1995 survey of physics teaching efforts in radiation oncology residency programs

doi:10.1016/S0360-3016(97)82502-3

International Journal of Radiation OncologyBiologyPhysics

Volume 38, Issue 2, 1 May 1997, Pages 441-446

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(97)82502-3 Get rights and content

Abstract

A physics teaching survey was constructed and sent to the 83 radiation oncologist training programs. The survey requested program information regarding size, staffing, curriculum, lab/rotation programs, organization, requirements, instructor makeup, teaching materials, and board certification examination results. The surveys were sent to the physicist responsible for the physics program. Forty-nine (59%) institutions returned completed surveys, of which 43 (88%) were university-associated programs, and 27 (55%) were 4-year programs. On average, there were two residents/year. Most programs (39) taught physics exclusively during the first year (PG2). Some programs taught different subjects (or levels) to different year residents. Radiation dosimetry, treatment planning, and brachytherapy constituted nearly half of the teaching hours. On average the total classroom time expended by physicists was 61.4 h/year with a range of 24–118 h. The mean for laboratory/demonstration time was 27 h/year with 18 programs providing none. Physics orientation/rotations ranged from 1 to 480 h with a mean of 170 h for a physics rotation taking place in year 2 (PG3). Mandatory attendance was 80% for first-year residents and decreased in later years. Homework was assigned in 76% of the programs, and 65% of the programs were graded. The primary instructors averaged 18.2 years of experience, and the majority were $ABR ABMP$ certified. Khan's textbook was the most prevalent resource for most subjects. No correlation could be made between teaching hours and ABR physics percentile scoring. The survey results reveal enormous differences in national teaching efforts.

References (20)

C.N. Coleman et al.
Training the radiation oncologist for the 21st century
Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys.
(1996)
K.P. Doppke et al.
A survey of radiation oncologists regarding their radiation physics instruction
Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys.
(1993)
J. Turner
Atoms, radiation, and radiation protection
(1986)
F.H. Attix
Introduction to radiological physics and radiation dosimetry
(1986)
W.R. Hendee
Medical radiation physics
(1979)
National Council on Radiation Protection Reports, Washington, D.C.,...
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
10 CFR, parts 19, 20, 25, and QMP Guide
(1993–1995)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (6)

