Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Radiation Oncology Resident Education: Is Change Needed?

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Leading successful change efforts first requires assessment of the “before change” environment and culture. At our institution, the radiation oncology (RO) residents follow a longitudinal didactic learning program consisting of weekly 1-h lectures, case conferences, and journal clubs. The resident didactic education series format has not changed since its inception over 10 years ago. We evaluated the perceptions of current residents and faculty about the effectiveness of the curriculum in its present form. Two parallel surveys were designed, one each for residents and attendings, to assess current attitudes regarding the effectiveness and need for change in the RO residency curriculum, specifically the traditional didactic lectures, the journal club sessions, and the case conferences. We also investigated perceived levels of engagement among residents and faculty, whether self-assessments would be useful to increase material retention, and how often the content of didactic lectures is updated. Surveys were distributed individually to each resident (N = 10) and attending (N = 24) either in-person or via Zoom. Following completion of the survey, respondents were informally interviewed about their perspectives on the curriculum’s strengths and weaknesses. Compared to 46% of attendings, 80% of RO residents believed that the curriculum should be changed. Twenty percent of residents felt that the traditional didactic lectures were effective in preparing them to manage patients in the clinic, compared to 74% of attendings. Similarly, 10% of residents felt that the journal club sessions were effective vs. 42% of attendings. Finally, 40% of residents felt that the case conferences were effective vs. 67% of attendings. Overall, most respondents (56%) favored change in the curriculum. Our results suggest that the perceptions of the residents did not align with those of the attending physicians with respect to the effectiveness of the curriculum and the need for change. The discrepancies between resident and faculty views highlight the importance of a dedicated change management effort to mitigate this gap. Based on this project, we plan to propose recommended changes in structure to the residency program directors. Main changes would be to increase the interactive nature of the course material, incorporate more ways to increase faculty engagement, and consider self-assessment questions to promote retention. Once we get approval from the residency program leadership, we will follow Kotter’s “Eight steps to transforming your organization” to ensure the highest potential for faculty to accept the expectations of a new curriculum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data are stored in an institutional repository and will be shared upon request to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Rajiah P, Bhargava P (2017) Change management-a radiology administrator’s primer. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 46(5):382–384. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2017.06.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kotter JP (1995) Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harv Bus Rev 73:59–67

    Google Scholar 

  3. Errida A, Lotfi B (2021) The determinants of organizational change management success: literature review and case study. Int J Eng Bus Manag 13:18479790211016270. https://doi.org/10.1177/18479790211016273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Abrams MJ, Golden DW, Huang GC (2023) A call for reform: variability and insufficiency in radiation oncology resident didactics-a brief report and national survey of program directors. J Cancer Educ 38(1):74–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-021-02080-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lanier MH, Wheeler CA, Ballard DH (2021) A new normal in radiology resident education: lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Radiographics 41(3):E71–E72. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2021210030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Khan Q, Bowar B, Myers B, Kenjar F, Byrne JD, Gainey J (2024) Advancing resident education: experiential success in the creation of a comprehensive clinical didactic series in radiation oncology. Adv Radiat Oncol 9(5):101452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2024.101452

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Berriochoa C, Weller M, Berry D, Reddy CA, Koyfman S, Tendulkar R (2017) Program director and chief resident perspectives on the educational environment of US radiation oncology programs. Pract Radiat Oncol 7(1):e65–e70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2016.06.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bonwell CC, Eison JA (1991) Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University, and School of Education and Human Development

  9. Glik DC, Parker K, Hategikamana GMB (2005) Integrating qualitative and quantitative survey techniques. Int Q Community Health Educ 25(1):115–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Declaration. World Medical Association; 2013. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/. Accessed 23 Sept 2023

  11. Dennis KE, Duncan G (2010) Radiation oncology in undergraduate medical education: a literature review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76(3):649–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.08.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Baker SR, Romero MJ, Geannette C, Patel A (2009) The value of the internship for radiation oncology training: results of a survey of current and recent trainees. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74(4):1203–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.09.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ahmed S (2024) Innovation and discovery: a 30-year journey in advancing cancer care. Curr Oncol 31(4):2109–2111. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31040156

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Walls GM, Hanna GG, McAleer JJ (2020) Learning radiotherapy: the state of the art. BMC Med Educ 20(1):150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02054-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Sandhu NK, Rahimy E, Hutten R et al (2023) Radiation Oncology Virtual Education Rotation (ROVER) 2.0 for residents: implementation and outcomes. J Cancer Educ 38(3):977–984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-022-02216-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chaurasia AR, Page BR, Walker AJ et al (2021) Lessons to learn from a successful virtual mock oral examination pilot experience. Adv Radiat Oncol 6(1):100534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2020.07.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hannan MT, Freeman J (1984) Structural inertia and organizational change. Am Sociol Rev 49(2):149–164. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Page CG (2002) The determination of organization stakeholder salience in public health. J Public Health Manag Pract 8(5):76–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/00124784-200209000-00009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McBeath A (2020) Doing quantitative research with a survey. In: Enjoying research in counselling and psychotherapy, pp 175–193. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55127-8_10

  20. Gürbüz S (2017) Survey as a quantitative research method. Res Methods Tech Public Relat Advert 2017:141–162

    Google Scholar 

  21. Thompson R (2012) Stakeholder analysis - stakeholder support for your projects. Mind Tools, 7. Retrieved from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_07.htm

  22. Hoff TJ, Witt LC (2000) Exploring the use of qualitative methods in published health services and management research. Med Care Res Rev 57(2):139–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/107755870005700201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Creswell JW (1999) Mixed-method research: introduction and application. In: Cizek GD (ed) Handbook of educational policy, pp 455–472. Elsevier

  24. Migiro SO, Magangi B (2011) Mixed methods: a review of literature and the future of the new research paradigm. Afr J Bus Manage 5(10):3757–3764

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ivankova N, Wingo N (2018) Applying mixed methods in action research: methodological potentials and advantages. Am Behav Sci 62(7):978–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lundsgaard KS, Tolsgaard MG, Mortensen OS, Mylopoulos M, Ostergaard D (2019) Embracing multiple stakeholder perspectives in defining trainee competence. Acad Med 94(6):838–846. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Stolk-Vos AC, van de Klundert JJ, Maijers N, Zijlmans BLM, Busschbach JJV (2017) Multi-stakeholder perspectives in defining health-services quality in cataract care. Int J Qual Health Care 29(4):470–476. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzx048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee L, Sheikh A (2016) Understanding stakeholder interests and perspectives in evaluations of health IT. Stud Health Technol Inform 222:53–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bergquist M, Rolandsson B, Gryska E et al (2023) Trust and stakeholder perspectives on the implementation of AI tools in clinical radiology. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09967-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Friesen MN, Yassi A, Cooper J (2001) Return-to-work: the importance of human interactions and organizational structures. Work 17(1):11–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA

    J. M. Bryant, Stephen A. Rosenberg, Jessica M. Frakes & Sarah E. Hoffe

  2. Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Kara C. Madey

Authors
  1. J. M. Bryant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kara C. Madey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen A. Rosenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jessica M. Frakes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sarah E. Hoffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to J. M. Bryant or Sarah E. Hoffe.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bryant, J.M., Madey, K.C., Rosenberg, S.A. et al. Radiation Oncology Resident Education: Is Change Needed?. J Canc Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-024-02455-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-024-02455-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation