Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2018 workforce census. Issue 6 (16th August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Leung, John; Forstner, Dion; Chee, Raph; James, Melissa; Que, Eddy; Begum, Shahin
• Is Part Of: Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology. Volume 63:Issue 6(2019:Dec.)
• Page Start: 852
• Page End: 861
• Publication Date: 2019-08-16
• Subjects: Radiology, Medical -- Periodicals; Radiology, Medical -- Australasia -- Periodicals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12939
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1754-9477

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: This paper reports the key findings of the Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2018 workforce census and compares results with previous studies. Methods: The census was conducted in mid‐2018 with distribution to all radiation oncologists and trainees listed on the college database in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and overseas. There were new questions about hours spent on multidisciplinary meetings (MDTS), leadership positions held, management of inpatients, hypofractionation, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), income type and gynae‐oncology work for radiation oncologists. Trainees were asked about time spent on planning and contouring. Results: The overall response rate was 69.9% with 67.7% of radiation oncologists and 77.9% of trainees responding. There were 514 radiation oncologists with 60% male and a mean age of 49 years (median = 46 years, range 31–91). The majority of respondents were Caucasian (57.7%) and from New South Wales (29.4%). Sixty‐one per cent were subspecialists with breast, SBRT and urological cancers, the most popular areas of interest, and 56% held leadership positions. The majority worked in the public sector (55.7%), but 31.7% worked solely in the private sector with an average working week of 43.4 hours (h) (median = 44, range 2–110). Radiation oncologists spent an average of 3.6 h on MDTS (median = 4 h), 2.2h (median = 2 h) on simulation and 8 h (median = 5 h) on contouring per week. They averaged 245 new patients (median = 250, range 30–695) and 25 inpatients (median = 20) per year. Hypofractionation was used for radical treatment of breast (75%) and prostate cancer (49%). Radiation oncologists were mainly remunerated with a fixed income (53%) with 40% having some incentive‐based income. There were 140 trainees with an equal male and female distribution. The large majority (88%) were satisfied with their career and network (83%). Most trainees worked between 36 and 55h per week with 15% having no protected time. Most trainees spent less than 5 hours on planning each week and job availability remained a major concern (90%). Conclusions: The radiation oncologist numbers have increased significantly, but unemployment remains low. Many parameters remain similar to the 2014 census, but new information has been obtained on special interest areas, leadership positions, gynae‐oncology, inpatients, hypofractionation use, remuneration and contouring. Trainee numbers remain stable with an increased percentage satisfied with their career with much less concern about oversupply. Protected time remains an issue with contouring time and teaching emerging as a potential issue.