Search

Purpose: Prior to 2009, one of the problems faced by radiation therapists who supervised and assessed students on placement in Australian clinical centres, was that each of the six Australian universities where Radiation Therapy (RT) programmes were conducted used different clinical assessment and reporting criteria. This paper describes the development of a unified national clinical assessment and reporting form that was implemented nationally by all six universities in 2009. Methods: A four phase methodology was used to develop the new assessment form and user guide. Phase 1 included university consensus around domains of student practice and assessment, and alignment with national competency standards; Phase 2 was a national consensus workshop attended by radiation therapists involved in student supervision and assessment; Phase 3 was an action research re-iterative Delphi technique involving two rounds of a mail-out to gain further expert consensus; and stage 4 was national piloting of the developed assessment form. Results: The new assessment form includes five main domains of practice and 19 sub-domain criteria which students are assessed against during placement. Feedback from the pilot centre participants was positive, with the new form being assessed to be comprehensive and complemented by the accompanying user guide. Conclusion: The new assessment form has improved both the formative and summative assessment of students on placement, as well as enhancing the quality of feedback to students and the universities. The new national form has high acceptance from the Australian universities and has been subject to wide review by the profession.

Purpose: The Australian Universities Radiation Therapy Student Clinical Assessment Form (AURTSCAF) was designed to assess the clinical skills of radiation therapy (RT) students from the six universities that offer entry level RT programs. Given the AURTSCAF has now been in use for over two years, the Radiation Therapy Program Coordinators (RTPC) group initiated a post implementation evaluation survey. This formed the final phase of the AURTSCAF project and was funded by the Radiation Oncology Division of the Department of Health and Ageing. Methods: A cross-sectional designed survey using purposive sampling was distributed via email to all RT clinical sites. The survey asked questions about the requirements of a pass grade for students at different stages of their program, and the addition of a new category of assessment related to fitness to practise. Response types included both forced choice closed ended responses and open ended responses. There was also a section for open comments about the AURTSCAF. Results: There were 100 responses (55%) from clinicians who had utilised the assessment form over the previous 12 month period. Responses highlighted several positives with regard to the utility and implementation of the form. Comments regarding areas for improvement with the standardisation of the grading of students and consensus for the addition of a new domain in fitness for practise have informed the recommended changes proposed for 2012. Conclusion: This evaluation has provided a representative sample of the views of clinicians involved in assessing students on clinical placement. Recommendations include the addition of the sixth domain of assessment: Fitness for practise, the addition of descriptors and prompts for this domain in the user guide, the addition of a consensus statement about the use of the rating scale and dissemination of the proposed changes nationally.

Since­­­­ 2004,­­­­ a­­­­ group­­­­ of­­­­ representatives­­­­ from­­­­ the­­­­ universities­­­­ providing­­­­ entry­­­­ level­­­­ radiation­­­­ therapy­­­­ (RT)­­­­ programmes­­­­ have­­­­ met­­­­ biannually­­­­ to­­­­ co-ordinate­­­­ national­­­­ clinical­­­­ practice­­­­ placements.­­­­ At­­­­ these­­­­ meetings­­­­ the­­­­ RT­­­­ Lecturers’­­­­ Group­­­­ established­­­­ that­­­­ there­­­­ were­­­­ challenges­­­­ in­­­­ clinical­­­­ assessment­­­­ posed­­­­ by­­­­ the­­­­ variety­­­­ of­­­­ assessment­­­­ forms­­­­ in­­­­ use.­­­­ A­­­­ large­­­­ degree­­­­ of­­­­ commonality­­­­ across­­­­ the­­­­ universities­­­­ in­­­­ the­­­­ clinical­­­­ assessment­­­­ forms­­­­ was­­­­ identified.­­­­ It­­­­ was­­­­ felt­­­­ that­­­­ sufficient­­­­ commonality­­­­ existed­­­­ to­­­­ develop­­­­ a­­­­ nationally­­­­ standardised­­­­ assessment­­­­ form...