Program director and chief resident perspectives on the educational environment of US radiation oncology programs

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Camille Berriochoa ; MD ; Michael Weller ; MD ; Danielle Berry ; BS ; Chandana A. Reddy ; MS ; Shlomo Koyfman ; MD ; Rahul Tendulkar ; MD ; ^{tendulr@ccf.org}
• 刊名：Practical Radiation Oncology
• 出版年：2017
• 出版时间：January-February 2017
• 年：2017
• 卷：7
• 期：1
• 页码：e65-e70
• 全文大小：361 K
• 卷排序：7

文摘

Our goals were to examine the educational approaches used at radiation oncology residency programs nationwide and to evaluate program director (PD) and chief resident (CR) perceptions of their educational environment.Methods and materialsWe distributed a survey regarding curricular structure via email to all identified US radiation oncology residency PDs and CRs. Pearson χ2 test was used to evaluate whether differences existed between answers provided by the 2 study populations.ResultsThe survey was disseminated to 200 individuals in 85 US residency programs: 49/85 PDs (58%) and 74/115 (64%) CRs responded. More than one-half of PDs and CRs report that attending physicians discussed management, reviewed contours, and conducted mock oral board examinations with the residents. At nearly 50% of programs, the majority of teaching conferences use a lecture-based approach, whereas only 20% reported predominant utilization of the Socratic method. However, both PDs (63%) and CRs (49%) reported that Socratic teaching is more effective than didactic lectures (16% and 20%, respectively), with the remainder responding that they are equally effective. Teaching sessions were reported to be resident-led ≥ 75% of the time by 50% of CRs versus 18% of PDs (P = .002). Significantly more CRs than PDs felt that faculty-led teaching conferences were more effective than resident-led conferences (62% vs 26%, respectively; P < .001). There was a difference in perception regarding the protection of educational time, with 85% of PDs versus 59% of CRs reporting this time as being “never” or “infrequently” compromised by clinical duties (P = .005).ConclusionsThere is considerable variability between PDs and CRs in the perceived structure and effectiveness of resident education in US radiation oncology residency programs. These data suggest opportunity for improvement in radiation oncology residency training, such as encouraging more faculty-led, Socratic-based teaching conferences. Increased communication between PDs and CRs can better align perceptions with educational goals.