Oncology Curriculum Research Articles

The Minimum Competences in Non-surgical Oncology that Medical Students Need to Acquire in Order to be Safe Foundation Year 1 (F1) Doctors: A Delphi Survey

AimsTo develop a consensus on the minimum competences in non-surgical oncology that medical students need to acquire in order to be safe Foundation Year 1 (F1) doctors. Materials and methodsA two-round Delphi survey was conducted by e-mail with an expert panel of 24 consultant oncologists who had expressed an interest in undergraduate education. ResultsThe response rate to round 1, which asked panellists to list the competences they thought were important, was 50%. The competences they generated contained 86 different concepts. These were categorised according to the learning outcomes in Tomorrow's Doctors. The panellists were then asked to rate the importance of each proposed competence between 1 and 9 on a Likert scale to give a measure of the perceived importance and consensus. The panellists generated competences in all the main categories of learning outcomes in Tomorrow's Doctors. The scores were highest and the consensus greatest for those competences related to the doctor as a practitioner and the doctor as a professional. ConclusionThe Delphi survey was an effective method of obtaining the judgement of an expert panel and in measuring the degree of consensus. The results of the survey were valuable in informing the design of a UK non-surgical oncology curriculum.

From Silos to Synergy: Results of the Interdisciplinary Curriculum in Oncology Palliative Education (iCOPE) on Student Learning Outcomes (FR457-A)

•Understand the rationale and design of a research study to test an innovative interdisciplinary palliative care curriculum, with applicability to attendees’ own institutions.•Name components of a plan to evaluate the outcomes of the innovative interdisciplinary palliative care curriculum.•Summarize the impact of iCOPE on learner outcomes. Interprofessional education (IPE) is essential to prepare a practice-ready workforce equipped to provide team-based, holistic patient and family centered palliative care. This abstract describes an interdisciplinary model for a mandatory, centrally driven, and sustainable curriculum in palliative care and presents results from a study including students of social work, medicine, nursing, and chaplaincy. In 2010 the University of Louisville received funding from the NCI (NIH-1-R25-CA-148005) to develop and test the impact of an interdisciplinary palliative oncology curriculum on learners. A pre/post mixed-methods research design was used to evaluate the impact of the curriculum on 391 students from chaplaincy, nursing, medicine, and social work over five semesters beginning in fall 2012. Participants completed four online case-based learning modules, a clinical rotation, a critical reflection assignment, and an interdisciplinary case management experience. Pre/post measures included the End-of-Life Professional Caregiver Survey (EPCS), evaluating palliative care–specific educational needs related to all eight domains of the consensus guidelines; and the Self-Efficacy for Interprofessional Experiential Learning Scale (SEIEL), measuring student self-efficacy perceptions related to learning collaboratively in interprofessional teams. Pre/post interdisciplinary palliative care knowledge questions were developed and administered. Students completed postcurriculum evaluation of the learning modalities and participated in focus groups to provide feedback on overall content, process, outcomes, and logistical considerations. Increases occurred in attitude and skill (EPCS, t(390)=-16.0, p<.001; d=0.81; SEIEL, t(385)=-30.6,p<.001; d=1.55); and a summation of correct knowledge-based questions (t(218)=13.3, p<.001; d=.89). Student ratings of high effectiveness and quality ranged from 89%-91%. Qualitative feedback revealed the following themes: high satisfaction with case-based interdisciplinary learning, clinical experiences; interdisciplinary team learning was new for most students. The iCOPE curriculum significantly improves interdisciplinary palliative care practice, knowledge, and skills, and is a highly valued experience for learners.

Mapping the Future: Towards Oncology Curriculum Reform in Undergraduate Medical Education at a Canadian Medical School

