Search

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirit plus (LGBTQ2S+) people have distinct healthcare needs that may be unaddressed in many undergraduate healthcare curricula. The Radiation Therapy Program (RADTH) at the University of Alberta underwent a review of the three-year didactic curriculum using an online survey. The survey sought to ascertain if, where and how topics related to LGBTQ2S + healthcare are taught. Results indicated that out of 10 RADTH program faculty respondents, three teach related topics. The total time dedicated within the three-year curriculum was approximately three and a half hours. Other findings showed that faculty are interested in receiving more education in this area and would favour discussions about how to incorporate these themes into appropriate courses. This preliminary investigation demonstrated that there has been some initial work in this area, but there is more to be done.

The submission, revision and post-publication process is an often-underappreciated aspect of the manuscript writing journey. It can be quite challenging to navigate journal submission systems, understand the complexities of responding to reviewer feedback, and figuring out how to promote your work post-publication. Part one of this series discussed how to begin your research and write up the results for submission [1]. This second part highlights the rewards and challenges involved in the publication of your work.

Introduction Several studies have demonstrated the psychological impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on health care providers. However, there is little known about how the COVID‐19 pandemic has impacted radiation therapists (RTs) in Norway or Canada. The aim of this investigation was to study the psychological impact of working during the COVID‐19 pandemic among RTs in Canada and Norway. Methods Online surveys were administered to a convenience sample of RTs and RT department managers. Approximately 2000 and 300 RTs were invited to participate from Canada and Norway, respectively. The RT survey collected information on demographics, work‐related stressors, psychological impact, quality of life, and workplace support programmes. The RT manager survey collected information on departmental changes, patient volumes, staff shortages and redeployment, personal protective equipment, and infection control measures. Descriptive analysis, group comparisons and logistic regression were used to examine the impact of COVID‐19 on RTs in the two countries, while open‐ended questions were examined through thematic analysis. Results Work‐related stress and anxiety were prevalent among Canadian (n = 155) and Norwegian RTs (n = 124), with Canadian RTs reporting higher levels. Fear of transmission, changes in PPE usage, and changes in staffing were reported as the most frequent work‐related stressors. Themes related to working during the pandemic included: generalised anxiety; physical, emotional and cognitive symptoms of stress; and loneliness, as well as negative impact on health and quality of relationships. Survey findings from RT department managers in Canada (n = 12) and Norway (n = 13) suggest that the pandemic had an organisational impact on RT departments due to implemented infection control measures and changes in staffing. Conclusion The COVID‐19 pandemic has led to similar stressors amongst Canadian and Norwegian RTs but relatively higher levels of psychological impact among Canadian RTs. Findings demonstrate the importance of mental health support programmes in the workplace to mitigate the psychological impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on RTs., The overall aim of this investigation was to study the psychological impact of working during the COVID‐19 pandemic among RTs in Canada and Norway. Work‐related stress and anxiety were prevalent among Canadian and Norwegian RTs, with Canadian RTs reporting higher levels. Fear of transmission, changes in PPE usage, and changes in staffing were reported as the most frequent work‐related stressors. The findings suggest that the COVID‐19 pandemic has led to similar stressors amongst Canadian and Norwegian RTs but relatively higher levels of psychological impact among Canadian RTs.

Purpose The safe delivery of radiation therapy is dependent in part on the provision and organization of oncology professionals. General recommendations for staffing of radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and radiation therapists have been published, but most of these provide little detail, especially in the case of radiation therapists (RTs). In Canada, there are no guidelines or national standards for the staffing of RTs, and there is a paucity of Canadian data on the existing staffing levels of RTs and the models used to establish these levels. This project sought to identify and compare the staffing models used for Canadian RTs, and the staffing levels and workload resulting from these models. Methods and Materials In January 2016, a survey was sent to managers of the 46 radiation treatment centres in Canada. This survey sought information on a range of staffing and practice variables for the fiscal year 2014/2015. Respondents were requested to provide the staffing model used for RTs at each centre and enough additional information to calculate the staffing levels and workload resulting from their staffing model. The survey included further variables that had the potential to influence staffing levels and workload, and centres were compared to establish if these variables did indeed impact staffing. Results Of the 46 centres contacted, 37 centres responded, representing an 80.4% response rate. Survey results showed there are a variety of ways used to determine staffing across the country. Twenty of the 37 responding centres include some type of workload measurement in their staffing model, whereas 17 centres base staffing solely on historic levels or operating funds. There is a great deal of variation in the staffing levels and workload of RTs in Canada, with staff at some centres planning and treating twice the number of patients as RTs at other centres. Radiation therapist staffing levels at most radiation treatment centres in Canada are below the level recommended in recent publications. Differences in staffing levels or workload could not be accounted for by treatment complexity, number of specialty programs, use of relief staff, or number of RTs working in specialty nontreatment roles. Conclusions A high degree of variability in staffing levels and workload exists for RTs in Canada, which is not explained by differences in patterns of practice. It is likely that workload for RTs exceed safe levels at some Canadian centres. It is recommended that treatment centres use an up-to-date staffing model for RTs and continue to review staffing levels at regular intervals.

