Institution-Wide Retreats Foster Organizational Learning and Action at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Providing safe and informed healthcare for sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals with cancer is stymied by the lack of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data reliably available in health records and by insufficient training for staff. Approaches that support institutional learning, especially around sensitive topics, are essential for hospitals seeking to improve practices impacting patient safety and research. We engineered annual institutional retreats to identify and unify stakeholders, promote awareness of gaps and needs, identify initiatives, minimize redundant projects, and coordinate efforts that promote improvements in SGM cancer care, education, and research. The 2022 and 2023 retreats employed a 4-h hybrid format allowing virtual and in-person engagement. Retreat organizers facilitated small-group discussions for brainstorming among participants. We performed descriptive statistics from retreat evaluations. The retreats engaged 104 attendees from distinct departments and roles. Participants expressed robust satisfaction, commending the retreat organization and content quality. Notably, the first retreat yielded leadership endorsement and funding for a Quality Improvement pilot to standardize SOGI data collection and clinical staff training. The second retreat provided a platform for updates on focused efforts across the institution and for receiving direction regarding national best practices for SGM care and research. We report the processes and outcomes of institution-wide retreats, which served as a platform for identifying gaps in organizational healthcare practices and research for SGM individuals with cancer. The strategies described herein may be readily scaled at other cancer hospitals seeking to learn and enact system-wide practice changes that support the needs of SGM patients and families.

Composition of the Current Academic Radiation Oncology Workforce in Comprehensive Cancer Centers.

PURPOSE: The landscape of the profession of academic radiation oncology is constantly changing. We sought to determine the demographic makeup of the current academic radiation oncology workforce. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Internet web site searches of the 51 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) were conducted in September 2019. The Scopus database was subsequently searched in December 2019 to ascertain the h-index for each radiation oncologist. Geographic location was economically stratified (New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington DC) as previously reported. Race and binary sex were attributed by authors using publicly available information. Univariate analysis involved the chi-square test; a multivariable model considered several factors including rank and sex. RESULTS: Of 993 radiation oncologists at CCCs, 53.6% are junior faculty, 24.8% associate professors, and 21.7% full professors. The average radiation oncologist at a CCC has been a physician for 19.7 (standard deviation = 11.3) years; 4.7% (47/993) are under-represented minorities. 24.6% of men and 15.5% of women were full professors, a statistically significant difference (P = .001). Of the 51 department chairs, 11.8% are women and 5.6% are under-represented minorities. There are fewer female than male program directors in the most economically stratified locations (P = .02). The mean h-index for all faculty is 17.6 (standard deviation = 16.9), and significantly differs between junior faculty (8.21), associate professors (18.46), and full professors (40.05; P < .0001). It also differs between men (19.35) and women (14.11). On multivariable analysis, sex, academic rank, and a secondary advanced degree were independently significant correlates of h-index. CONCLUSION: Among academic radiation oncologists at CCCs, under 5% are under-represented minorities, men are significantly over-represented among senior faculty, and women have significantly lower h-indices than men.