To evaluate (1) the quantity and quality of current undergraduate oncology teaching at a major Canadian medical school; and (2) curricular changes over the past decade, to enhance local oncology education and provide insight for other educators. Relevant 2011-2012 undergraduate curricular sessions were extracted from the University of Toronto curriculum mapping database using keywords and database identifiers. Educational sessions were analyzed according to Medical Council of Canada objectives, discussion topics, instructor qualifications, teaching format, program year, and course subject. Course-related oncology research projects performed by students during 2000 to 2012 were extracted from another internal database. Elective choices of clerks during 2008-2014 were retrieved from the institution. The 2011-2012 and 2000-2001 curricula were compared using common criteria. The 2011-2012 curriculum covers 5 major themes (public health, cancer biology, diagnosis, principles of care, and therapy), which highlight 286 oncology teaching topics within 80 sessions. Genitourinary (10, 12.5%), gynecologic (8, 10.0%), and gastrointestinal cancers (7.9, 9.8%) were the most commonly taught cancers. A minority of sessions were taught by surgical oncologists (6.5, 8.1%), medical oncologists (2.5, 3.1%), and radiation oncologists (1, 1.2%). During 2000-2012, 9.0% of students (233 of 2578) opted to complete an oncology research project. During 2008-2014, oncology electives constituted 2.2% of all clerkship elective choices (209 of 9596). Compared with pre-2001 curricula, the 2012 oncology curriculum shows notable expansion in the coverage of epidemiology (6:1 increase), prevention (4:1), screening (3:1), and molecular biology (6:1). The scope of the oncology curriculum has grown over the past decade. Nevertheless, further work is needed to improve medical student knowledge of cancers, particularly those relevant to public health needs. Defining minimum curricular content, emphasizing content based on population needs, and ensuring educational delivery with the support and expertise of oncologists and non-oncologists will be essential next steps.

Current state of brachytherapy teaching in Canada: a national survey of radiation oncologists, residents, and fellows.

The objective of the present study was to determine perceptions and barriers concerning brachytherapy (BT) teaching in Canada to guide the development of a BT credentialing process. In May 2013, an electronic survey was sent to 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. 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, and attitudes required for a resident to be competent in BT. The main barriers to BT teaching were stated as being the lack of Royal College guidance (55%), heavy clinical workload (49%), lack of time (37%), and the fact that too much emphasis is placed on passing examinations (32%). Ninety-seven percent of respondents felt that it was important or very important that some elements of BT be included in the mainstream radiation oncology curriculum. Eighty percent of respondents were in agreement with the development of a formal credentialing process by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, which would lead to separate certification in BT. The results of this study show the importance of developing specific BT curriculum and emphasize the need for a credentialing process.

An interprofessionally developed geriatric oncology curriculum for hematology-oncology fellows.

Because the cancer population is aging, interprofessional education incorporating geriatric principles is essential to providing adequate training for oncology fellows. We report the targeted needs assessment, content, and evaluation tools for our geriatric oncology curriculum at MD Anderson Cancer Center. A team comprising a geriatrician, a medical oncologist, an oncology PharmD, an oncology advanced nurse practitioner, and two oncology chief fellows developed the geriatric oncology curriculum. First, a general needs assessment was conducted by reviewing the literature and medical societies' publications and by consulting experts. A targeted needs assessment was then conducted by reviewing the fellows' evaluations of the geriatric oncology rotation and by interviewing fellows and recently graduated oncology faculty. Geriatric assessment, pharmacology, and psychosocial knowledge skills were the three identified areas of educational need. Curriculum objectives and an evaluation checklist were developed to evaluate learners in the three identified areas. The checklist content was validated by consulting experts in the field. Online materials, including a curriculum, a geriatric pharmacology job aid, and pharmacology cases, were also developed and delivered as part of the curriculum. An interprofessional team approach was a successful method for identifying areas of learners' educational needs, which in turn helped us develop an integrated geriatric oncology curriculum. The curriculum is currently being piloted and evaluated.

Enhancing cancer care in areas of limited resources: our next steps.

In-depth knowledge of local conditions is necessary in order to enhance care in low- and middle-income countries. In this review we discuss: improving cancer diagnosis, optimizing patient management, increasing health awareness, prevention, early detection, eradication of causative infectious diseases and agents, tobacco control, healthy diets and lifestyles, availability of diagnostic methods, easy access to care, affordable costs, improving infrastructures, quality care measures, implementing and adapting guidelines, multidisciplinary management, supportive and survivorship care, research and optimization of medical school curriculum and training in oncology. Establishment of national cancer control plans by policy makers, physician societies, medical schools, and patient advocates is recommended. We will review evidence and controversies, and outline the next steps needed to prevent cancer and enhance care of cancer patients in LMICs.

Implementation and Evaluation of a Multi-institutional Radiation Oncology Clerkship Curriculum: A Report From the Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group

Radiation oncology curriculum development is challenging due to limited numbers of trainees at any single institution. The specific aim of this project is to implement and evaluate a uniform medical student clerkship curriculum at select academic medical centers (AMCs) following the multi-institutional cooperative group research model.

