1
|
Büttner M, Melton P, Fietkau R, Petersen C, Krause M, Borgmann K, Wolf U, Niyazi M, Christiansen H, Höller U, Schmitt D, Käsmann L, Linde P, Fleischmann DF, Ziegler S, Bresch A, Mäurer M. Successful implementation of online educational lectures of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO). Strahlenther Onkol 2024; 200:151-158. [PMID: 37889301 PMCID: PMC10805975 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-023-02162-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2023] [Accepted: 09/24/2023] [Indexed: 10/28/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Modern digital teaching formats have become increasingly important in recent years, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2021, an online-based webinar series was established by the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) and the young DEGRO (yDEGRO) working group. In the monthly 120-minute courses, selected lecturers teach curricular content as preparation for the board certification exam for radiation oncology. METHODS The evaluation of the 24 courses between 01.2021 and 12.2022 was performed using a standardized questionnaire with 21 items (recording epidemiological characteristics of the participants, didactic quality, content quality). A Likert scale (1-4) was used in combination with binary and open-ended questions. RESULTS A combined total of 4200 individuals (1952 in 2021 and 2248 in 2022) registered for the courses, and out of those, 934 participants (455 in 2021 and 479 in 2022) later provided evaluations for the respective courses (36% residents, 35% specialists, 21% medical technicians for radiology [MTR], 8% medical physics experts [MPE]). After 2 years, 74% of the DEGRO Academy curriculum topics were covered by the monthly webinars. The overall rating by participants was positive (mean 2021: 1.33 and 2022: 1.25) and exceeded the curriculum offered at each site for 70% of participants. Case-based learning was identified as a particularly well-rated method. CONCLUSION The DEGRO webinar expands the digital teaching opportunities in radiation oncology. The consistently high number of participants confirms the need for high-quality teaching and underlines the advantages of e‑learning methods. Optimization opportunities were identified through reevaluation of feedback from course participants. In its design as a teaching format for a multiprofessional audience, the webinar series could be used as a practice model of online teaching for other disciplines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marcel Büttner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | | | - Rainer Fietkau
- Radiation Clinic, Erlangen University Hospital, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Cordula Petersen
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Mechthild Krause
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology and National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (OncoRay), University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Medical Faculty, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- partner site Dresden, German Cancer Consortium, Dresden, Germany
- partner site Dresden, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Kerstin Borgmann
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Ulrich Wolf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Maximilian Niyazi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- partner site Munich, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Munich, Germany
| | - Hans Christiansen
- Clinic for Radiotherapy and Special Oncology, Hanover Medical School, Hanover, Germany
| | | | - Daniela Schmitt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
| | - Lukas Käsmann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- partner site Munich, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Munich, Germany
| | - Philipp Linde
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiation Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
- Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University of Cologne, Kerpener St 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany
| | - Daniel F Fleischmann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- partner site Munich, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Sonia Ziegler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
| | - Angelique Bresch
- Office of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO), Berlin, Germany
| | - Matthias Mäurer
- Department for Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich-Schiller-University, Bachstr. 18, 07743, Jena, Germany.
