ESTRO 2024 - Abstract Book

S131 ESTRO 2024 systems, but cannot rely on in vivo verification solutions more easily accessible in radiotherapy (for example, transit dosimetry). Invited Speaker

During this presentation, we will discuss these points and present possible solutions.

3550

What does quality in education practice and research look like?

Daniel W Golden

RUSH University Medical Center, Radiation Oncology, Chicago, USA

Abstract:

Advancing the field of radiation oncology medical education requires high quality medical education scholarship. This talk will define scholarship, and specifically scholarship of teaching, discuss methods for curriculum inquiry, define conceptual frameworks, provide frameworks for leading change, and then review a case example of robust radiation oncology curriculum inquiry. When considering medical education, there are graded levels of rigor beginning with teaching, then scholarly teaching, and finally, scholarship of teaching. Scholarly teaching is distinguished from teaching by the use of best evidence and medical education practices when educating trainees. Scholarship of teaching is distinguished from scholarly teaching in that “scholarship” implies moving the field of radiation oncology medical education forward. Scholarship is defined by Glassick’s criteria: 1) clear goals, 2) adequate preparation, 3) appropriate methods, 4) significant results, 5) effective presentation, and 6) reflective critique. Radiation oncology medical education scholarship often involves curriculum inquiry, or curriculum development. There are three types of curriculum inquiry: systematic, deliberative, and reconceptualist. These approaches to curriculum inquiry are not mutually exclusive. When developing a curriculum or educational intervention, one or more conceptual frameworks should be applied to guide the curriculum development. Successful development and implementation of a new curriculum or educational intervention requires change. There are multiple approaches to facilitate change, two of which will be discussed including John Kotter’s “Eight Step Process for Leading Change” and Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s “Six Keys to Leading Positive Change.” Lastly, as a case example of successful radiation oncology medical education scholarship, the development of the Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group’s (ROECSG’s) framework for a United States core curriculum and entrustable professional activities (EPAs) will be reviewed (Jeans et al IJROBP 2023). This project utilized a Delphi consensus process to engage stakeholders throughout the United States in the curriculum revision and development process. Two rounds of the Delphi process were completed resulting in seven consensus curriculum content domains: 1) Clinical oncology, 2) Applied sciences, 3) Professionalism, leadership, and interpersonal communication skills, 4) Quality and safety, 5) Bioethical and legal issues, 6) Diversity, equity, and inclusion, and 7) Personal wellness. Additionally, 52 radiation oncology EPAs were defined for the four Competence by Design levels of Transition to discipline, Foundations of discipline, Core of discipline, and Transition to Practice. Multiple projects are now moving forward to map the ROECSG EPAs to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones, test the EPAs as an assessment tool for trainee evaluation, and develop a detailed ROECSG EPA guidebook.

3551

Which breast cancer patients need more nodal radiotherapy?