The Interdisciplinary Curriculum for Oncology Palliative Care Education (iCOPE): meeting the challenge of interprofessional education.

Background: Interprofessional education is necessary to prepare students of the health professions for successful practice in today's health care environment. Because of its expertise in interdisciplinary practice and team-based care, palliative care should be leading the way in creating educational opportunities for students to learn the skills for team practice and provision of quality patient-centered care. Multiple barriers exist that can discourage those desiring to create and implement truly interdisciplinary curriculum. An interdisciplinary faculty team planned and piloted a mandatory interdisciplinary palliative oncology curriculum and responded to formative feedback. The project took place at a large public metropolitan university. Medical, nursing, and social work students and chaplains completing a clinical pastoral education internship participated in the curriculum. Formative feedback was received via the consultation of an interdisciplinary group of palliative education experts, focus groups from students, and student evaluations of each learning modality. Multiple barriers were experienced and successfully addressed by the faculty team. Curricular components were redesigned based on formative feedback. Openness to this feedback coupled with flexibility and compromise enabled the faculty team to create an efficient, sustainable, and feasible interdisciplinary palliative oncology curriculum. Interdisciplinary palliative education can be successful if faculty teams are willing to confront challenges, accept feedback on multiple levels, and compromise while maintaining focus on desired learner outcomes.

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

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

A focused curriculum in surgical oncology for the third-year medical students

BackgroundEducating medical students in surgical subspecialty fields can be challenging, and the optimal timing and curriculum remain unknown. Despite advocacy for earlier exposure, competing core clerkship rotations often leave little time for subspecialty fields. We report our experience with a novel, short, and focused curriculum in surgical oncology for the third-year medical students. MethodsA 2-wk (2009–2010) and a 4-wk (2010–2011) curriculum in surgical oncology were developed for the third-year students at a tertiary-referral cancer center, including formal didactics, rotation in clinical service of students' choosing (breast, gastrointestinal, endocrine, or melanoma), and case-based learning and presentation. Paired pre- and postrotation questionnaires were prospectively completed, including 20 items assessing knowledge and four items assessing experience. Grading was anonymous, and change in score was assessed by Wilcoxon signed-rank test. ResultsPaired questionnaires from 47 students (2-wk rotation, n = 26; 4-wk rotation, n = 21) showed a median improvement of three points (21.4%) from pre- to posttests (P < 0.001). The improvement did not differ by the length of rotation or by the specific clinical service. Nearly all (93%) reported a positive and inspiring experience. The most valuable avenue of learning was reported as the time spent with resident or fellow or attending (92%), followed by self-directed reading (62%) and didactic lectures (28%). ConclusionsA short and focused curriculum in surgical oncology, including structured didactics and clinical rotation, had positive impact for the third-year students. Given the increasing work-hour limits, it is important to note that the time spent in the clinical setting continues to be ranked as the most educationally valuable by medical students.

Devising the Optimal Preclinical Oncology Curriculum for Undergraduate Medical Students in the United States

A third of women and a near majority of men in the United States will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes. To prepare future physicians for this reality, we have developed a preclinical oncology curriculum that introduces second-year medical students to essential concepts and practices in oncology to improve their abilities to appropriately care for these patients. We surveyed the oncology and education literature and compiled subjects important to students' education including basic science and clinical aspects of oncology and addressing patients' psychosocial needs. Along with the proposed curriculum content, scheduling, independent learning exercises, and case studies, we discuss practical considerations for curriculum implementation based on experience at our institution. Given the changing oncology healthcare landscape, all (new) physicians must competently address their cancer patients' needs, regardless of chosen specialty. A thorough and logically organized cancer curriculum for preclinical medical students should help achieve these aims. This new model curriculum, with accompanying strategies to evaluate its efforts, is essential to update how medical students are educated about cancer.

SP-0504: Radiation oncology curriculum - The Canadian perspective

SP-0504: Radiation oncology curriculum - The Canadian perspective

Using Expert Panels to Determine the Level of Cancer Knowledge Required of Junior Doctors in Australia. Part 1: Methodology and Results

A number of curricula have been developed to address shortfalls in cancer education. However, no standardised means of assessing medical graduates against such curricula currently exist. This paper describes the use of expert panels to determine the level of cancer-related knowledge required by junior doctors. Participants individually reviewed knowledge items from the Ideal Oncology Curriculum for Medical Students and rated the level of understanding and specificity of each. On completion, panel sessions were convened to reach consensus. Fifty-two (17%) items were considered irrelevant for junior doctors, whilst 164 items (54%) and 85 items (28%) were deemed appropriate at a moderate and high level of understanding, respectively. As a result, 249 (83%) of the 301 items were deemed appropriate for junior doctors. Expert panels provide an important insight into the requirements of junior doctors, reduce ambiguity and facilitate discussion, resulting in higher quality data than that produced solely through individual reviews.

