outside scheduled time or by overloading the contents of practical classes, we could force a pronounced change in use of the MDLs after hours.
At Southern California, Lee and Bamberger (1964) stated that, ‘Surveys have confirmed our impression that students do indeed use their Discussion laboratory desks for study. While almost all Clearly, our present statistical evidence shows students use them at times for study or reading, that the MDLs at Nottingham are not used by about 20 per cent of the medical students use our students as out-of-hours ‘home bases’ either the laboratory desk as their primary or exclufor the purpose of private study, independent sive study location’. The accommodation proinvestigation, or developing closer contacts vided differed from our own in that each with the staff, as Leake suggested they might, MDL contained only 16 students and was suband it is thus necessary to question the current divided into 4 semi private alcove areas by enthusiasm for the provision of such facilities, high cupboards. Fuhrman (1968) made random despite virtually no concrete evidence that they checks at Stanford (whose MDL design we are superior to the traditional sites for private have largely adopted) and thought that only study, such as study bedrooms or libraries. one to three students were to be found in each The students’ need for private facilities 16 place MDL every evening and at weekends. appears to be more than adequately met by Jaussi et al. (1971) investigated the use of the their living accommodation, where they are MDL at Northwestern University by analysing more comfortable, or by the library where questionnaires returned by first year (freshmen) books and journals and assistance are available. and second year (sophomore) students over a During the day when they are in the Medical three-year period in order to determine whether School the students make use of free MDLs the laboratories were being effectively utilized for writing, calculations, and microscopy for scheduled laboratory work, study, and especially during the lunch hour and though relaxation. They admitted that their results we have no measurements of this use, it was might be biased in that in some cases only 25 mentioned and appreciated in the question- per cent of the class responded; the questions naires. It might be argued that had we sub- asked, furthermore, varied from year to year. divided the MDLs into private carrell-type The students were asked on one unspecified accommodation the students would have made occasion (presumably at the end of a year) to greater use of them, but this would not have estimate their total time spent in the laboraovercome the problems of distance nor been tories on unscheduled laboratory work, i.e. able to compete with the facilities provided by studying or relaxing, as an average number of hours per week. Their results vary from a the library.
212
Inn A . Olson, Frederick C . Treeby, and Roger E . Whibley
maximum use by freshman students (where 48% responded) of 41 hours per week, to a minimum use by sophomore students (74% response) of some 13 hours per week. If every student used his home base for 13 hours per week, i.e. 2 or more hours per night, this might be regarded as successful utilization of the laboratories, but the majority of students responding considered that they used the laboratories ‘50%’ or less, despite considering the physical arrangements in the laboratories to be ‘optimal’. As we have found, there are a number of dangers involved in working from questionnaire results alone, the greatest being a form of ‘wishful thinking’ on the part of the student when recording hours of use. Such discrepancies are suggested by the Northwestern figures, especially when results are presented where less than half the class responded to the questionnaire. Of the three American papers quoted here, which appear to represent the only other evidence available to date, two are only impressions of MDL use and the third is not supported by any form of objective evidence. Though it is obvious that a number of factors can contribute to the optimal use of MDLs as study bases, such as the provision of comfortable surroundings, good laboratory equipment, and audiovisual aids, along with a curriculum requiring much out-of-hours laboratory-type work, we would submit that there is little evidence to suggest that where good private study facilities are available elsewhere, either as study bedrooms or library space, the multidisciplinary laboratories need to provide ‘home bases’, elaborate or otherwise. The use of MDLs clearly represents a great saving over conventional laboratories, and their use for this purpose alone is wholly justified (Olson et al., 1974). On the other hand we feel that their internal design can evolve either along the line of participating for private study use, perhaps with improved individual learning facilities, or as multiuser laboratories where open sight lines allow flexible use of space for small group teaching and seminar purposes (Marchand and Steward, 1974). We have found a growing use for MDLs other than as
purely laboratory areas. They are employed for seminars, tutorials, small-group lectures, self-teaching, and self-assessment.They are also used for written and oral examinations, as the sites for displays and demonstrations and for committee meetings by both staff and students. These facilities have been provided for National Health Service Postgraduate Fellowship cDurses in Surgery and Anaesthetics, teaching programmes for professions allied to medicine such as physiotherapy, and for departmental research and honours students. By having clear sight lines, uncluttered by the provision of private study carrells, we find that we have gained valuable and flexible accommodation for this wide variety of uses. Our evidence so far suggests that we shall gain maximum use of our laboratori-s by using them also as multifunction open spaces. We question the widely-held view that one of the main functions of MDLs is to provide home bases for private study and are surprised thAt such a view can be held SD long and so strongly with so little evidence to support it. Summary
Since 1970 we have measured the use of our multidisciplinary laboratories as home study bases for out-of-hours private work, and find that our students make little use of them in this way, preferring to work in study-bedrooms or libraries. We consider that there is no need to incorporate private study areas in the design of multidisciplinary laboratories, with the result that uncluttered areas with free sight lines can be used for a variety of purposes; we suggest that multidisciplinary laboratories will evolve in the future along this multi-purpose, multifunction line. We are grateful to the MDL staff and the members of the Management Committee, and the Security Staff, whose help and co-operation made this study possible. We also wish to thank Mr J. Coggins, Medical Librarian, and his staff, Mrs Jean Russell-Gebbett, Hall Warden, together with our administrative colleagues, Miss Pamela Harrold and Mr R. J. Graham for the information and advice so kindly provided. Our thanks are also due to Mr I. Harriman for the photography, Mr. J. Tildsley for the map, Mr G . Lythe for the figures, and to ME. P. Ratcliffe for typing the manuscript. Professor C. E. Wagner, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Kentucky, U.S.A., kindly checked that this paper would be intelligible to North American colleagues.