Targeted Needs Assessment of Treatment Planning Education for United States Radiation Oncology Residents
2020, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Citation Excerpt :
As radiation therapy techniques become increasingly sophisticated and deliver higher doses to more precise targets, a strong foundation in treatment planning enables radiation oncologists to provide safe, effective care for their patients.1 Treatment planning remains a key component of the American Society for Radiation Oncology’s core physics curriculum for radiation oncology residents.2-4 Given the competing demands of clinical training and workload and the lack of widespread implementation of a standardized curriculum, treatment planning training may be highly variable and often informal.2,5
Prior surveys suggest almost one-third of chief residents report insufficient exposure to treatment planning. We evaluated the state of treatment planning education among United States residents.
A web-based survey was sent to current residents identified using the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology directory.
The response rate was 33%. Twenty-six percent of residents reported a mandatory treatment planning rotation. Seventy-one percent of residents reported reviewing ≤50% of plans with an attending. Twenty-three percent of respondents were not at all or only slightly comfortable (1 or 2 on a 1-5 scale) evaluating treatment plans. Residents with mandatory treatment planning rotations were more comfortable evaluating plans compared with those without mandatory rotations (P = .045). Overall, 60% reported insufficient exposure to treatment planning. Among postgraduate year 5 residents, this rate was 52%. Ninety-two percent of residents expressed interest in free supplemental treatment planning resources.
A significant proportion of residents surveyed report insufficient exposure to treatment planning. Development of a practical treatment planning curriculum would offer the opportunity to improve resident education, and ultimately quality of care, at the national level.
Variability of physics education in radiation oncology medical residency programs
2012, JACR Journal of the American College of Radiology
Citation Excerpt :
Because of its importance, the ABR requires physics as one of the main examinations for board certification. In North America, physics education for residents has been vital and is documented in many reports [1-9]. A 1993 survey of physicians regarding their residency programs showed that the majority of physicians (92%) considered physics education an important part of their training, with 61% considering it interesting [5].
The aim of this study was to compare the quality of medical physics education for radiation oncology medical residents.
An independent survey regarding physics education was carried out using e-mail. The survey contained 12 questions addressing the duration, length, and quality of education. Responses were tabulated and compared with the recommended educational scheme.
Nearly 56% of institutions participated in this survey. Educational patterns were found to be significantly variable among institutions. Some have minimum physics education (10 lectures), and some have 90 lectures per year. In general, two-thirds of the institutions require residents to attend classes up to the third year.
Significant variability of physics education for radiation oncology medical residents was observed, contrary to the national recommendations. With advanced treatment techniques, physics education should be given more importance, and the number of lectures should be increased to accommodate every aspect of radiation oncology practice.
ASTRO's 2007 Core Physics Curriculum for Radiation Oncology Residents
2007, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Citation Excerpt :
Publications have pointed to a wide variation in teaching intensity and subject matter (1–5). The publication by Klein et al. (6) on physics teaching showed that although consistencies are seen, there are also many variations in physics instruction to resident physicians (i.e., most residencies taught exclusively to Postgraduate Year 2 residents, whereas a minority taught different subjects [or levels] to different year residents). Radiation dosimetry, treatment planning, and brachytherapy constituted approximately half the teaching hours.
In 2004, the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) published a curriculum for physics education. The document described a 54-hour course. In 2006, the committee reconvened to update the curriculum. The committee is composed of physicists and physicians from various residency program teaching institutions. Simultaneously, members have associations with the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, ASTRO, Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology, American Board of Radiology, and American College of Radiology. Representatives from the latter two organizations are key to provide feedback between the examining organizations and ASTRO. Subjects are based on Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements (particles and hyperthermia), whereas the majority of subjects and appropriated hours/subject were developed by consensus. The new curriculum is 55 hours, containing new subjects, redistribution of subjects with updates, and reorganization of core topics. For each subject, learning objectives are provided, and for each lecture hour, a detailed outline of material to be covered is provided. Some changes include a decrease in basic radiologic physics, addition of informatics as a subject, increase in intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and migration of some brachytherapy hours to radiopharmaceuticals. The new curriculum was approved by the ASTRO board in late 2006. It is hoped that physicists will adopt the curriculum for structuring their didactic teaching program, and simultaneously, the American Board of Radiology, for its written examination. The American College of Radiology uses the ASTRO curriculum for their training examination topics. In addition to the curriculum, the committee added suggested references, a glossary, and a condensed version of lectures for a Postgraduate Year 2 resident physics orientation. To ensure continued commitment to a current and relevant curriculum, subject matter will be updated again in 2 years.
ASTRO's core physics curriculum for radiation oncology residents
2004, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Citation Excerpt :
The main initiative was to develop a core curriculum. Publications have pointed to a wide variation in teaching intensity and subject matter (1–6). Klein's publication (6) on physics teaching revealed consistencies and variation.
In 2002, the Radiation Physics Committee of the American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) appointed an Ad-hoc Committee on Physics Teaching to Medical Residents. The main initiative of the committee was to develop a core curriculum for physics education. Prior publications that have analyzed physics teaching have pointed to wide discrepancies among teaching programs. The committee was composed of physicists or physicians from various residency program based institutions. Simultaneously, members had associations with the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), ASTRO, Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology (ARRO), American Board of Radiology (ABR), and the American College of Radiology (ACR). The latter two organizations' representatives were on the physics examination committees, as one of the main agendas was to provide a feedback loop between the examining organizations and ASTRO. The document resulted in a recommended 54-h course. Some of the subjects were based on American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements (particles, hyperthermia), whereas the majority of the subjects along with the appropriated hours per subject were devised and agreed upon by the committee. For each subject there are learning objectives and for each hour there is a detailed outline of material to be covered. Some of the required subjects/h are being taught in most institutions (i.e., Radiation Measurement and Calibration for 4 h), whereas some may be new subjects (4 h of Imaging for Radiation Oncology). The curriculum was completed and approved by the ASTRO Board in late 2003 and is slated for dissemination to the community in 2004. It is our hope that teaching physicists will adopt the recommended curriculum for their classes, and simultaneously that the ABR for its written physics examination and the ACR for its training examination will use the recommended curriculum as the basis for subject matter and depth of understanding. To ensure that the subject matter and emphasis remain current and relevant, the curriculum will be updated every 2 years.
Assessment of Radiology Training During Radiation Oncology Residency
2019, Journal of Cancer Education
A review of educational philosophies as applied to radiation safety training at medical institutions
2006, Health Physics

View full text

1995 survey of physics teaching efforts in radiation oncology residency programs

Abstract

Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys.

Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys.

Atoms, radiation, and radiation protection

Introduction to radiological physics and radiation dosimetry

Medical radiation physics

10 CFR, parts 19, 20, 25, and QMP Guide