Writing and submitting a paper can be a daunting prospect, especially the first time. One of the more challenging aspects is knowing how to begin. Countless projects in the workplace never make it past local dissemination or conference presentation. This informal guide will help you take that next step and begin the peer-reviewed publication journey.

Purpose Radiation therapy has changed rapidly over the past decade due to the application of technological advances. A survey was conducted of radiation treatment centres in Canada to establish current patterns of practice across the country. Areas of inquiry included treatment techniques and image verification, as well as roles and responsibilities of radiation therapists (RTs). Methods and Materials In January 2016, a survey was sent to managers of the 46 radiation treatment centres in Canada. This survey sought information on a range of staffing and practice variables for the fiscal year 2014/2015. Results Of the 46 centres contacted, 37 centres responded, representing an 80.4% response rate. Survey results showed that the use of volumetric arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy is common across Canada for several anatomic sites, as well as the use of daily pretreatment image verification. A high degree of variability exists for imaging modality (two dimensional vs. three dimensional) for some sites, including brain, head and neck, and lung. RTs' responsibilities have expanded uniformly across the country, with RTs involved in organ-at-risk contouring and on-treatment image approval at the majority of centres. Despite this role expansion, specialty roles in areas of quality and applications expertise are still rare. Conclusions Radiation therapy in Canada has transitioned to high-technology treatment techniques with relative consistency across the country. There is, however, variation in the imaging modality used for daily verification. Canada may benefit from consensus guidelines on the application of three-dimensional imaging for treatment verification. While RTs have expanded their responsibilities, role definition for RTs working in supervisory or supporting positions has not kept pace at many centres and it is unclear if RTs are supported in their expanded accountabilities.

Introduction/Background Healthcare programs have proven the benefits of standardized patients in educational activities, but limited scholarship exists on the involvement of cancer survivors in radiation therapy education. This innovative approach to simulation-based education in radiation therapy is the first to integrate cancer survivors as standardized patients in a high-fidelity environment. This research aims to examine the impact of cancer survivors on the students’ learning during their simulation course. Methods This qualitative research used a phenomenological approach to gather data and analyze the students’ view of their interactions with cancer survivors in the simulation course. The researchers conducted three focus group discussions with five of the eight radiation therapy students using a set of preformulated questions. Results The collected data were comparatively analyzed, and the research team identified four main themes: experience, teaching/coaching, patient-centeredness and gratitude. These represented the students’ perspective on their experiences and the unique learning opportunities provided by the cancer survivors. Findings/Discussion The simulation activities with the cancer survivors provided a safe and realistic experience for the students. This research highlighted the influence of the cancer survivors’ oncology journey on the skills development of the radiation therapy students. Conclusion The students benefited from the authentic patient perspective of the cancer survivors which helped build their confidence and develop their skills prior to clinical placement. This research demonstrated that incorporating cancer survivors as standardized patients in radiation therapy simulation education has added significant value to the students’ learning.

