Competency-based medical education in radiotherapy treatment planning

The AAPM/ASTRO 2023 Core Physics Curriculum for Radiation Oncology Residents

PURPOSE

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Oncology Medical Physics Education Subcommittee (ROMPES) has updated the radiation oncology physics core curriculum for medical residents in the radiation oncology specialty.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Thirteen physicists from the United States and Canada involved in radiation oncology resident education were recruited to ROMPES. The group included doctorates and master's of physicists with a range of clinical or academic roles. Radiation oncology physician and resident representatives were also consulted in the development of this curriculum. In addition to modernizing the material to include new technology, the updated curriculum is consistent with the format of the American Board of Radiology Physics Study Guide Working Group to promote concordance between current resident educational guidelines and examination preparation guidelines.

RESULTS

The revised core curriculum recommends 56 hours of didactic education like the 2015 curriculum but was restructured to provide resident education that facilitates best clinical practice and scientific advancement in radiation oncology. The reference list, glossary, and practical modules were reviewed and updated to include recent literature and clinical practice examples.

CONCLUSIONS

ROMPES has updated the core physics curriculum for radiation oncology residents. In addition to providing a comprehensive curriculum to promote best practice for radiation oncology practitioners, the updated curriculum aligns with recommendations from the American Board of Radiology Physics Study Guide Working Group. New technology has been integrated into the curriculum. The updated curriculum provides a framework to appropriately cover the educational topics for radiation oncology residents in preparation for their subsequent career development.

Competency-Based Workforce Development and Education in Global Oncology

The healthcare workforce plays a pivotal role in cancer care delivery, leadership, policy, education, and research in complex cancer systems. To ensure quality and relevance, health professionals must have the necessary competencies to deliver patient-centered and efficient care, coupled with the ability to work in teams and manage health resources wisely. This paper aims to review the concept of competency-based medical education (CBME) in the context of oncology to provide insights and guidance for those interested in adopting or adapting competency-based education in training programs. The results of a scoping review of CBME in oncology are presented here to describe the current status of CBME in oncology. The literature describing the implementation and evaluation of CBME in oncology training programs for medical professionals internationally is summarized and key themes identified to provide practical guidance for educators. Further, the paper identifies critical competencies for oncology education and training globally and presents recommendations and opportunities for collaboration in competency-based education and training in oncology. The authors argue for increased global collaboration and networking in the realm of CBME to facilitate the establishment of a competent global cancer care workforce.

A national survey of the radiotherapy dosimetrist workforce in the UK

OBJECTIVES

To undertake a national survey of the Radiotherapy Dosimetrist workforce within the UK; examining different attributes and experiences, comparing results with published evidence within the literature.

METHODS

A national, anonymised survey was undertaken between Dec 2020 and end of Feb 2021; employing a mixed-methods approach and blend of closed, open-ended answer choices and free-text comments. Questions included range of training routes and job titles; registration status; job tasks and engagement with Continuing Professional Development (CPD).

RESULTS

A total of 223 individuals responded. Nearly half were trained via therapeutic radiography; approximately, a fifth through a clinical technologist/physics routes. Most (70%) had Dosimetrist in their job title. Nearly 70% were statutorily registered, and almost a fifth were in the voluntary register of Clinical Technologists. Most job tasks were in treatment planning - with 57% spending over 70% of their time there. Most notably, 29% were not involved in any CPD scheme. No published evidence showed the same aspects identified here.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey showed a unique profile of the Radiotherapy Dosimetrist workforce in the UK, with a variety of training routes and statutory registration status. Nearly, a third were not engaged in a CPD scheme - adding to the current discussion that perhaps all Dosimetrists should be statutorily registered, for ensuring safe and effective clinical practice.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

A novel and unique national survey of Dosimetrists working in Radiotherapy in the UK is presented, leading to new insights into current training routes, registration status, job tasks and CPD engagement and needs.