Use of M D L s as home bases
References Fuhrman, F. A. (1968). Multi-disciplinary Laboraiories f o r Teaching the Medical Sciences. Stanford, California. Haft, J. S. (1972). Flexible teaching-learning spaces. Journal of Medical Education, 47, 339-342. Harrell, G. T. (1962). Planning and construction of a new medical school. Journal of Medical Edrication, 37, 1-9. Harrell, G. T. (1964). Student study cubicles. Journal of Medical Education, 39, 32-39. Harrell, G. T. (1968). Design of a medical school and its teaching hospital. British Journal of Medical Education, 2, 252-264. Harrell, G. T. (1969). Multidiscipline teaching laboratories at Hershey. Journal o f Medical Education, 44, 1094-1099. Jaussi, J. R., Baum, J. H., Swaner, J. C., and Burford, H. J. (1971) Evaluation and proposed modifications of multidisciplinary laboratories. Journal of Medical Education. 46, 869-875. Kaushanpour, E. and Baum, J. H. (1972). Laboratory learning in basic medical sciences. Journal of Medical Education. 47, 489-491. Leake, C. D. (1924). The students' unit medical laboratory. Jorrrnal of the American Medical Association, 82, 114-117. Lee, P. V., and Bamberger, J . W. (1964). Multidisipline student laboratories : University of Southern California School of Medicine. Journal o f Medical Education, 39, 846-856. Levy, R. S., and Lee, D. H. (1971). Multidiscipline laboratories: a new concept in medical education
213
at the University of Louisville School of Medicine, Journal of the Ken.tiicky State Medical Associaiion, 69, 25-30. Marchand, E. R., and Steward, J. P. (1974). Trends in basic medical science instruction affecting role of multidiscipline laboratories. Joirrnal of Medical Education, 49, 171-175. Olson, I. A. (1971a). The formation of the new medical school at Nottingham. An experiment i n medical education. Aberdeen University Review, 44, 31-36. Olson, 1. A. (1971b). Prototype closed-circuit television and audio-visual service installed at the new Medical School, Nottingham. Medical and Biological Illustration, 21, 156-162. Olson, I. A., Treeby, F. C., and Whibley, R. E. (1974). Organization and use of multi-discioharv teaching laboratories a t the new medical 'schooi, Nottingham. British Jorrrnal of Medical Education, 8, 255-261. Spilman, E. L. (1966). Some advantages and disadvantages of multidiscipline laboratories. Jozrrnal of Medical Editcation, 41, 143-149. Spilman, E. L. (1973). The laboratory for learning resources. Joirrrral of Medical Edrrcaiion, 48, 865867. Strassman, H. D.. Tavlor, D. D., and Scoles, J. (1969). A new concept for a core medical curriculum. Journal of Medicul Edircation, 44, 170-177. Whibley, R. E., Treeby, F. C., and Olson, I. A. (1973). The technical operation of multi-disciplinary teaching laboratories at the new medical school, Nottingham. Journal of Science Technology, 17, 11-14.
Appendix Regulations for Nottingharn University Medical School Multi-disciplinary Laboratories We encourage you to use t h e MDLs for group discussions, working-up of results, microscopy, a n d private study. Please record your entry and exit times (after normal laboratory hours) in t h e book in the Entrance Hall. In t h e case of fire or accident the Security Staff then have a check on people working in t h e building. You must d o your own cleaning u p in the laboratory f o r two reasons : (a) the staff are not available to do this for you, a n d (b) it i s regarded as an essential part of your laboratory work.