Introduction Social media has emerged as a powerful platform for engagement and learning. There is a growing trend toward the use of social media among health care professionals and professional groups to disseminate and discuss knowledge. Twitter is one tool that may enhance continuing professional development (CPD) for the medical radiation technologist. To evaluate the potential benefits of Twitter to CPD among medical radiation technologists, this study explored the integration of Bloom's taxonomy with Twitter-based professional activities. Approach In 2015, the Medical Radiation Journal Club ( https://medradjclub.wordpress.com/ ) commenced a monthly Twitter-based journal club for medical radiation professionals. This study investigates the application of Bloom's taxonomy of the Twitter-based journal club for CPD purposes. Outcome The Twitter-based journal club provides a valuable platform for CPD. The combination of journal articles, supplementary reading, online blog, and the one-hour Twitter discussion engages all levels of Bloom's taxonomy; remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. A deeper insight revealed that the Twitter journal club provides an authentic learning environment suitable for CPD in which participants consume, collaborate, and produce. Conclusions This evaluation demonstrated that the Twitter journal club can provide an authentic learning environment with all the cognitive dimensions afforded in a formal classroom or face-to-face journal club. Indeed, in some ways, these cognitive dimensions are enhanced in the Twittersphere.

The term “patient experience” is currently ubiquitous in health care. Many facilities are striving to improve care by examining how patients interact with and view their organization and the health care professionals who work within it. Although there is a great deal of literature on patient centered care, patient engagement and patient experience in health care generally, there is little focused literature on how this is related to patient experience in medical imaging and radiation therapy. This review article examines the underpinning concepts of patient experience and the factors that contribute to a positive patient experience. These include good communication, care for the patient as an individual, and emotional support. Patients experiencing care in medical imaging and radiation therapy departments have broadly similar expectations, although this can be challenging to provide in a technologically focused, time-limited environment.

A literature review can be an informative, critical, and useful synthesis of a particular topic. It can identify what is known (and unknown) in the subject area, identify areas of controversy or debate, and help formulate questions that need further research. There are several commonly used formats for literature reviews, including systematic reviews conducted as primary research projects; reviews written as an introduction and foundation for a research study, such as a thesis or dissertation; and reviews as secondary data analysis research projects. Regardless of the type, a good review is characterized by the author's efforts to evaluate and critically analyze the relevant work in the field. Published reviews can be invaluable, because they collect and disseminate evidence from diverse sources and disciplines to inform professional practice on a particular topic. This directed reading will introduce the learner to the process of conducting and writing their own literature review.

Researchisoneoftheprimaryhallmarksofaprofession.Medicalradiationtechnologists(MRTs)arepartofa‘‘neophyteacademicprofession’’ [1] that has seen a relatively slow uptake of researchandscholarlyenquiry[2].Withtheshifttobaccalaureateeduca-tion (and beyond) and the gradual increase in MRTs obtainingacademic appointments, more practitioners are becomingresearch-active.Our knowledgebaseisstill heavilyreliant, how-ever,onworkdonebyotherprofessionssuchasmedicine,phys-ics,andnursing[2].Thereareimportantprofession-specificgapsthat need to be filled to inform practice, policy, and educationwhich should be addressed by MRTs to establish a unique anddistinct paradigm for our professional research.When we do conduct research, we tend to focus on quanti-tativeresearch that ‘‘reduce(s)experience towell-defined varia-bles.for investigation’’ [3] or work that uses experimentaldesigns, involves statistical analysis and deals with numbers asdata. Our publications reflect this, for example only about5%ofsubmissionstotheJournalofMedicalImagingandRadi-ation Sciences (JMIRS) in the last 8 years have been nonquanti-tative (qualitative)papers. Qualitativeresearch is not driven bynumbers; it involves examining the reality of individuals, theirperceptions, and understanding of events or phenomena pri-marily using interviews, focus groups, and observation.Therearelikelyafewreasonsforthelackofqualitativeworkin our profession, probably the most significant being that thescientific (quantitative) approach is the dominant paradigmand gold-standard in medical research, and as such holds themost value in imaging and radiation therapy departments.Our practice has been convincingly described as being placedfirmly within ‘‘a biomedical model of health in a market-orientedservice,drivenbyquantitativeoutcomes’’[4].Further-more,itiseasier(relativelyspeaking)tobepartoftheteaminaphysician-drivenclinicaltrialorassistinamedicalphysicspro-jectthantobeinvolvedinaqualitativeinitiativethatoftenfallsinto the domain of social work, nursing, or psychology.As a further potential barrier, for a novice researcher, theapproaches and methodologies of qualitative research can bea whole new language. Many MRTs have done statisticscourses and may vaguely remember the difference betweencausation and correlation. How many of us are comfortablewith the concepts and lexicon of qualitative research such asthe differences between Husserlian and Heideggerian phe-nomenology? I am obviously exaggerating to make a point,but the roots of qualitative research lie in the traditions ofthe social sciences. Those of us in the applied health sciences,without a background in anthropology, sociology, or psycho-logy have struggled to learn the rules and jargon of anapproach that sometimes seems to be situated ‘‘inaccessiblyhigh up in the misty mountains of academic discourse’’ [5].It has not helped in the uptake of qualitative research that,until fairly recently, it has often been measured against quan-titative research and been found wanting. The two approacheswere traditionally posited as being diametrically opposed. Inhealth care, the subjectivity and descriptive nature of thedata often sat uneasily with more quantitative researchers[6]. In the 1970s and 1980s, we had quantitative researchersin one corner, discussing predetermined hypotheses andgeneralizability, occasionally taking pot shots at qualitative re-searchers’ ‘‘touchy-feely’’ methods. In the other corner, thequalitative researchers were defensively asserting that a so-called scientific approach is inherently flawed when dealingwith subjective human beings [7] and waiting for theoriesand ideas to mysteriously ‘‘emerge’’ from their post-positivistic data. At the end of the 1980s, the two forms finallycame to a sometimes shaky rapprochement, and at the begin-ning of the 1990s, the mixed methods movement was born.Mixed methods, using and blending the best elements ofboth approaches, has become far more common and is appro-priate for many of our practice-driven questions.Alongwiththeemergingacceptanceoftherolesandvalueofboth types of research, there has been a growing understandingthatthereisadisparitybetweentheaimsofthetraditionalqual-itative approaches grounded in the social sciences (primarilyethnography, grounded theory, and phenomenology) and thegoals of clinical health care researchers such as MRTs that may

