2665 - Survey Based Assessment of Quality of Resident Education in Radiation Oncology in United States

Purpose/Objective(s): Residency Training in Radiation Oncology (RO) is a critical part of every Radiation Oncology physician’s career. A section of RO physicians reports excellent training while others report challenges during their training. The aim of the current project is to assess the physician reported best residency training practices and training environment that can enhance and improve RO residency training.

Materials/Methods: After IRB approval, we emailed a 10-question survey to 110 academic radiation oncology programs via survey monkey. The questions included the current professional status (Resident, attending) as well as the years in practice or training. The questions included (Table 1) various aspects of residency education. Fisher’s exact test was used to observe statistically significant differences in the responses by the residents and attendings. For all statistical analysis, 0.05 was considered as significance level unless otherwise specified. All data analysis was performed using SAS Version 9.4 (Cary, NC, USA).

Results: There were 82 respondents. About 42 (50.6%) residents and 41 (49.4%) attendings responded to the survey. About the most important aspects of radiation oncology training, education during outpatient consults was listed by 38.1% residents and 58.5% attendings (p=0.032). For most positive impact on training, having a good mentor was selected by 40.5% residents and 58.5% attendings (p-value=0.295). About factors that had the most negative aspect of training, faculty did not care to teach was selected by 31.0% residents and 34.2% attendings (p=0.003). Regarding technology, 28.7% residents listed special procedures as important versus exposure to modern technology by 31.7% attendings (p=ns). Both residents and attendings listed 1:1 discussion as most beneficial in teaching sessions (85.7% and 65.5% resp, p=ns). Most respondents were satisfied with the quality of training, 50% residents vs 36.5% attendings (p=0.05). Majority of both residents and attendings agreed that in-person teaching is better than remote teaching (45.2% residents versus 39% attendings resp, p=0.85).

Conclusion: This is a novel study of physician reported experiences of their residency training. Attendings reported higher positive influences for outpatient teaching and the need of a good mentor. Among the negative influences, lack of interest among the teaching faculty scored highest. Both Residents and attendings scored 1:1 teaching by attendings as incredibly positive. These responses can be used as a guide to improve and prioritize various aspects of residency education.