Search

Uncertainty is ubiquitous in medicine. Studies link intolerance of uncertainty to burnout, ineffective communication, cognitive bias, and inappropriate resource use. Little is known about how uncertainty manifests in the clinical learning environment. We aimed to explore the perceptions and experiences of uncertainty among residents and attendings.We conducted a mixed-methods study including a survey, semi-structured interviews, and ethnographic observations during rounds with residents and attendings at an academic medical center. The survey included three validated instruments: Physicians' Reaction to Uncertainty Scale; Maslach Burnout Inventory 2-item; and Educational Climate Inventory.35/60 (58%) of eligible residents and 14/21 (67%) attendings completed the survey. Residents reported higher anxiety due to uncertainty than attendings, higher concern about bad outcomes, and greater reluctance to disclose uncertainty to patients. Residents reported increased symptoms of burnout (Medical curricula should be developed to promote recognition and acknowledgement of uncertainty. Greater acknowledgement of uncertainty, specifically by attendings and senior residents, may positively impact the clinical learning environment.

Scientific research has been changing medical practice at an increasing pace. To keep up with this change, physicians of the future will need to be lifelong learners with the skills to engage with emerging science and translate it into clinical care. How medical schools can best prepare students for ongoing scientific change remains unclear. Adding to the challenge is reduced time allocated to basic science in curricula and rapid expansion of relevant scientific fields. A return to science with greater depth after clinical clerkships has been suggested, although few schools have adopted such curricula and implementation can present challenges. The authors describe an innovation at Harvard Medical School, the Advanced Integrated Science Courses (AISCs), which are taken after core clerkships. Students are required to take 2 such courses, which are offered in a variety of topics. Rather than factual content, the learning objectives are a set of generalizable skills to enable students to critically evaluate emerging research and its relationship to medical practice. Making these generalizable skills the defining principle of the courses has several important advantages: it allows standardization of acquired skills to be combined with diverse course topics ranging from basic to translational and population sciences; students can choose courses and projects aligned with their interests, thereby enhancing engagement, curiosity, and career relevance; schools can tailor course offerings to the interests of local faculty; and the generalizable skills delineate a unique purpose of these courses within the overall medical school curriculum. For the 3 years AISCs have been offered, students rated the courses highly and reported learning the intended skill set effectively. The AISC concept addresses the challenge of preparing students for this era of rapidly expanding science and should be readily adaptable to other medical schools.

Purpose Achieving competency as educators is increasingly recognized as a critical part of residents’ training in graduate medical education across specialties. In addition to teaching medical students, radiation oncology residents often play a vital role in peer and interprofessional education. We conducted a survey to identify the needs of radiation oncology residents for developing skills in teaching. Methods and Materials An anonymous, web-based survey was developed and distributed to resident physicians at US radiation oncology programs. Analyses describe respondent demographics, experiences with teaching, and interest in various aspects of a formal “residents-as-teachers” curriculum. Results There were 171 completed survey responses (27.5% response rate). A total of 146 residents (85.4%) reported receiving no formal training in teaching before residency, and 121 (70.8%) reported no formal training during residency. Residents who had formal training in teaching were significantly more likely to be “quite” or “extremely” confident about teaching compared with residents who had no prior formal training (76.0% vs 51.4%; P = .022). Residents most commonly taught other residents and medical students (163 [95.3%] and 160 [93.6%] respondents, respectively). The most common settings for teaching were one-on-one teaching (164 respondents [95.9%]), small-group lectures (135 respondents [78.9%]), and intradepartmental lectures (136 respondents [79.5%]). In response to open-ended questions regarding desired teaching opportunities and domains for teaching development, many residents expressed a lack of confidence in teaching and were interested in improvement across many aspects of teaching. Conclusions Radiation oncology residents are expected and desire to teach in a multitude of settings across a wide variety of audiences. However, a significant proportion of radiation oncology residents lack formal training and rarely receive feedback for their teaching skills. The results of this national survey support the development of a residents-as-teachers curriculum for radiation oncology residents that would address the needs for and significant interest in this area.

Despite interest from both radiation oncology residents and program directors, many residency training programs lack a formalized introductory curriculum to orient incoming radiation oncology residents to the specialty.Using the 6-step model for medical education curriculum development, a structured introductory radiation oncology curriculum (IROC) was created for incoming post-graduate year 2 (PGY-2) radiation oncology residents to address foundational concepts including patient simulation, contouring, and plan evaluation. The curriculum was distributed to 55 training programs across the United States and Canada at the start of the 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020 academic years. Feasibility of curriculum dissemination was assessed via a survey of participating program directors. Curriculum effectiveness was assessed using an anonymous survey of participating residents administered pre- and postcurriculum and consisting of both subjective and objective knowledge-based questions.A total of 236 residents participated in IROC at the start of the 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020 academic years. Of those, 228 of 236 (97%) completed both the pre- and postcurriculum surveys. Of participating residents, the median residency program size was 10 (range, 2-28), and the median number of residents in each program per year was 3 (range, 1-7). At baseline, most PGY-2s (142 of 228, 62%) reported being "not at all" or "slightly" prepared to function in the radiation oncology clinic, and after IROC most (188 of 228, 82%) felt "moderately," "quite," or "extremely" prepared. Objective knowledge improved pre- to postcurriculum on a multiple-choice test from 70% to 81% (P.0001) correct, with improvements observed across all question items. Program directors also reported that the curriculum was easier to use and more effective than prior orientation materials.The implementation of an international introductory curriculum for PGY-2 radiation oncology residents is both feasible and effective. Similar strategies should be employed to enhance and standardize radiation oncology educational initiatives across training programs.

