Dataset Information

Evaluation of a performance appraisal framework for radiation therapists in planning and simulation.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Constantly evolving technology and techniques within radiation therapy require practitioners to maintain a continuous approach to professional development and training. Systems of performance appraisal and adoption of regular feedback mechanisms are vital to support this development yet frequently lack structure and rely on informal peer support.

Methods

A Radiation Therapy Performance Appraisal Framework (RT-PAF) for radiation therapists in planning and simulation was developed to define expectations of practice and promote a supportive and objective culture of performance and skills appraisal. Evaluation of the framework was conducted via an anonymous online survey tool. Nine peer reviewers and fourteen recipients provided feedback on its effectiveness and the challenges and limitations of the approach.

Results

Findings from the evaluation were positive and suggested that both groups gained benefit from and expressed a strong interest in embedding the approach more routinely. Respondents identified common challenges related to the limited ability to implement suggested development strategies; this was strongly associated with time and rostering issues.

Conclusions

This framework successfully defined expectations for practice and provided a fair and objective feedback process that focussed on skills development. It empowered staff to maintain their skills and reach their professional potential. Management support, particularly in regard to provision of protected time was highlighted as critical to the framework's ongoing success. The demonstrated benefits arising in terms of staff satisfaction and development highlight the importance of this commitment to the modern radiation therapy workforce.

SUBMITTER: Becker J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4462983 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeMedical errors in radiation oncology sometimes involve tasks reliant on practitioners' grasp of numeracy. Numeracy has been shown to be suboptimal across various health care professionals. Herein, we assess health numeracy among American Society of Radiologic Technologists (ASRT) members.Methods and materialsThe Numeracy Understanding for Medicine instrument (NUMi), an instrument to measure numeracy in the general population, was adapted to oncology for this study and distributed to ASRT members (n = 14,228) in 2017. Per NUMi scoring, health numeracy scores were categorized as low (0-7), low average (8-12), high average (13-17), or high (18-20). The impact of cGy versus Gy on numeracy performance was investigated. Spearman's rho and a Wilcox-Mann-Whitney test were used for comparisons between the different groups.ResultsA total of 662 eligible participants completed the instrument and identified as radiation oncology professionals. In the cGy and Gy NUMi scores, approximately 2% of respondents scored low-average, approximately 40% scored high-average, and approximately 58% scored high, with a median score of 18.0. Although the optimum NUMi score for ASRT members is unknown, one might expect our cohort to have numeracy skills at least as high as college freshmen. Roughly one-sixth of our study group scored at or below the average score of college freshmen (NUMi = 15). In the subset analysis of NUMi questions pertaining to radiation dose unit (cGy vs Gy), respondents performed better with cGy (mean score: 2.94; range, 2-3) versus Gy (mean: 2.91; range, 0-3; P = .011).ConclusionsIn this study of limited sample size, overall numeracy is quite good compared with the general population. However, the range of scores is wide, and some respondents have lower scores that may be concerning, suggesting that numeracy may be an issue that requires improvement for a subset of the studied cohort. Performance was superior with the unit cGy; thus, the adoption of cGy as the standard unit is reasonable.

Project description:BackgroundHealth economic evaluations support the health care decision-making process by providing information on costs and consequences of health interventions. The quality of such studies is assessed by health economic evaluation (HEE) quality appraisal instruments. At present, there is no instrument for measuring and improving the quality of such HEE quality appraisal instruments. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to establish a framework for assessing the quality of HEE quality appraisal instruments to support and improve their quality, and to apply this framework to those HEE quality appraisal instruments which have been subject to more scrutiny than others, in order to test the framework and to demonstrate the shortcomings of existing HEE quality appraisal instruments.MethodsTo develop the quality assessment framework for HEE quality appraisal instruments, the experiences of using appraisal tools for clinical guidelines are used. Based on a deductive iterative process, clinical guideline appraisal instruments identified through literature search are reviewed, consolidated, and adapted to produce the final quality assessment framework for HEE quality appraisal instruments.ResultsThe final quality assessment framework for HEE quality appraisal instruments consists of 36 items organized within 7 dimensions, each of which captures a specific domain of quality. Applying the quality assessment framework to four existing HEE quality appraisal instruments, it is found that these four quality appraisal instruments are of variable quality.ConclusionsThe framework described in this study should be regarded as a starting point for appraising the quality of HEE quality appraisal instruments. This framework can be used by HEE quality appraisal instrument producers to support and improve the quality and acceptance of existing and future HEE quality appraisal instruments. By applying this framework, users of HEE quality appraisal instruments can become aware of methodological deficiencies inherent in existing HEE quality appraisal instruments. These shortcomings of existing HEE quality appraisal instruments are illustrated by the pilot test.

Project description:PurposeSimulation-based medical education (SBME) is gaining prominence as a tool to meet Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-mandated competency-based assessment educational goals. SBME is used in radiation oncology, although the type and extent are not clear. This study reports a systematic literature review designed to clarify the type and extent of radiation oncology SBME.Methods and materialsThe systematic review focused on radiation oncology SBME literature. The methods followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The inclusion criteria were identified according to the PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and setting) framework. The population included undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education learners. Studies were limited to English-language studies published on or after January 1, 1990, in peer-reviewed journals. PubMed, MedEdPORTAL, and in-press articles were searched. The PubMed search was conducted using predefined search terms. References and similar articles were examined. Medical Subject Headings terms in selected articles were reviewed to ensure relevant terms were included.ResultsFifty-four SBME publications met the inclusion criteria. Only 9 of 54 studies (17%) self-identified as SBME. SBME types included screen-based simulators (56%), simulated environments (13%), virtual reality and haptic systems (13%), simulated patients (11%), part-task trainers (6%), and computer-based systems with mannequins (2%). A variety of radiation oncology skill sets were addressed, including contouring (54%), treatment planning (20%), clinical decision making (17%), anatomy and/or radiology (13%), radiation biology and/or physics (13%), communication skills and/or patient education (13%), brachytherapy (13%), and immobilization (11%). A target learning population was defined in 47 studies, including residents (53%), attending physicians (36%), medical students (21%), medical physicists (11%), radiation therapists (9%), nurses (6%), administrative staff (4%), and dosimetrists (4%). Learner feedback was reported in 32 studies.ConclusionsOverall, this systematic literature review provides context and guidance for future radiation oncology SBME development. Appropriately framing SBME reports in the radiation oncology literature will facilitate development, implementation, and evaluation of SBME interventions. SBME resources should be centralized to facilitate dissemination and share resources.