Introduction The medical radiation sciences' (MRS) MedRadJournalClub attracts a global group of participants to monthly sessions to discuss selected journal articles. The September 2017 session explored the experiences of MRS professionals working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) patients. The aim of the chat was to establish staff educational preparation, how participants’ organizations approached the issue, and what participants would do differently at work or at home in relation to this patient population after the chat. Method Data were extracted using the Twitter advanced search function with #MedRadJClub from the 19th to 23rd September 2017. The data were reviewed and categorized for themes. Tweets related to shared LGBT resources were captured, verified, and counted separately. Results 44 participants took part in the September Twitter chat. After data cleaning, 127 tweets were included for analysis with a further 16 tweets sharing LGBT resources. Almost all of the participants disclosed that they had no undergraduate education or workplace training in the care of LGBT patients. Workplaces of a limited few participants had specific approaches to improve experiences for this patient population. Many participants were eager to advocate for changes in their workplaces after the Twitter chat. Conclusion There is still work to be carried out to educate MRS professionals to enhance their LGBT patients’ experience and improve workplaces. Positive changes in education and a more inclusive clinical environment will ultimately improve care for LGBT patients.

Introduction Radiation therapy skin reactions are one of the most common side effects and can cause patient distress. In some cases, a severe radiation-induced skin reaction may limit delivered dose and potentially compromise treatment outcomes. There are some established best practices, but approaches and patient advice appear to have changed little over the years and are often based on tradition, not evidence. Canadian radiation therapy departments use different skin care products and approaches, and there has been little previous work to examine national practice patterns. Materials and Methods This study used a 42-item electronic survey based on a questionnaire designed by the UK Society and College of Radiographers. Practice data were collected related to assessment and prophylactics, interventions for prevention and management, and use of tools and guidelines. The final survey version was distributed to an identified radiation therapist-registered nurse dyad at each radiation therapy department in Canada (n = 44). Results Thirty-three departments responded (75% response rate). Results suggest a variation in national management. A number of departments continue to advise patients not to wash or use deodorant/antiperspirant despite having evidence to the contrary. There are also unnecessary restrictions on the use and timing of application of lotions as well as conflicting postradiotherapy skin care instructions regarding sun exposure. Conclusion The study demonstrated variation in practice across Canadian radiation therapy departments. National interprofessional guidelines could improve uptake of best practices. Where there is little evidence, a stress-reduction approach with more collaborative decision-making should be used to minimize patient disruption.