You are responsible for the security of your equipment -keep your lockers locked and report any defects or breakages t o the MDL staff as
soon as possible. Unlike other faculties, you are - so far - not charged a laboratory deposit, but we have a limited amount of money t o replace the f20,000 of equipment we have managed to procure for you. D o not bring any visitors f r o m other faculties and carry a valid means of identification (e.g. your union card) in order that security staff can check on people working in t h e building and confirm they have a legitimate reason f o r being there.
Safety 1. In emergency dial 2222 on any telephone day or night, T h e nearest phone is o n the porter's desk in the foyer.
2. Read and know t h e safety handbook which is in your locker. K n o w where emergency equipment is located, e.g. fire extinguishers, eye wash bottles, asbestos blankets, etc.
114
Ion A . Olson.
Frederick C . Treeby, and Roger E . Whibley
3. Wear your laboratory coat (and name badge) during practical classes t o safeguard yourself and your clothing. Leave overcoats and valuables under lock and key in the locker room. 4. D o not eat or smoke in wash your hands before for this is the continuous from the many solvents throughout the day.
the laboratory and leaving. The reason fire and poison risk and chemicals used
5. Also - out-of-hourslaborarory work (a) Ask a staff member before attempting any experimental work of your own. ( b ) Report any unusual incidents (telephone 2222 or to the security man on duty), e.g. strangers, suspected fire outbreaks, explosions, etc. Allowing the laboratories to be open a t night creates additional load for the security staff unless you are prepared to help out.
Home bases for private work and study Are multidisciplinary laboratories the best answer?
IAN A. OLSON’, FREDERICK C. TREEBY, and ROGER E. WHJBLEY The Multidisciplinary Laboratories, The Medical School, University Park, Nottingharn NG7 2RD K e y words ‘EDUCATlON, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE ‘SCUOOLS, MEDICAL *LABORATORIES STUDENTS, MEDICAL HOUSING CURRICULUM QUESTIOYNAIRES ENGLAND
In 1924 Leake proposed that the use of multidisciplinary laboratories (MDLs) would (a) unify the medical curriculum, (b) save space and equipment by avoiding unnecessary duplication, and (c) provide students with office and workshop facilities at any hour. This last provision would in turn stimulate independent investigation and provide closer personal contact betwen staff and students. In a previous papzr describing the use of the first United Kingdom multidisciplinary laboratories at Nottingham Medical School (Olson, Treeby, and Whibley, 1974). we were able to support Leake’s economic argument concerning the saving of space, facilities, and equipment; we were, however, unable to conclude that the provision of central facilities automatically produced a unified curriculum, though, conversely, the integrated curriculum at Nottingham had facilitated the provision and organization of multidisciplinary facilities (Olson, 1971b; Whibley, Treeby. and Olson, 1973). Leake’s final idea of providing students with personal ‘office’ space within such laboratories has been supported by the majority of authors commenting on the use of multidisciplinary laboratories; by 1972, Kaushanpour and Baum were even prepared to state that, ‘the home base idea remains valid and accrues new support and emphasis’. We have, however, ‘Requests for reprints to Dr Ian A. Olson, Faculty of Medicine. Kuwait University, P.O.Box 5969 Kuwait, Arabian Gulf.
LIBRARIES, MEDICAL
found only one report which has actually measured and evaluated the provision of such ‘home base’ facilities (Jaussi, Baum, Swaner, and Burford, 1971). In this paper we have attempted both to measure and to evaluate our own experience with such home bases at Nottingham Medical School since 1970. Private study facilities in general Most medical schools provide one or more of the following facilities for private study.
1. The library The facilities here may range from non-reservable open table seating to fully reservable sound-proof carrells containing locker space. Library places are commonly available until late evening, but hours of opening may be restricted during vacations and at weekends. 2. Study bedrooms These are usually in halls of residence (‘dormitories’) and house no more than two students. They may be on-campus or at a distance and the regulations concerning noise and other disturbances vary from monastic to nonexistent. 3. Laboratory accommodation This may or may not mean access to a permanent area of bench, and such space may be provided by individual departments or by multidisciplinary (Levy and Lee, 1971) or multifunction (Marchand and Steward, 1974) 205
206
Ian A . Olson,Frederick C . Treeby, and Roger E . Whibley
laboratories. Multidisciplinary laboratories may vary from the simple ‘Stanford’ type (Fuhrman, 1968) in which students work around a central conference table or the ‘Southern California’ type (Lee and Bamberger, 1964; Strassman, Taylor, and Scoles, 1969) in which students are provided with carrell-type accommodation and locker facilities. The amount of equipment and audiovisual aids provided may vary considerably, as may the hours of access. The number of students accommodated in the laboratory n a y be small or large (Spilman, 1966, 1973).
