ESTRO 2024 - Abstract Book

S2669

Interdisciplinary - Education in radiation therapy

ESTRO 2024

Emma Dyce 1,2 , Natalie Clements 3 , Christopher Colyer 4 , Claire Pagulayan 5 , Holly Stephens 6 , David Waterhouse 7

1 GenesisCare Victoria, Radiation Oncology, Albury, Australia. 2 Murdoch University, Education, Murdoch, Australia. 3 GenesisCare, Radiation Oncology, Melbourne, Australia. 4 GenesisCare SA, Radiation Oncology, Adelaide, Australia. 5 GenesisCare NSW, Radiation Oncology, Sydney, Australia. 6 GenesisCare QLD, Radiation Oncology, Chermside, Australia. 7 GenesisCare WA, Radiation Oncology, Perth, Australia

Purpose/Objective:

Quality education for medical physics registrars is essential to ensure accurate, robust, and safe patient treatment. GenesisCare Australia developed a national networked training program for physics registrars, consisting of online weekly education sessions. Registrars are spread across clinics in five Australian states, in regional and metropolitan areas. The online program enables access to a broader base of radiation oncology specialists than is available locally, including access to advanced technologies, specialist techniques and clinical expertise. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the national program for efficacy, efficiency and impact on standardising practice and patient care in different regions.

Material/Methods:

In Australia, medical physics university graduates must complete a three-year Training Education and Assessment Program (TEAP) from the Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine (ACPSEM) to achieve certification. GenesisCare developed a national training program to assist in meeting the requirements of TEAP, utilizing nearly 70 physicists employed nationally [1]. The sessions use different educational instructional methods and registrars are given protected time locally to prepare and attend. The expectations for registrars, supervisors and coordinators are formalised and documented. An online reference library has been collated with textbooks, presentations, journal articles and relevant literature assigned to each learning outcome, to minimise time spent searching for relevant information. An evaluation of the course was completed using Kirkpatrick’s level one evaluation framework to structure questions distributed via an anonymous survey. Three surveys were developed to target appropriate questions; current and past supervisors (n=12), enrolled registrars working more than two months (n=4), and recently completed registrars (n=7). Registrars who completed certification prior to January 2021 were excluded. The surveys included general questions about the program and specific questions about instructional methods including tutorials, lecture presentations, exam preparation sessions, cooperative learning, practical sessions, planning demonstrations, and clinical and scientific report overviews.

Results:

Responses were collected from all current registrars, seven supervisors and four past registrars. All current registrars agreed they understood the purpose and personal expectations of the national training program. They also indicated they regularly submitted answers to education sessions, and that the topics were useful for their learning. Three current registrars agreed the sessions provided expertise and experience they may not gain locally, enhancing their ability to provide patient care. All stated they use the reference library often. All felt the program facilitates a collaborative environment, however the frequency of collaboration varied from rarely to often. All instructional methods were found to assist in learning and development, especially examination preparation. All instructional methods were found to be useful in achieving milestones such as completing learning outcomes and passing exams.