Online scaffolds: A constructivist approach to oncology fellow learning.

Abstract

11010 Background: Oncology is a vast and fast-paced field. Fellows must expend significant effort to learn and stay updated. Up-to-date learning tools covering core oncology content in a digestible manner are lacking. Additionally, passive lectures are common in oncology, while constructivist approaches that may improve learning are rare. Therefore, we piloted updatable online modules (“scaffolds”) as a learning tool for oncology fellows. Methods: Author SB, a University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) solid-tumor oncologist, designed 12 scaffolds (breast, non-small cell lung, small cell lung, head/neck, salivary/thyroid, upper gastrointestinal, lower gastrointestinal, germ cell, bladder/renal/adrenal, prostate, melanoma, and sarcoma) using Google Slides between 12/2018 and 6/2019. The scaffolds included bullet points and tables/figures synthesized from the ASCO self-evaluation program textbook’s solid tumor chapters and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. We emailed scaffold links to all UCSF and Stanford oncology fellows in 2019-2020, including instructions for fellows to update the scaffolds without exceeding 20 slides per scaffold, 5 lines per slide, or 7 words per line. The scaffolds were reintroduced to new fellows at the beginning of each academic year. SB audited to ensure no erroneous information was added. In December 2021 we reviewed updates tracked in Google Slides and conducted one UCSF and one Stanford focus group with four 1st-3rd year fellows each. Results: Between 7/2019 and 12/2021, fellows made 60 updates to the scaffolds, with a mean of 5 updates per scaffold ranging from new trials to changes in management. During the same period, the auditor made 9 updates and found no erroneous fellow updates. Fellow updates occasionally exceeded specified limits, requiring correction. Content analysis revealed that fellows considered the scaffolds to be accessible and succinct learning tools that 1) addressed a dearth of similar resources, 2) served as effective preparation for clinical work and examinations, 3) provided structured information for rapid review, and 4) made subsequent interactions with complex resources such as NCCN guidelines easier. Barriers to fellows updating the scaffolds included lack of ownership and low confidence in judgment regarding appropriate updates. Conclusions: In this two-institution pilot, oncology fellows used and subsequently updated online scaffolds in a constructivist fashion. This model has the potential to fill a crucial gap in available learning resources and can be applied to other specialties. Assigning scaffolds to fellows with faculty mentorship may facilitate ownership and bolster fellow confidence in updating these tools. Individual institutions may update their own versions of the scaffolds to align with institution-specific needs.