How to identify older cancer patients who should benefit from comprehensive geriatric assessment?

Training Curriculum for Medical Oncology 2010 [online]. Available at: http://www.jrcptb.org.uk/specialties/ST3-SpR/Documents/ 2010%20Medical%20Oncology%20Curriculum.pdf [Accessed 2 July 2012]. 3. The Royal College of Radiologists Specialty Training Curriculum for Clinical Oncology 2010 [online]. Available at: http://www.rcr.ac.uk/ content.aspx?PageID=1811. [Accessed 2nd July 2012]. 4. Joint Royal College of Physicians Training Board (JRCPTB) [data obtained from enquiry at JRCPTB, 11 June 12]. 5. Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) [data obtained from enquiry at RCR, 12 June 12]. 6. Muss, H.B. et al. ACCO:ASCO core curriculum outline. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2005; 23(9): 2049-2077. 7. American Society of Clinical Oncology & European Society for Medical Oncology. Recommendations for a global curriculum in medical oncology 2010 Update [online]. Available at: http://www.asco.org/ ASCOv2/Department%20Content/International%20Affairs/Downloads/ ESMO-ASCO%20revised%20Recommendations.pdf [Accessed 2nd July 2012].

SY15-6 - New Antineoplastic Agents and Education Program in Medical Oncology by the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology

ABSTRACT When oncologists face the patient who needs to be treated by a newly approved anti-neoplastic agent but it is not familiar to them, they feel insecure to apply. This is often experienced unless one did a phase 1 and 2 studies for that particular agent. Since institutions involved in early phase studies are limited, this happens all the time. They study the drug information and related literature by themselves sometimes together with nurses and pharmacists. In some centers, they make a team and learn the new drug in advance. This approach is very useful and safe to start using the new agent. However, if ones have little experience with the antineoplastic agents, they may not give particular attention to know details of the drugs. Moreover, they may not know the biology of the tumor well and patients' conditions necessary to start cancer treatment. There is some criticism on an anti-EGFR agent in which it was administered by many physicians at a stroke to patients including some in a poor condition, and eventually severe pulmonary toxic effects were supervened. If a new drug needs special attention, the course of learning its guidance should be provided to physicians who are to prescribe it. Curriculum in medical oncology by the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) includes cancer biology, clinical pharmacology, and fundamental treatment strategy to get a maximum tumor response with a minimal toxicity. It is apparent that new cancer agents must be used by the oncologists or physicians who have a sufficient experience with anticancer drugs. If one has little experience with the drug but has to use it for the patient living far from the cancer treatment center for example, one must get an appropriate consultation by the affiliated oncologists. It is important to take care of the patient by the team for cancer therapy including supportive and emergency treatment, not only within the particular institution but also in the local area involving its affiliated hospitals and private offices. Cancer treatment by the oncology team is so important that the education program should include the team approach and it should be routinely taken place in the training hospital certified by JSMO.

Oncology education in Canadian undergraduate and postgraduate medical programs: A survey of educators and learners.

e16558 Background: Deficiencies in undergraduate (UG) oncology education have been documented and there is a lack of data on the quality and quantity of oncology education in postgraduate (PG) family medicine (FM) and internal medicine (IM) training programs. Methods: A self-administered web-survey was created to obtain information regarding the current oncology curriculum at medical schools and PG FM and IM training programs. Survey requests were sent to educators (undergraduate medical education curriculum committee members (UMECCM), family medicine (FMPD) and internal medicine program directors (IMPD), oncologists) and learners (final year medical students (MS), family medicine (FMR) and internal medicine residents (IMR)) at all 17 of Canada’s medical schools. Results: 159 of 961 educators (19 UMECCM, 7 FMPD, 10 IMPD, 54 medical oncologists, 67 radiation oncologists and 2 hematologic oncologists) and 518 of 1966 learners (342 MS, 95 FMR and 81 IMR) completed the survey. Overall response rate was 23% (educators 17%, learners 26%). Responses were received from at least one educator or learner from all 17 medical schools. The amount of oncology education was thought to be inadequate in their respective programs by 58% UMECCM, 57% FMPD and 50% IMPD. 82% of oncologists believed that oncology education was inadequate in their UG and PG FM and IM programs. For learners, oncology education was thought to be inadequate in their respective programs by 67% MS, 86% FMR and 63% IMR. Of 10 different categories of medical illness all groups agreed that their trainees were least adequately prepared to manage cancer. A standard set of oncology objectives was thought to be useful for UG learners by 59% of respondents and 61% for PG learners. The 3 topics considered most important as core competencies in oncology for both UG and PG learners are: cancer diagnosis, breaking bad news and cancer screening. Conclusions: Oncology education at the UG medical and PG FM and IM levels are currently thought to be inadequate by a majority of educators and learners. Developing a standard set of oncology objectives focusing on topics believed to be most important by educators may improve the quality of oncology education for learners.