- Clinician Scientist Program "OrganAge", Jena University Hospital, 07747, Jena, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Fleischmann DF, Büttner M, Oertel M, Waltenberger M, Süß C, Ziegler S, Käsmann L, Jazmati D, Schröder A, Mäurer M, Linde P. Current situation in radiation oncology residency-Results of a national survey performed by the working group Young DEGRO of the German Society of Radiation Oncology. Strahlenther Onkol 2023; 199:961-972. [PMID: 37642650 PMCID: PMC10598092 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-023-02137-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2023] [Accepted: 08/07/2023] [Indexed: 08/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to assess the current status of the radiation oncology (RO) residency programs in Germany. For this, RO residents and RO specialists were surveyed regarding the current situation of the RO residency training and the working conditions in Germany. METHODS The Continuing Education Section of the Young DEGRO (yDEGRO) Working Group of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) developed a survey to assess (1) the overall satisfaction, learning objectives, and teaching methods used during training; and (2) the perception of the importance of specific disease patterns in RO training. Open-ended questions were also asked to elicit opinions on areas for improvement. From 21 November to 27 December 2022, RO residents registered with DEGRO and/or in the working group yDEGRO were invited to participate anonymously in an online questionnaire. RESULTS Overall, 97 participants completed the survey, including 65 RO residents (67%) and 32 RO specialists (33%); 66 (68%) of the respondents reported being employed in the university setting, 23 (23.7%) in the non-university setting, and 8 (8.3%) in private practice. Within the training, heterogeneity was found in the teaching methods used. In terms of knowledge transfer, the greatest importance was accorded to annual continuing education discussions with the head of the residency training (92.8%), participation in tumor boards (85.6%), written training concepts (81.4%), and evaluations at the beginning (76.3%) and end of a rotation (80.4%). The arithmetic mean of satisfaction with specialist training was 6/10 points (SD: 1.99); 88.7% of respondents would like to see a nationally uniform and mandatory curriculum in RO residency training. CONCLUSION The study provides suggestions for improving RO medical training in Germany: further development of accompanying education and training programs in cooperation with professional associations, e.g., the DEGRO, structured feedback, and supervision.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel F Fleischmann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Partner site Munich, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Marcel Büttner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Michael Oertel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany
| | - Maria Waltenberger
- Partner site Munich, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany
| | - Christoph Süß
- Department of Radiotherapy, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Sonia Ziegler
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
| | - Lukas Käsmann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Danny Jazmati
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University of Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany
| | - Annemarie Schröder
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Centre Rostock, Rostock, Germany
| | - Matthias Mäurer
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller-University, Jena, Germany
| | - Philipp Linde
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiation Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
- Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Baehr A, Hummel D, Gauer T, Oertel M, Kittel C, Löser A, Todorovic M, Petersen C, Krüll A, Buchgeister M. Risk management patterns in radiation oncology-results of a national survey within the framework of the Patient Safety in German Radiation Oncology (PaSaGeRO) project. Strahlenther Onkol 2023; 199:350-359. [PMID: 35931889 PMCID: PMC10033570 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-022-01984-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2022] [Accepted: 07/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Risk management (RM) is a key component of patient safety in radiation oncology (RO). We investigated current approaches on RM in German RO within the framework of the Patient Safety in German Radiation Oncology (PaSaGeRO) project. Aim was not only to evaluate a status quo of RM purposes but furthermore to discover challenges for sustainable RM that should be addressed in future research and recommendations. METHODS An online survey was conducted from June to August 2021, consisting of 18 items on prospective and reactive RM, protagonists of RM, and self-assessment concerning RM. The survey was designed using LimeSurvey and invitations were sent by e‑mail. Answers were requested once per institution. RESULTS In all, 48 completed questionnaires from university hospitals, general and non-academic hospitals, and private practices were received and considered for evaluation. Prospective and reactive RM was commonly conducted within interprofessional teams; 88% of all institutions performed prospective risk analyses. Most institutions (71%) reported incidents or near-events using multiple reporting systems. Results were presented to the team in 71% for prospective analyses and 85% for analyses of incidents. Risk conferences take place in 46% of institutions. 42% nominated a manager/committee for RM. Knowledge concerning RM was mostly rated "satisfying" (44%). However, 65% of all institutions require more information about RM by professional societies. CONCLUSION Our results revealed heterogeneous patterns of RM in RO departments, although most departments adhered to common recommendations. Identified mismatches between recommendations and implementation of RM provide baseline data for future research and support definition of teaching content.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Baehr
- Outpatient Center of the UKE GmbH, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20251, Hamburg, Germany.