4. Study cubicles Some schools have provided such facilities separately from either the library or the laboratories (Harrell, 1962, 1964, 1968, 1969; Haft, 1972).
disturb piles of books and papers. Sixteen lockable private study carrells are available in the library, and may be reserved on a weekly basis during term. The library houses copies of most of the textbooks recommended for the course and usually restricts at least one copy for reference use within the library itself. During term the library is open from 9 a.m. until 10 p.m. on weekdays and from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. on Saturday, though borrowing is not usually permitted after 12.30 on Saturday. The Medical Librarian and his staff go to great lengths to encourage student use of the, library. They have a positive, welcoming approach and at present are able to devote a great deal of time to assisting students.
2. Study bedrooms. The majority of our first year students and about two-thirds of our second year students live in halls of residence Situation at Nottingham Our students usually enter the Medical School on the campus, which mostly provide individual at the age of 18 and spend three years studying study-bedrooms containing a desk or writing for a Bachelor of Medical Sciences (B.Med. surface, chairs, and bookshelves. The nearest Sci.) degree before entering a two-year course hall is 500 metres (6 minutes) and the furthest in clinical medicine leading to the Bachelor of hall 1 300 metres (16 minutes) from the MediMedicine and Bachelor of Surgery (B.M., B.S.) cal School. The hall fees include a charge for degrees. The first two years of the B.Med.Sci. meals and no refund is usually given for meals course are organized on an integrated, inter- not consumed; the students must, therefore, departmental basis using multidisciplinary make at least four journeys a day between hall laboratories (Olson, 1971a, b); Whibley et al.. and medical school. The evening meal may be 1973; Olson et al., 1974) and are the part of a somewhat formal affair and is usually at 6 p.m., thus taking the student away from the the course described in this paper. Medical School in the early part of the evening. At present the Medical School is housed on Rising ground of modest height occupies the the main University campus (Fig. 1) in build- centre of the campus and when combined with ings designed as the future School of Phar- bad weather conditions this presents a psymacy, pending the completion of the Medical chological barrier at least against additional Sciences portion of the Medical School/Teach- journeys. Students, furthermore, are not ing Hospital adjacent to the campus in 1975. allowed to have motor cars on the campus and We have a present intake of 48 students per must, therefore, walk or cycle to the MDLs. annum.
Facilities provided 1. Library (Fig. 1) At present our Medical Library is housed within the Science Faculty Library which is close to the Medical School. Fifty places are set aside for our students, but overflow into adjacent areas is permitted. Students study at open conference tables, 6 to a table. Strictly speaking these may not be reserved, but the library staff do not usually
3. Multidisciplinary laboratories (Olson et al.. 1974). At present we possess two multidisciplinary laboratories (MDLs) each accommodating one year of 48 students.
Every student has his own place within the laboratory around a low level bench of the ‘Stanford’ type. Each bench place is 0.85 metres wide by 0.65 metres deep and possesses an electric power point. A lockable microscope
Use of M D L s as home bases
Fig. 1. Mcip of itniversi1.v crimpits.
207
I a n A . Olson, Frederick C . Treeby, and Roger E . Whibley
208
locker is provided under the bench which houses a binocular microscope with x4, x40 and xl00 (oil) objectives, together with boxes containing sets of microscope slides. A comfortable, mobile typist’s chair which can be adjusted for height and tilt fits under the bench. Adjacent to this low bench place is an area of high bench (0.94m) accommodation, 0.76m by 0-76m, with small turrets carrying gas, electricity, and water. Under the high bench is a drawer and a lockable cupboard which contains three adjustable shelves. Except for microscopes, instruments and chemicals are not housed at individual places. Every student is free to use this home base during weekdays when teaching is not in progress untiI 10 pm., from 9 a.m. unti1 5 p.m. on Saturdays, and from 11 a.m. until 8 p.m. on Sundays. We provide preprogrammed calculating machines for statistical calculations, skeletons, and teaching aids such as tape-slides packages. The Medical Students’ Society also provides copies of some of the standard texts in the first year laboratory. The students are informed (see Appendix) that apparatus can be provided on request and that the staff are willing to supervise extra laboratory work; this is rarely requested. Normally, there is no staff supervision in MDLs a t unscheduled hours, but a book is
provided at the porters’ desk in the adjacent entry hall which is signed by students when they enter and leave in order to help the security staff supervise and close up the labordtories. The laboratory lights cannot be switched off except by a special key. No laboratory fees or deposits are required.
