Inside Anatomical practice: A visit to Cambridge University

Outside of our inspection activities, the HTA encourages wider learning about our sectors and, in the time I have worked for the HTA, I have had an opportunity to observe a post-mortem examination and a kidney retrieval and donation from a living donor. These had been immensely useful, helping me have a better understanding of the sectors that we regulate.   

The HTA regulates facilities that are licensed for anatomical examination purposes. It occurred to me that our Regulation Managers would find it helpful to observe a range of activities that take place in our anatomy sector that we might not see during our inspections. I put a proposal forward which was well received and identified University of Cambridge as suitable facility to support our observations. We then sent out proposal to the University of Cambridge and Professor Cecilia Brassett, the DI, was more than happy to support our aims, having previously offered. Due to the nature of some of the activities, I was told that we may not be given much notice, especially as body donations can be sporadic.  

We were given a few dates for the observations and, luckily, I managed to incorporate my observation of the disarticulation and parts retention process on the morning of 25 March 2025, during my travel up to an inspection.  

I was greeted by the DI and two very competent Anatomy Technicians. Before I started the observation, I read and confirmed my understanding of the local code of conduct and signed in, in line with facility procedures. I donned a laboratory coat and  eye protection and joined the Anatomy Technicians to observe their work.  

The Anatomy Technicians had a record of all the donors with corresponding part numbers along with a list of which parts they would be removing for training. They ensured that they had consent for retention of parts and the number of years that the parts could be retained; records we scrutinise during our inspections. The Anatomy Technicians ensured that they removed parts of the donor that would be most useful in teaching and research activities, taking into consideration the quality of the parts.  

I was also able to observe the detailed anatomy of the shoulder muscles, focussing on the trapezius and the rhomboids, which was fascinating. What is important to note, is that all parts remained with the donor at all times to prevent any potential mix-ups. Identification labels corresponding to the donor number were securely attached to the parts belonging to the donor.  

While they may vary between establishments, my visit gave me a clear picture of some of the processes that pose risks if they are not done correctly or according to agreed procedures.  

On my onward journey, I also took time to reflect on the generosity of a person wishing to donate their body after their death to help shape medical teaching or the training of students.  

I reflected on the families of those donors who, in some instances, may not necessarily have agreed with their loved one’s decision, or may have found it tough to accept, but still ensured that their wishes were met. Having this experience reinforced that, behind every donor number, was a life that was lived, with ambitions, successes and woes; and that their loved ones had to suffer their loss for this invaluable gift to be shared.  

I am immensely thankful to University of Cambridge for offering the opportunity for these observations.  

Nima

Regulation Manager