Introduction Online Twitter journal clubs are a recent and popular innovation with the potential to increase research awareness and inform practice. The medical radiation sciences' MedRadJournalClub (MJRC) is a Twitter-based event that attracts a global group of participants at the monthly chats. An analysis of a recent MedRadJournalClub discussion evaluated the perceived benefits and limitations of medical radiation practitioners participating in an online journal club. Methods The February 2017 chat used for analysis was based on the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences article by Currie et al. "Twitter Journal Club in Medical Radiation Science" that examines the educational theory behind learning and evidencing professional development through MRJC and social media. The data consisted of chat tweets which were collated using the Twitter advanced search function using the #medradjclub. An initial reviewed was performed to exclude irrelevant content. A second review was then undertaken to categorize the main theme of the tweet. The data were then subjected to thematic analysis which yielded seven different categories. Results The main benefits included global access due to the online nature of MRJC that has facilitated networking and collaboration. Open access to recently published research was another key benefit. The character limitation of a tweet was the most common constraint, and the dynamic nature of the twitter conversation requires multi-tasking that may be difficult. Conclusion Our analysis indicated that participants use MedRadJournalClub as a source of continuing professional development with some evidence that this is directly informing clinical and educational practice.

Following development of a framework to establish the scope of advanced practice for radiation therapists (APRTs), a Canadian certification process was built. This involved three independently-assessed phases: professional portfolio, case submission, and oral examination. The oral examination was to test the candidate's knowledge and capacity for decision-making. Development and piloting involved 3 elements: 1) content development, including relevant case selection, with accompanying high-fidelity imaging and resources; 2) harnessing of technology and ensuing logistics, given the desire to offer the examination online, maximizing accessibility and minimizing resources; and 3) examiner recruitment and preparation, involving a national call for interprofessional examiners, to assess across the spectrum of competencies. Each element was approached systematically, with modifications made iteratively. Three overarching challenges required ongoing attention and consideration: resource-intensiveness of building and validating cases, ensuring applicability and relevance of case content and "answers" across practice environments, and preparation of non-radiation therapist (oncologist and physicist) examiners regarding APRT standards. The resultant examination model is thought to be a robust assessment tool, well-regarded by candidates and examiners as fair and transparent, and complementary to the other certification phases. A consultatory pilot process supported establishment of a robust framework that is believed to be defensible and preliminarily valid.

The publisher regrets that the table 2 was inadvertently published as an online appendix files instead of regular table in the proof. The table 2 should be as follows. [Table presented]The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Background The "resource therapist" supervisory radiation therapy roles at the British Columbia Cancer Agency were recently evaluated. Methods The process included interviews with resource therapists (n = 22) and an electronic survey of stakeholders including department managers (n = 5) and clinical radiation therapists (RTs) (n = 230). Results Themes from both sets of data included the ability and advisability of maintaining clinical expertise, role clarity and job creep, and the definition of leadership. The resource therapists were balancing an increasingly complex administrative workload that varied between provincial centres. The understanding of the role differed between stakeholders. Only 48% of the RTs agreed that they had a good idea of what resource therapists do and many desired the resource therapists to be more "hands on." Conclusions In agreement with the literature, many resource therapists view themselves as clinicians first and managers second. There is also a marked difference in how the role is viewed between resource therapists and RTs. Role incumbents may benefit from access to more formal preparation, including job shadowing, training, and mentoring. There is also a need to increase understanding of the role across all stakeholder groups.

Background Canadian radiation therapy departments usually have flat organizational structures, with relatively few administrative/managerial levels. The "unit supervisor" level is a typical job role that provides direct supervision of one or more treatment units with a mixture of clinical and administrative duties. Methods At the British Columbia Cancer Agency, the unit supervisor role was recently evaluated. One approach used as part of the evaluative process was a series of telephone interviews to examine similar roles across Canada (n = 9). Results Data indicated that departmental administrative tasks seem to be increasing significantly, and there is a move toward the addition of more administrative "middle" roles across the country to deal with these. Unit supervisor roles are subsequently becoming less clinical, but there is an emerging tension with moving away from solely clinical responsibilities and assuming more administrative work. Conclusions The historic unit supervisor role was part of the team and did little administrative work. This model is becoming difficult to sustain, and tensions can arise in this new environment when using old organizational models. Focused departmental clinical expertise is important; however, balancing clinical and administrative expectations within the unit supervisor role can be problematic. Role expectations need to be examined, clarified, and communicated within departments. If unit supervisor roles are deemed clinical experts, then clinical time needs to be protected for expertise to be sustained.