Factors affecting use of MDLs 1. Curriculum and examinations The course is organized on an interdepartmental basis in three main themes: ‘the cell’ (theme A), ‘man’ (theme’B), and ‘the community’ (theme C) which run concurrently, though with varying emphasis, throughout the first 2 years. A course in general pathology starts in the second year (Table 1).
Each 10-week term is spread over 11 calendar weeks; the assessments occur throughout the course, usually in the last weeks of term and the results are cumulative. There are 72 units of assessment, each of equal weight, which are taken over 2 to 3 days as follows:
Year 1 Term 1: Week 11 - 7 units Term 2: Week 11 - 9 units Term 3: Week 10/11 -14 units
Table 1. Summary of medical curriculum over first t w o years of B.Med.Sci. course Year
Term
Theme A
Theme B
Theme C
1
1
Introduction to nervous system
2
Cell structure and function; cell excitation; cell biochemistry Cell biochemistry
Organization of medical care; social anthropometry SociaI psychology
1 1
3
Cell biochemistry
2
4
Cell biochemistry; general pathology
2
5
2
6
Cell biochemistry; biochemical pharmacology: general pathology Cell biochemistry; pharrnacogenetics; general pathology
Cardiovascular system; respiratory system; Respiratory system; locomotor system; lymph-vascular system; haemopoietic-l ymphoid system Alimentary system; excretory system; reproductive system Central nervous system; metabolism and nutrition; developmen tal psychology Metabolism and nutrition; endocrine system
Normal psychology
Behaviour of human population Human populations and medicat problems of population change Evaluation oE medical care
.
Use of M D L s as home bases
Term 4: Week 11 -10 units - 9 units Term 5 : Week 11 Term 6: Week 7 -23 units A wide variety of assessment is used, ranging from traditional essays, practicals, and (oral examinations) to computer-marked yes/ no examinations, completion tests, extended essays, and project assessments. In general one unit usually represents some 30 minutes of examination time.
Year 2
2. Timetabied laboratory classes These represent some 20 per cent of total teaching time in the curriculum (Table 2). Such classes might be expected to stimulate further out-of-hours work in the MDLs were it not for the fact that time for recording observations, analysing results, and writing up practical classes has been set aside within the total number of hours allocated to each practical class. The principal exception to this rule is during the first Autumn term when a number of seminars have to be prepared in the students’ own time for the Measurement in Medicine course.
209
Findings 1. Recorded use of MDLs as home bases We have summarized our records in two ways. In Fig. 2 we present the total number of visits received in any one week of term by the laboratories and it is clear that apart from the Autumn term of the first year this total number of visits is seldom over 12, which thus represents a daily use restricted to the occasional student. In Table 3 we present the use of the MDLs from the point of view of student use. The first two lines present in numerical form the same low use of the MDLs as shown in Fig 2. From the third and fourth lines it can be seen that a rapidly diminishing number of students use the MDLs with a corresponding 22
7
20 18I614-
12IO864-
.P 2 ‘ 5 0-
3. Distractions and diversions The students’ union (Portland building) is at the centre of the campus and is open from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. from Monday to Saturday, and between 2 p.m. and 11 p.m. on Sundays. Meals are usually served until 6.30 p.m. and the bar is open until 10 p.m. On Wednesdays and Saturdays some major item of entertainment is provided. Undergraduate Society meetings are held on the other nights apart from Sunday. The medical students’ society meets infrequently some three to four times a term on Thursday evenings.
f =
2
q 4
2 0
____I
n
Summer term
J-l>+--lt
-.J
2
3
4
5
6 7 Weeks
8
9
1
O
I
I
Fig. 2. Numbers of visits to the M D L per week paid by first and second year students.
Table 2. Practical classes in relation to total teaching A iitirmn
First year Spring
Slimmer
Aiitumn
Second year Spring
Slimmer
Total no. of teaching hours
191
209
219
205
216
96
Laboratory classes (hours)
56
21
34
49
60
17
Ian A . Olson, Frederick C. Treeby. and Roger E . Whible!
210
fall in the number of actual visits made. Thereafter, even the number of students who do use the MDL seldom visit them (3.9 to 1.5 visits per term) regardless of whether or not they live on or off the campus. It is of interest that such visits are on average over an hour and a half in length and are often very much longer.
3. Do any features of the MDL act as positive disincentives to working there? 4. Should we continue to keep them open? For what purpose? 5. List in order of preference your place for private study. Any other comments were also invited.
