Current State of Brachytherapy Teaching in Canada: A National Survey of Radiation Oncologists, Residents and Fellows

Abstract

PurposeThe objective of the current study was to determine perceptions and barriers concerning brachytherapy teaching in Canada to guide the development of a brachytherapy credentialing process.Materials and MethodsIn May 2013, an electronic survey was sent all radiation oncologists, program directors, residents and fellows in Canada. Questions were asked regarding demographics, practice patterns, teaching methods and assessment, curriculum content, perceptions on resident education and barriers to resident teaching.ResultsOne hundred twenty-one staff radiation oncologists and 32 residents responded to the survey. Only 54% of respondents stated that their center had defined specific written objectives with respect to knowledge, skills & attitudes required for a resident to be competent in BT. The main barriers to brachytherapy teaching were stated as being the lack of Royal College guidance (55%), clinical workload (49%), lack of time (37%) and the fact that too much emphasis is placed on passing exams (32%). Ninety-seven percent of respondents felt it was important or very important that some elements of brachytherapy be included in the mainstream Radiation Oncology curriculum. Table 1 shows results of which brachytherapy modalities respondents agreed or strongly agreed should be included as components of the mainstream radiation oncology curriculum. 70% of residents were either extremely motivated or very motivated to learn about brachytherapy. 80% of respondents were in agreement with the development of a credentialing process by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. 64% of respondents a separate fellowship outside of basic Radiation Oncology training should be required for certification in brachytherapy.Conclusions PurposeThe objective of the current study was to determine perceptions and barriers concerning brachytherapy teaching in Canada to guide the development of a brachytherapy credentialing process. The objective of the current study was to determine perceptions and barriers concerning brachytherapy teaching in Canada to guide the development of a brachytherapy credentialing process. Materials and MethodsIn May 2013, an electronic survey was sent all radiation oncologists, program directors, residents and fellows in Canada. Questions were asked regarding demographics, practice patterns, teaching methods and assessment, curriculum content, perceptions on resident education and barriers to resident teaching. In May 2013, an electronic survey was sent all radiation oncologists, program directors, residents and fellows in Canada. Questions were asked regarding demographics, practice patterns, teaching methods and assessment, curriculum content, perceptions on resident education and barriers to resident teaching. ResultsOne hundred twenty-one staff radiation oncologists and 32 residents responded to the survey. Only 54% of respondents stated that their center had defined specific written objectives with respect to knowledge, skills & attitudes required for a resident to be competent in BT. The main barriers to brachytherapy teaching were stated as being the lack of Royal College guidance (55%), clinical workload (49%), lack of time (37%) and the fact that too much emphasis is placed on passing exams (32%). Ninety-seven percent of respondents felt it was important or very important that some elements of brachytherapy be included in the mainstream Radiation Oncology curriculum. Table 1 shows results of which brachytherapy modalities respondents agreed or strongly agreed should be included as components of the mainstream radiation oncology curriculum. 70% of residents were either extremely motivated or very motivated to learn about brachytherapy. 80% of respondents were in agreement with the development of a credentialing process by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. 64% of respondents a separate fellowship outside of basic Radiation Oncology training should be required for certification in brachytherapy. One hundred twenty-one staff radiation oncologists and 32 residents responded to the survey. Only 54% of respondents stated that their center had defined specific written objectives with respect to knowledge, skills & attitudes required for a resident to be competent in BT. The main barriers to brachytherapy teaching were stated as being the lack of Royal College guidance (55%), clinical workload (49%), lack of time (37%) and the fact that too much emphasis is placed on passing exams (32%). Ninety-seven percent of respondents felt it was important or very important that some elements of brachytherapy be included in the mainstream Radiation Oncology curriculum. Table 1 shows results of which brachytherapy modalities respondents agreed or strongly agreed should be included as components of the mainstream radiation oncology curriculum. 70% of residents were either extremely motivated or very motivated to learn about brachytherapy. 80% of respondents were in agreement with the development of a credentialing process by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. 64% of respondents a separate fellowship outside of basic Radiation Oncology training should be required for certification in brachytherapy. Conclusions