First-in-human Phase 1 Studies in Oncology: The New Challenge for Investigative Sites

Phase 1 first-in-human studies with anti-cancer products differ from other phase 1 studies in that they are evaluated in patients rather than healthy volunteers. The rationale design of targeted drugs triggers changes in the design of these studies. Patient populations are more precisely defined and pose a challenge to the efficient inclusion of study patients. Objectives shift from the definition of a maximum tolerated dose to the evaluation of a recommended phase 2 dose. Other challenges related to the efficacy and safety profile of novel targeted anti-cancer drugs call for changes in designing first-in-human studies, such as definitions of biological doses, collection of fresh tumor tissue for surrogate marker analyses, and the management of infusion-related reactions with monoclonal antibodies.Consequently, the conduct of phase 1 clinical trials in oncology requires changes. Corresponding education with particular focus on phase 1 trials and on the complex drug development process needs to be an integrated part of the medical oncology curriculum for physicians and nursing staff. This is a crucial element for institutions to remain or become clinical research sites for phase 1 studies, and to participate in the drug development process of novel anti-cancer compounds in the future.

Importance of a standardized oncology curriculum in Malaysia

The incidence of cancer in Malaysia is rising alarmingly and newly qualified doctors will be expected to be competent in the basic management of cancer patients. However, the opportunity to gain experience in oncology management will remain limited unless these students are stationed in an oncology unit which is solely dedicated to the treatment of such patients. Therefore, it is essential that undergraduate medical school training equips students with a sound knowledge- base, so that they can confidently manage basic oncological conditions appropriately. With the many private and local medical universities across the country, it is important that oncology training be standardized and reflective of the local resources available, and government health policies. As a result, having a standardized curriculum would help create a framework whereby competencies in cancer management would be accurately assessed.

The Need for a Standard, Systematic Oncology Curriculum for U.S. Medical Schools

The Need for a Standard, Systematic Oncology Curriculum for U.S. Medical Schools

An evaluation of a paediatric radiation oncology teaching programme incorporating a SCORPIO teaching model

Many radiation oncology registrars have no exposure to paediatrics during their training. To address this, the Paediatric Special Interest Group of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists has convened a biennial teaching course since 1997. The 2009 course incorporated the use of a Structured, Clinical, Objective-Referenced, Problem-orientated, Integrated and Organized (SCORPIO) teaching model for small group tutorials. This study evaluates whether the paediatric radiation oncology curriculum can be adapted to the SCORPIO teaching model and to evaluate the revised course from the registrars' perspective. Teaching and learning resources included a pre-course reading list, a lecture series programme and a SCORPIO workshop. Three evaluation instruments were developed: an overall Course Evaluation Survey for all participants, a SCORPIO Workshop Survey for registrars and a Teacher's SCORPIO Workshop Survey. Forty-five radiation oncology registrars, 14 radiation therapists and five paediatric oncology registrars attended. Seventy-three per cent (47/64) of all participants completed the Course Evaluation Survey and 95% (38/40) of registrars completed the SCORPIO Workshop Survey. All teachers completed the Teacher's SCORPIO Survey (10/10). The overall educational experience was rated as good or excellent by 93% (43/47) of respondents. Ratings of satisfaction with lecture sessions were predominantly good or excellent. Registrars gave the SCORPIO workshop high ratings on each of 10 aspects of quality, with 82% allocating an excellent rating overall for the SCORPIO activity. Both registrars and teachers recommended more time for the SCORPIO stations. The 2009 course met the educational needs of the radiation oncology registrars and the SCORPIO workshop was a highly valued educational component.