2. Questionnaires We have also presented our students with questionnaires in order to determine (a) whether or not their estimate of private use coincided with our records, and (b) any reasons for and against the use of the MDL as home bases for private study. The questions asked concerning ‘out-of-hours use’ were: 1. How often do you use the MDL as visits/ week and hours/visit? 2. Does this use vary throughout the term, and between the terms?
In general, the students confirmed our records of use for the MDLs both in number of visits and in hours of use per visit. On the other hand well over half the students were convinced that their use of the MDLs increased considerably towards the end of terms, i.e. before their examinations; our figures, however (which were verified by random checks), showed, if anything, a decline in student use at this time. On the other hand the students claimed an increased use in the early weeks of term 1, and this did show in our records (Fig. 2).
Table 3. Sunimary of recorded use o f M D L s ar out-of-hourshome bases f o r private study ~
Total hours’ use of MDLs Total no. visits received by MDLs Average no. of visits per term all students Y!, students using MDLs Average no. of visits per student using MDLs Average no. of visits per on-campus student Average no. of visits per living-out student Average duration of visits (all students using MDLs) Longest visits recorded
A iitiimii
Year I SprinR
Slimmer
A iiriimn
Spring
Slimmer
250
90
83
I06
24
19
144
56
46
53
13
16
3.0
1.2
0.9
1.1
0.3
0.3
13
50
39
41
16
II
3.9
2.4
2.3
2.5
1.5
I .8
3.8
2.4
2.8
2.3
1.1
I .4
5.6
2.3
2.2
3. I
Ih44m
I h 46m
Ih 5 l m
2h 2m
I h 46m
I h 32m
8 h 45m
3h 45m
6h 15m
9h
6h 50m
8h 30m
Year 2
1.4
Use of M D L s as home bases
Distance was an obvious factor with students living outside, but over half those living on the campus quoted distance as well. A common disincentive was the lack of reference books in the laboratories, but other minor factors listed, included ‘too cold, too noisy. and too quiet’. Virtually every student living on the campus preferred to work in their study bedrooms, as a first choice, especially during the wet winter months. The incentives quoted varied with the type of course running during the day but most students needed to visit the MDLs a t some time in order to use the microscopes, calculators, and skeletons. The majority, however, saw little need for keeping all the MDLs themselves open as study bases in the future, provided that out-of-hours facilities for the use of such equipment were available, e.g. in one or two rooms.
21 1
It is difficult also to estimate whether or not a more la b o r a to j based course than the one we offer would encourage (or force) the students to make more use of the laboratories at night. From the earliest planning stages the Faculty insisted that laboratory classes should attempt to present a complete scientific experience, namely that observations should be recorded, analysed, and written up there and then, and thus we do not expect our students to have to stay in, or return to the laboratories, in order to finish or write up practical classes. Clearly, by insisting on the rather dubious principle that ‘writing-up’ was to be undertaken outside scheduled time or by overloading the contents of practical classes, we could force a pronounced change in use of the MDLs after hours.
At Southern California, Lee and Bamberger (1964) stated that, ‘Surveys have confirmed our impression that students do indeed use their Discussion laboratory desks for study. While almost all Clearly, our present statistical evidence shows students use them at times for study or reading, that the MDLs at Nottingham are not used by about 20 per cent of the medical students use our students as out-of-hours ‘home bases’ either the laboratory desk as their primary or exclufor the purpose of private study, independent sive study location’. The accommodation proinvestigation, or developing closer contacts vided differed from our own in that each with the staff, as Leake suggested they might, MDL contained only 16 students and was suband it is thus necessary to question the current divided into 4 semi private alcove areas by enthusiasm for the provision of such facilities, high cupboards. Fuhrman (1968) made random despite virtually no concrete evidence that they checks at Stanford (whose MDL design we are superior to the traditional sites for private have largely adopted) and thought that only study, such as study bedrooms or libraries. one to three students were to be found in each The students’ need for private facilities 16 place MDL every evening and at weekends. appears to be more than adequately met by Jaussi et al. (1971) investigated the use of the their living accommodation, where they are MDL at Northwestern University by analysing more comfortable, or by the library where questionnaires returned by first year (freshmen) books and journals and assistance are available. and second year (sophomore) students over a During the day when they are in the Medical three-year period in order to determine whether School the students make use of free MDLs the laboratories were being effectively utilized for writing, calculations, and microscopy for scheduled laboratory work, study, and especially during the lunch hour and though relaxation. They admitted that their results we have no measurements of this use, it was might be biased in that in some cases only 25 mentioned and appreciated in the question- per cent of the class responded; the questions naires. It might be argued that had we sub- asked, furthermore, varied from year to year. divided the MDLs into private carrell-type The students were asked on one unspecified accommodation the students would have made occasion (presumably at the end of a year) to greater use of them, but this would not have estimate their total time spent in the laboraovercome the problems of distance nor been tories on unscheduled laboratory work, i.e. able to compete with the facilities provided by studying or relaxing, as an average number of hours per week. Their results vary from a the library.