Purpose/Objective(s) While rapid innovations in radiation treatment improve tumor controls and minimize toxicity, there is a dearth of quality training in resource-limited settings globally to ensure all radiation oncologists keep pace with the latest advances. We aim to create a learning platform shared by centers in Southeast Asia and to deliver quality training to participants with a curated virtual curriculum. To produce a comprehensive curriculum for countries enrolling in a non-profit organization training program, a needs assessment was conducted for registered participants. Materials/Methods Participants interested in a 12-week virtual training program completed a needs assessment survey via a data collection web application. The survey included demographics, practice characteristics, and interests in contouring and plan evaluation education and training. Herein we provide descriptive statistics of the reports from participant surveys. Results Across Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Nepal, 116 participants (82 attendings, 33 residents, 1 other) responded from 23 participating medical institutions (20 public, 3 private). The average number of radiation oncologists per medical institution was 6.81 (range 1-30) and radiation oncology residents was 17.50 (range 2-56). In the 7 centers with residency programs, 0 (0%) indicated that residents were solely involved in contouring, 5 (71.4%) that residents were jointly involved in contouring with attendings, and 2 (28.6%) that attendings contour without residents. Commonly cited obstacles to providing radiotherapy included: patient financial barriers (61.4%), inadequate training (51.8%), too many patients (48.2%), lack of modern equipment (40.4%), shortage of staff (39.5%), and malfunctioning equipment (36.8%). The most common, top-rated obstacle was inadequate training (24.8%). The most seen disease sites were head and neck (38.2%) and breast (30.3%). Respondent time spent contouring the target was greatest for head and neck, pediatric, and lymphoma disease sites with 66 (56.9%), 59 (50.8%), and 46 (29.3%) indicating more than 1 hour, respectively. Respondent time spent contouring the normal tissues was greatest for head and neck, pediatric, and CNS disease sites with 51 (44%), 46 (39.7%), and 30 (26.1%) indicating more than 1 hour. For head and neck cases, 34 (29.3%) respondents typically contour 6-10 Organs at Risk (OARs), 47 (40.5%) contour 11-15 OARs, 18 (15.5%) contour 16-20 OARs, and 15 (12.9%) contour > 20 OARs. 85 (76.3%) respondents believe their practice would most benefit from head and neck contouring education, while 114 (98.3%) were interested in receiving contouring and plan evaluation training. Conclusion The biggest physician-reported obstacle to providing radiotherapy in Southeast Asian practices is inadequate training. There is both high need and interest for well-developed virtual training, particularly in head and neck contouring, which currently appears time-intensive and heterogeneous among practices.

Purpose/Objective(s) The 2019 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) had a broad impact on the care of cancer patients, including the rapid adoption of telehealth video visits. On March 15, 2020, our institutional leadership recommended transition to video visits, which posed a risk of altering patients’ access to care. We assessed the impact of this rapid transition on demographic patterns in an urban academic radiation oncology department. Materials/Methods Consultation and follow-up visits from the pre-COVID-19 period (January 1, 2019 to March 14, 2020) and COVID-19 period (March 15, 2020 to August 31, 2020) in a single radiation oncology department were identified. Demographics and appointment data were abstracted from the institutional electronic health record. Time trends and patient and visit characteristics were compared across the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods. Results During the study period, 9,450 consult and follow-up visits were performed pre-COVID-19 and 3,298 visits in the COVID-19 period. The proportion of video visits increased markedly in the transition period, from 0.6% of all visits in the week of March 2, 2020, to 87% in the week of March 23, 2020. In-person visits decreased from 98% to 3%. Among all visits (in-person and telehealth), those during the COVID-19 period were less likely to be new consultations (43.1% from 60.1%; P < 0.001). There was a small and significant increase in the proportion of visits with patients who: identified as white (61.8% from 58.4%, P = 0.019), spoke English as their primary language (91.3% from 89.4%, P = 0.002), and had commercial insurance (34.1% from 32.0%; P = 0.009). Conclusion The overall COVID-19 clinic population retained demographic features similar to the pre-COVID-19 population despite a very rapid near-complete transition to telehealth. Nonetheless, the telehealth-predominant COVID-19 period had slightly increased visits with patients who were white or primarily English speaking or had commercial insurance. Strategies for ensuring telehealth is accessible to diverse populations should be a priority as telemedicine is integrated into long-term clinical operations.