Patient and radiographer acceptability of prophylactic skin care for breast patients receiving radiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to: • Address the lack of information surrounding patient preference within radiotherapy skin care. • Identify if prophylactic skin care is the preferred approach of patients and staff. • Establish if patients and staff are accepting of the use of a type of barrier film, such as 3M™ Cavilon™ No Sting Barrier Film. METHODS: Twelve patients undergoing standard whole breast radiotherapy and four staff members who were based mainly on a breast-specific treatment unit were interviewed using semi-structured techniques. The interview transcripts were coded for areas of interest and a thematic map generated using the qualitative data analysis software (NVivo V12, QSR International). RESULTS: One Hundred percent of patients (n = 12) would have preferred a proactive approach to skin care management over the reactive one currently implemented. Staff were also in favour of a proactive approach to skin care with 100% (n = 4) supportive of a trial into the film's effectiveness. Three key themes were identified: • Theme 1: Patient Ownership of Own care - all patients identified they preferred a prophylactic approach and that more specific skin care guidance from healthcare professionals would be beneficial. • Theme 2: Product Practicality - 93% of patients and 100% of staff accepted the product and would be open to the use of it clinically. • Theme 3: Staff Acknowledgement of Skin Care - all staff identified a patient group in need of prophylaxis and that Cavilon No Sting may be a product of interest. CONCLUSION: Patients and staff were in support of prophylactic skin care, both approved of the proposed product. However, there is a significant lack of clinical evidence to support the use of any topical products within radiotherapy skincare due to the lack of high-quality studies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Changes to skin care practice could be considered due to patient preference in favour of proactive management.

Radiotherapy-specific interprofessional learning through simulation.

INTRODUCTION: Interprofessional learning (IPL) is a vital aspect of training in radiation oncology professions, yet is rarely delivered to those professionals who work most closely together in clinical practice. Scenario-based learning using simulation facilities provides a unique opportunity to facilitate this learning and this project aimed to determine the impact and value of this initiative. METHODS: Small groups comprising post-graduate diploma pre-registration therapeutic radiographers, medical physics trainees and radiation oncology registrars were challenged with 4 plausible and challenging radiotherapy scenarios within an academic simulation centre. Pre- and post-event completion of the "Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale" measured impact and a Likert-style survey gathered feedback from participants. RESULTS: The session increased participants' teamwork and collaboration skills as well as strengthening professional identities. Participants reported high levels of enjoyment related to collaborative working, communication and observing other professionals deploying their technical skills and specialist knowledge. CONCLUSION: Although beneficial, simulated scenarios offering equal opportunities for engagement across the professions are challenging to plan and timetabling issues between the 3 groups present significant difficulties. The safe environment and unique opportunity for these groups to learn together was particularly well received and future oncology-specific simulated scenario sessions are planned with larger cohorts. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Simulated scenario training can be used to improve team working across the radiotherapy interprofessional team and may have wider use in other specialist interdisciplinary team development.

Simulated versus traditional therapeutic radiography placements: A randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical placements provide rich learning environments for health professional pre-registration education but add significant workload pressure to clinical departments. Advances in simulation approaches mean that many aspects of students' clinical learning can be undertaken in the academic environment. There is, however, little data identifying specific pedagogical gains afforded by simulation compared to clinical placement. This study measured the impact of a comprehensive integrated simulation placement on student clinical skill acquisition. METHODS: A virtual department was developed using a range of simulation equipment and software, with actors and service users providing a range of patients for students to engage with. A cohort of 29 first-year undergraduate therapeutic radiography students were randomly assigned to either simulated or conventional clinical placement. Clinical skills assessment scores provided by a blinded assessor were then compared. RESULTS: Mean overall assessment scores for each cohort were within 3% of each other. The simulation cohort had over 10% higher "communication" scores than the traditional group (p = 0.028). The ability to gain both technical and interpersonal skills simultaneously improved learning compared to clinical placement. Students valued the structured approach of the simulated placement and the opportunity to practice techniques in a safe unpressured environment. CONCLUSION: An integrated simulated placement can help students to achieve clinical learning outcomes and lead to improved interpersonal skills. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Use of blended simulation resources can enable students to acquire technical, procedural and interpersonal skills which in turn may enable reduction of overall clinical placement time and departmental training burden.