212
Inn A . Olson, Frederick C . Treeby, and Roger E . Whibley
maximum use by freshman students (where 48% responded) of 41 hours per week, to a minimum use by sophomore students (74% response) of some 13 hours per week. If every student used his home base for 13 hours per week, i.e. 2 or more hours per night, this might be regarded as successful utilization of the laboratories, but the majority of students responding considered that they used the laboratories ‘50%’ or less, despite considering the physical arrangements in the laboratories to be ‘optimal’. As we have found, there are a number of dangers involved in working from questionnaire results alone, the greatest being a form of ‘wishful thinking’ on the part of the student when recording hours of use. Such discrepancies are suggested by the Northwestern figures, especially when results are presented where less than half the class responded to the questionnaire. Of the three American papers quoted here, which appear to represent the only other evidence available to date, two are only impressions of MDL use and the third is not supported by any form of objective evidence. Though it is obvious that a number of factors can contribute to the optimal use of MDLs as study bases, such as the provision of comfortable surroundings, good laboratory equipment, and audiovisual aids, along with a curriculum requiring much out-of-hours laboratory-type work, we would submit that there is little evidence to suggest that where good private study facilities are available elsewhere, either as study bedrooms or library space, the multidisciplinary laboratories need to provide ‘home bases’, elaborate or otherwise. The use of MDLs clearly represents a great saving over conventional laboratories, and their use for this purpose alone is wholly justified (Olson et al., 1974). On the other hand we feel that their internal design can evolve either along the line of participating for private study use, perhaps with improved individual learning facilities, or as multiuser laboratories where open sight lines allow flexible use of space for small group teaching and seminar purposes (Marchand and Steward, 1974). We have found a growing use for MDLs other than as
purely laboratory areas. They are employed for seminars, tutorials, small-group lectures, self-teaching, and self-assessment.They are also used for written and oral examinations, as the sites for displays and demonstrations and for committee meetings by both staff and students. These facilities have been provided for National Health Service Postgraduate Fellowship cDurses in Surgery and Anaesthetics, teaching programmes for professions allied to medicine such as physiotherapy, and for departmental research and honours students. By having clear sight lines, uncluttered by the provision of private study carrells, we find that we have gained valuable and flexible accommodation for this wide variety of uses. Our evidence so far suggests that we shall gain maximum use of our laboratori-s by using them also as multifunction open spaces. We question the widely-held view that one of the main functions of MDLs is to provide home bases for private study and are surprised thAt such a view can be held SD long and so strongly with so little evidence to support it. Summary
Since 1970 we have measured the use of our multidisciplinary laboratories as home study bases for out-of-hours private work, and find that our students make little use of them in this way, preferring to work in study-bedrooms or libraries. We consider that there is no need to incorporate private study areas in the design of multidisciplinary laboratories, with the result that uncluttered areas with free sight lines can be used for a variety of purposes; we suggest that multidisciplinary laboratories will evolve in the future along this multi-purpose, multifunction line. We are grateful to the MDL staff and the members of the Management Committee, and the Security Staff, whose help and co-operation made this study possible. We also wish to thank Mr J. Coggins, Medical Librarian, and his staff, Mrs Jean Russell-Gebbett, Hall Warden, together with our administrative colleagues, Miss Pamela Harrold and Mr R. J. Graham for the information and advice so kindly provided. Our thanks are also due to Mr I. Harriman for the photography, Mr. J. Tildsley for the map, Mr G . Lythe for the figures, and to ME. P. Ratcliffe for typing the manuscript. Professor C. E. Wagner, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Kentucky, U.S.A., kindly checked that this paper would be intelligible to North American colleagues.
