Educators' Perspectives on the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Survey of Residents' Concerns

Advancing Resident Education: Experiential Success in the Creation of a Comprehensive Clinical Didactic Series in Radiation Oncology

Purpose

An effective didactic curriculum is a cornerstone for a successful residency program, as it is the basis upon which residents acquire the necessary knowledge and perspective to provide high-quality, evidence-based care. Here we describe our success in creating a standardized curriculum in clinical radiation oncology - one that was well-received and led to significantly improved performance on the national in-service examination.

Methods and Materials

One-hundred and fifty topics were outlined in accordance with the American Board of Radiology; to accommodate this breadth of material, didactic frequency was increased from biweekly to daily. As a clinical correlate to these sessions, a teaching library of over 100 real-world cases was compiled for individual learning. Finally, comprehensive dosimetric constraints were compiled to aid residents in radiation therapy plan evaluation. To evaluate these curricular changes, anonymous questionnaires were provided to all residents and faculty, and de-identified resident clinical performance from the annual in-service examination was analyzed.

Results

Before the introduction of the standardized curriculum, the mean clinical percentage on the in-service examination was 46%, equivalent to the 17th percentile. Within 2 years of implementation of the new curriculum, both the mean percentage and percentile were significantly improved, with the mean percentage correct at 69.3% and the mean percentile at the 59th percentile (P < .001 and P = .034, respectively). Feedback showed the curriculum to be well-received and used frequently outside of standard didactic hours.

Conclusions

This is the first report of the creation of a standardized curriculum and outcomes in radiation oncology. Although there are certainly developmental challenges, addressing these barriers creates an education model that effectively imparts knowledge, fosters multidisciplinary thinking, and prepares residents for the diverse challenges of clinical practice. We present our institutional experience with the intent of publishing this curriculum on a national platform in the coming years.

Away Rotations, Interviews, and Rank Lists: Radiation Oncology Residency Applicant Perspectives on the 2020 Match Process

Purpose

Using 2020 match applicants, the purpose of this study was to identify baseline applicant perspectives on the match process surveying (1) away rotations, (2) interview/postinterview communications, and (3) factors influencing applicant rank order lists.

Methods and Materials

Applicants in the 2020 match cycle at a large radiation oncology (RO) residency program received a questionnaire covering demographics and the match process: away rotations, interview/postinterview communications, and ranking. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with completing fewer away rotations.

Results

Of 141 surveys sent, 76 were completed, for a response rate of 54%. Most applicants were White, male, and matched into RO. One in 3 applicants did not have a home RO program. Most applicants completed 2 RO rotations (ie, a home rotation and an additional away rotation; range, 0-4 total rotations); RO rotations influenced the applicant rank order lists and the ultimate match result for 94% and 79% of applicants, respectively. Forty-seven percent of applicants reported being asked inappropriate questions during the interview (eg, parental or marital status). Applicants did not perceive a consistent message regarding postinterview communications from program directors. Most applicants were contacted postinterview. Interviews cost most applicants more than $5000. Thirty-seven percent of respondents reported submitting a letter of interest after the interview, hoping to improve their rank. When applying to programs, general reputation and location were the most common influential factors mentioned. When ranking programs, informal conversations with residents and program culture observations were the most common influential factors mentioned. Based on multivariable analysis, applicants who completed fewer RO rotations (including away rotations) had greater odds of matching to their home program (odds ratio [OR], 12.05; 95% CI, 1.27-206.69), lower odds of program location influencing where to apply (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.003-0.37), and lower odds of the program's general reputation affecting their rank list (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.001-0.47).

Conclusions

The results suggest that medical students perceive away rotations as an important influencer of their match process. Although applicants and program directors both participate in postinterview communications, interactions with residents influence rank order lists. These data may serve as an up-to-date baseline to evaluate the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the RO match process.

The Geography of Employment Outcomes for Radiation Oncology Graduates in 2019

PURPOSE

The geographic distribution of practicing radiation oncologists is of concern for multiple stakeholders within the field. Employment outcomes of graduating residents can affect that distribution, and they are of major concern to current residents. Data investigating employment outcomes of recent graduates are sparse. We aimed to analyze the employment outcomes of the radiation oncology residency class of 2019.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Using publicly available information, we identified the employment of 179 of 183 graduating residents in the class of 2019. For each, the place of employment, residency program, and medical school were geocoded using Google Maps. We used the rural-urban continuum code (RUCC) published by the United States Department of Agriculture to determine the rurality of each location and compared employment outcomes by RUCC and program size.

RESULTS

Two thirds of graduates (66%) took a position in a county within a metropolitan area with a population greater than 1,000,000 people; only 3.4% took a position in a county outside of a metropolitan area. Graduates of smaller programs (≤6 residents) and those in smaller metropolitan areas were more likely to take positions in smaller metropolitan areas or nonmetropolitan areas. The geographic distance between location of employment and residency program did not significantly vary by program size or size of metropolitan area where a residency program was located.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the class of 2019, a small proportion took positions in nonmetropolitan areas. Smaller programs and those in smaller metropolitan areas may be more likely to produce graduates that practice in similar settings, but those graduates might not do so locally. We advocate for a centralized, prospective data collection of employment outcomes for graduating residents to refine these analyses and to reduce employment prospect information asymmetry for trainees.

Radiation Oncology Initial Certification Qualification Examinations: The Resident Experience in 2019

PURPOSE

To characterize the resident experience preparing for the 2019 American Board of Radiology initial certification (IC) qualifying examinations in radiation oncology.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology distributed a survey to 360 radiation oncology residents from the 2019 and 2020 graduating classes covering topics pertinent to preparation for the medical physics (MP), radiation and cancer biology (RCB), and clinical radiation oncology (CRO) qualifying examinations.

RESULTS

The response rate was 58% (n = 210). In the 12 weeks before the MP and RCB examinations, first-time examinees studied a median of 160 hours (interquartile range, 96 to 270). Residents reported a "moderate" or "significant" negative effect on research productivity (3 [2-4]), mental health (3 [2-4]), clinical development (3 [2-4]), and family life (3 [2-4]). Half of surveyed residents (52%, n = 110) used a protected research or elective block to study while an additional 21% (n = 45) used a median of 5 (3-20) vacation days. Residents overall "agreed" (4 [2-4]) that their program's physics course was "important" for their preparation but were "neutral" (3 [2-4]) regarding the value of their program's radiobiology course. Question-based educational resources were most frequently rated as "important" study resources. Respondents "strongly" endorsed the development of a consensus radiation oncology curriculum (5 [4-5]) and "agreed" (4 [3-4]) that consolidation of the MP, RCB, and CRO qualifying examinations into a single written examination would be preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiation oncology residents dedicate substantial time preparing for the IC examinations at the expense of training- and health-related outcomes. Residents report a wide range in quality of internal program didactic courses in physics and radiobiology, endorse development of a consensus radiation oncology curriculum, and prefer consolidation of the three qualifying examinations into a single written IC examination. We caution the high pass rates seen on the 2019 examinations do not obviate the need for ongoing improvement in radiation oncology graduate medical education and the board certification process.