Professions grapple with defining advanced practice and the characteristics of advanced practitioners. In nursing and allied health, advanced practice has been defined as ‘a state of professional maturity in which the individual demonstrates a level of integrated knowledge, skill and competence that challenges the accepted boundaries of practice and pioneers new developments in health care’. Evolution of advanced practice in Australia has been slower than in the United Kingdom, mainly due to differences in demography, the health system and industrial relations. This article describes a conceptual model of advanced practitioner characteristics in the medical radiation professions, taking into account experiences in other countries and professions. Using the CanMEDS framework, the model includes foundation characteristics of communication, collaboration and professionalism, which are fundamental to advanced clinical practice. Gateway characteristics are: clinical expertise, with high level competency in a particular area of clinical practice; scholarship and teaching, including a masters qualification and knowledge dissemination through educating others; and evidence-based practice, with judgements made on the basis of research findings, including research by the advanced practitioner. The pinnacle of advanced practice is clinical leadership, where the practitioner has a central role in the health care team, with the capacity to influence decision making and advocate for others, including patients. The proposed conceptual model is robust yet adaptable in defining generic characteristics of advanced practitioners, no matter their clinical specialty. The advanced practice roles that evolve to meet future health service demand must focus on the needs of patients, local populations and communities.

Objectives: There is a growing trend towards the use of online journal clubs amongst healthcare professionals as a means of sharing knowledge, discussing evidence in an accessible form of continued professional development (CPD). In March 2015, the Medical Radiation Journal Club was founded to run monthly Twitter-based journal critique and discussion. The Twitter journal club is aimed at all medical radiation professionals. The hour-long meetings are based on a key selected theme relevant to all medical radiation technologists, with one key study chosen from the literature and supplemented by suggested reading. The objective of this study was to examine the progression and development of this initiative over the initial 12 months. Methods: #Tweets including the journal club hashtag (#medradjclub) were analysed for each session through third party services, Symplur (www.symplur.com) and Keyhole (www.keyhole.com). Available information included total tweet count, total participants, total impressions and country of tweet origin. Results: Provisional analysis indicates that there is a core group of consistent participants, with others joining for topics relevant to their area of practice. The initial trend is for relatively consistent volumes of tweets and impressions across the chats. The Twitter journal club has a global reach, typically 500+ tweets per hour and a total reach in the order of 1000000 per session. Conclusions: Online journal clubs provide a forum for promotion of evidence based practice, academic debate and professional networking, free from traditional physical boundaries. Analysis of the first twelve months of #MedRadJclub demonstrates consistent participation and global reach, and is an accessible, interactive platform for discussion of research and practice in this field. The Twitter journal club is consistent with globalisation and internationalisation strategies amongst the medical radiation technology professions.

131 Background: Due to the rising incidence of cancer, increasing complexity of cancer treatment and growing resource constraints, there is demand for innovative interprofessional models of care. Cancer Care Ontario (CCO), in collaboration with Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, launched the Clinical Specialist Radiation Therapist (CSRT) project to investigate a new advanced practice (AP) radiation therapy (RT) role. Methods: A series of pilot phases commenced in 2004. A system wide implementation phase began in 2010. The overall goal of the project was to enable CSRTs to assume responsibility for certain key radiation medicine activities, optimize RT team functioning, and improve quality of care. This was to be achieved by applying advanced clinical, technical and professional RT competencies. A project team coordinated assessment of new position proposals, implementation activities, and data collection. Work towards formalizing the role is being conducted through partnerships with cancer centre administrations and the national professional association for RTs. Results: Currently there are 17 CSRTs in 6 of 14 Ontario cancer centres, practicing in palliative and disease-site specific positions. The provincial total will be 24 CSRTs in 10 centres by Fall 2014. Data show a major impact on patient throughput and wait times, with significant increased capacity in some clinics. CSRTs’ impact within their departments is being evaluated with regards to: 1) capacity building, 2) quality of care, and 3) knowledge translation (KT). In terms of role formalization, 6 positions are now considered permanent within their centres and the first iteration of a national certification process is anticipated for fall 2014. Conclusions: The CSRT project is aligned with CCO's priorities of improving Ontario’s cancer system performance by implementing innovative models of care and providing high quality care. This jurisdictional implementation project has demonstrated that an AP RT role can be successful in addressing system pressures and improving quality of care and innovation in Radiation Medicine. Further work is necessary to develop and formalize this AP role and leverage learnings for national implementation and future models of care work.