A Qualitative Assessment of Radiotherapy Training at a UK Regional Cancer Centre. Issue 4 (April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Walls, G.M.; Cole, A.J.; McAleer, J.J.; Hanna, G.G.
• Is Part Of: Clinical oncology. Volume 33:Issue 4(2021)
• Page Start: 261
• Page End: 269
• Publication Date: 2021-04
• Subjects: Apprenticeship -- clinical oncology -- learning -- radiation oncology -- radiotherapy -- training; Oncology -- Periodicals; Tumors -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Radiotherapy; Cancer -- Treatment; Oncology; Medical radiology; Radiotherapy; Tumors; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2020.10.022
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0936-6555

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: Specialty trainees in clinical oncology must be competent in the coordination of both radiotherapy and systemic therapy at the completion of their training. Radiotherapy technology and postgraduate medical education have evolved significantly over the last two decades, but little is known of the educational impact of those changes within the dual training of the clinical oncology programme. A qualitative assessment of the radiotherapy component of training was undertaken at a single regional cancer centre in order to identify potential areas for improvement. Materials and methods: Consultants and trainees ( n = 10) at a regional cancer centre underwent semi-structured interviews regarding their lived experience of learning radiotherapy skills and knowledge. As consultants and trainees can be considered equal co-investors in the process of radiotherapy learning, the same question stems were used for both groups. An interpretative phenomenological analysis was undertaken by the investigators to elicit the perception of both groups. Results: Consultant and trainee assessments of current radiotherapy learning standards differ for several aspects of training, as do their expectations of the other in learning processes. A lack of time is a major barrier in modern practice, and both groups can propose novel measures to improve learning locally. Conclusions: Arrangements for learning radiotherapy have not kept pace with the rate of change in the clinical oncology discipline. Trainees and consultants have contrasting views on the state of training, its strengths and weaknesses, and pathways to improvement, which should be reconciled by programme coordinators charged with upgrading the training system. Highlights: First UK study of consultants and trainees regarding radiotherapy training. Discordance exists for both groups on their expectations of the other. Perception of strengths and weaknesses of programme vary by role. Limited time is the largest barrier to radiotherapy training in the modern era.