| | - Daniel Hummel
- Department of Radiotherapy and Genetics, Outpatient Center Stuttgart, University Hospital Tübingen, Stuttgart, Germany
| | - Tobias Gauer
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Michael Oertel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
| | - Christopher Kittel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
| | - Anastassia Löser
- Outpatient Center of the UKE GmbH, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20251, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Manuel Todorovic
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Cordula Petersen
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Andreas Krüll
- Outpatient Center of the UKE GmbH, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20251, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Markus Buchgeister
- Faculty of Mathematics-Physics-Chemistry (II), Berliner Hochschule für Technik, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Jeans EB, Brower JV, Burmeister JW, Deville C, Fields E, Kavanagh BD, Suh JH, Tekian A, Vapiwala N, Zeman EM, Golden DW. Development of a United States Radiation Oncology Curricular Framework: A Stakeholder Delphi Consensus. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 115:1030-1040. [PMID: 36549345 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.12.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2022] [Revised: 11/09/2022] [Accepted: 12/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE A United States (US) radiation oncology curriculum, developed using best practices for curriculum inquiry, is needed to guide residency education and qualifying examinations. Competency-based training, including entrustable professional activities (EPAs), provides an outcomes-based approach to modern graduate medical education. This study aimed to define US radiation oncology EPAs and curricular content domains using a deliberative process with input from multiple stakeholder groups. METHODS AND MATERIALS The Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Core Curriculum Project Leadership Committee developed initial content domains and EPAs. Following recruitment of stakeholders, a Delphi process was used to achieve consensus. In the first round, content domains and EPAs were reviewed for inclusion and exclusion, clarity, time allocation (content domains), and level of training (EPAs). Participants submitted additional content domains and EPAs for consideration. Any content domains or EPAs 1 standard deviation below the median for inclusion and exclusion underwent Leadership Committee review. All participants completing the first Delphi round were invited to the second round. Percent curriculum time allocated for content domains and a single subdomain were finalized. New EPAs or EPAs undergoing major revisions were reviewed. RESULTS A total of 186 participants representing diverse stakeholder groups participated. One hundred fourteen completed the first Delphi round (61.3%). Of 114 invited, 77 participants completed the second round of the Delphi process (67.5%). Overall, 6 of 9 content domains met consensus, 1 content domain was removed, and 2 content domains were combined. Four subdomains of a single content domain were reviewed and met consensus. Consensus on percent time allocated per content domain and subdomain was reached. Of 55 initial EPAs, 52 final EPAs met consensus. CONCLUSIONS Deliberative curriculum inquiry was successfully used to develop a consensus on US radiation oncology content domains and EPAs. These data can guide the allocation of educational time in training programs, help inform weighting for qualifying examinations, and help guide clinical training and resident assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Jay W Burmeister
- Department of Oncology, Wayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Center, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Curtiland Deville
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Emma Fields
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Brian D Kavanagh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado
| | - John H Suh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Ara Tekian
- Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Neha Vapiwala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Elaine M Zeman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Daniel W Golden
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mireștean CC, Iancu RI, Iancu DPT. Education in Radiation Oncology-Current Challenges and Difficulties. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:ijerph19073772. [PMID: 35409453 PMCID: PMC8997535 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19073772] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2022] [Revised: 03/13/2022] [Accepted: 03/16/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022]
Abstract
The evolution and development of radiotherapy in the last two decades has meant that postgraduate medical training has not kept up with this rapid progress both in terms of multidisciplinary clinical approaches and especially in terms of technological advances. Education in radiation oncology is a major priority in the context of the rapid development of radiotherapy, including advanced knowledge of radiobiology, radiation physics and clinical oncology, anatomy, tumor biology and advanced medical imaging. In this context, the lack of training in radiation oncology in the curricula of medical faculties may have detrimental consequences for the training of residents in radiotherapy but also in their choice of specialty after completing their university studies. There is a clear gap between resident physicians’ actual and required knowledge of radiotherapy, and this requires urgent remediation. In the context of technical advances in imaging-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and new radiobiology data, a balanced approach divided equally between general oncology, clinical radiation oncology, radiation oncology technology, medical physics and radiobiology, anatomy and multimodal imaging, including mentorship could bring educational and career choice benefits for students of radiation oncology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Camil Ciprian Mireștean
- Department of Medical Oncology and Radiotherapy, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania;
- Department of Surgery, Railways Clinical Hospital, 700506 Iasi, Romania
| | - Roxana Irina Iancu
- Oral Pathology Department, “Gr. T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 700115 Iasi, Romania
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, St. Spiridon Emergency Hospital, 700111 Iasi, Romania
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +40-232-301-603
| | - Dragoș Petru Teodor Iancu
- Department of Medical Oncology and Radiotherapy, “Gr. T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 700115 Iasi, Romania;
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Institute of Oncology, 700483 Iasi, Romania
| |
Collapse
|