Use of M D L s as home bases
References Fuhrman, F. A. (1968). Multi-disciplinary Laboraiories f o r Teaching the Medical Sciences. Stanford, California. Haft, J. S. (1972). Flexible teaching-learning spaces. Journal of Medical Education, 47, 339-342. Harrell, G. T. (1962). Planning and construction of a new medical school. Journal of Medical Edrication, 37, 1-9. Harrell, G. T. (1964). Student study cubicles. Journal of Medical Education, 39, 32-39. Harrell, G. T. (1968). Design of a medical school and its teaching hospital. British Journal of Medical Education, 2, 252-264. Harrell, G. T. (1969). Multidiscipline teaching laboratories at Hershey. Journal o f Medical Education, 44, 1094-1099. Jaussi, J. R., Baum, J. H., Swaner, J. C., and Burford, H. J. (1971) Evaluation and proposed modifications of multidisciplinary laboratories. Journal of Medical Education. 46, 869-875. Kaushanpour, E. and Baum, J. H. (1972). Laboratory learning in basic medical sciences. Journal of Medical Education. 47, 489-491. Leake, C. D. (1924). The students' unit medical laboratory. Jorrrnal of the American Medical Association, 82, 114-117. Lee, P. V., and Bamberger, J . W. (1964). Multidisipline student laboratories : University of Southern California School of Medicine. Journal o f Medical Education, 39, 846-856. Levy, R. S., and Lee, D. H. (1971). Multidiscipline laboratories: a new concept in medical education
213
at the University of Louisville School of Medicine, Journal of the Ken.tiicky State Medical Associaiion, 69, 25-30. Marchand, E. R., and Steward, J. P. (1974). Trends in basic medical science instruction affecting role of multidiscipline laboratories. Joirrnal of Medical Education, 49, 171-175. Olson, I. A. (1971a). The formation of the new medical school at Nottingham. An experiment i n medical education. Aberdeen University Review, 44, 31-36. Olson, 1. A. (1971b). Prototype closed-circuit television and audio-visual service installed at the new Medical School, Nottingham. Medical and Biological Illustration, 21, 156-162. Olson, I. A., Treeby, F. C., and Whibley, R. E. (1974). Organization and use of multi-discioharv teaching laboratories a t the new medical 'schooi, Nottingham. British Jorrrnal of Medical Education, 8, 255-261. Spilman, E. L. (1966). Some advantages and disadvantages of multidiscipline laboratories. Jozrrnal of Medical Editcation, 41, 143-149. Spilman, E. L. (1973). The laboratory for learning resources. Joirrrral of Medical Edrrcaiion, 48, 865867. Strassman, H. D.. Tavlor, D. D., and Scoles, J. (1969). A new concept for a core medical curriculum. Journal of Medicul Edircation, 44, 170-177. Whibley, R. E., Treeby, F. C., and Olson, I. A. (1973). The technical operation of multi-disciplinary teaching laboratories at the new medical school, Nottingham. Journal of Science Technology, 17, 11-14.
Appendix Regulations for Nottingharn University Medical School Multi-disciplinary Laboratories We encourage you to use t h e MDLs for group discussions, working-up of results, microscopy, a n d private study. Please record your entry and exit times (after normal laboratory hours) in t h e book in the Entrance Hall. In t h e case of fire or accident the Security Staff then have a check on people working in t h e building. You must d o your own cleaning u p in the laboratory f o r two reasons : (a) the staff are not available to do this for you, a n d (b) it i s regarded as an essential part of your laboratory work.
You are responsible for the security of your equipment -keep your lockers locked and report any defects or breakages t o the MDL staff as
soon as possible. Unlike other faculties, you are - so far - not charged a laboratory deposit, but we have a limited amount of money t o replace the f20,000 of equipment we have managed to procure for you. D o not bring any visitors f r o m other faculties and carry a valid means of identification (e.g. your union card) in order that security staff can check on people working in t h e building and confirm they have a legitimate reason f o r being there.
Safety 1. In emergency dial 2222 on any telephone day or night, T h e nearest phone is o n the porter's desk in the foyer.
2. Read and know t h e safety handbook which is in your locker. K n o w where emergency equipment is located, e.g. fire extinguishers, eye wash bottles, asbestos blankets, etc.
114
Ion A . Olson.
Frederick C . Treeby, and Roger E . Whibley
3. Wear your laboratory coat (and name badge) during practical classes t o safeguard yourself and your clothing. Leave overcoats and valuables under lock and key in the locker room. 4. D o not eat or smoke in wash your hands before for this is the continuous from the many solvents throughout the day.
the laboratory and leaving. The reason fire and poison risk and chemicals used
5. Also - out-of-hourslaborarory work (a) Ask a staff member before attempting any experimental work of your own. ( b ) Report any unusual incidents (telephone 2222 or to the security man on duty), e.g. strangers, suspected fire outbreaks, explosions, etc. Allowing the laboratories to be open a t night creates additional load for the security staff unless you are prepared to help out.
