Results of the 2013-2015 Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Survey of Chief Residents in the United States

Abstract

The purpose of this project was to survey radiation oncology chief residents to define their residency experience and readiness for independent practice. During the academic years 2013 to 2014 and 2014 to 2015, the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology (ARRO) conducted an electronic survey of post-graduate year-5 radiation oncology residents in the United States during the final 3 months of training. Descriptive statistics are reported. Sixty-six chief residents completed the survey in 2013 to 2014 (53% response rate), and 69 completed the survey in 2014 to 2015 (64% response rate). Forty to 85% percent of residents reported inadequate exposure to high-dose rate and low-dose rate brachytherapy. Nearly all residents in both years (>90%) reported adequate clinical experience for the following disease sites: breast, central nervous system, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, head and neck, and lung. However, as few as 56% reported adequate experience in lymphoma or pediatric malignancies. More than 90% of residents had participated in retrospective research projects, with 20% conducting resident-led prospective clinical trials and 50% conducting basic science or translational projects. Most chief residents reported working 60 or fewer hours per week in the clinical/hospital setting and performing fewer than 15 hours per week tasks that were considered to have little or no educational value. There was more than 80% compliance with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) work hour limits. Fifty-five percent of graduating residents intended to join an established private practice group, compared to 25% who headed for academia. Residents perceive the job market to be more competitive than previous years. This first update of the ARRO chief resident survey since the 2007 to 2008 academic year documents US radiation oncology residents' experiences and conditions over a 2-year period. This analysis may serve as a valuable tool for those seeking to improve training of the next generation of oncology leaders.