Design and Implementation of a Multidisciplinary High-Fidelity Simulation Course for the Management of Malignant Spinal Cord Compression.

High-fidelity simulation (HFS) training is suited to high-stakes, uncommon situations such as malignant spinal cord compression (MSCC), allowing for rare hands-on practice. This pilot study was created as the first of its kind to examine educational outcomes of a radiation therapist (RTT)-led multidisciplinary radiation oncology (RO) emergency simulation course. A multidisciplinary course design team composed of RO residents, radiation oncologists, RTT course instructors, and medical physicists created a high-fidelity MSCC simulation course using collaboratively developed learning goals. Fifteen learners including RO residents, senior RTT students, and a medical physics (MP) resident participated in a live, RTT-facilitated simulation. Participants completed anonymized pre- and post-simulation standard interdisciplinary education perception (IEP) scales and a course evaluation assessing educational outcomes. Standard IEP questionnaire results showed highly favorable perceptions of respondents' own specialty and other allied specialties, with mean total pre-simulation scores of 91.76 and post-simulation scores of 94.23. The course evaluation assessed 10 learning objective domains, with significant improvements seen in self-rated post-course knowledge in 9 domains. Pre-course evaluations showed that 6/15 participants agreed or strongly agreed that they felt comfortable in their knowledge of all included domains; after course completion, 14/15 participants agreed or strongly agreed they felt comfortable in all domains. Collaboratively designed and led HFS courses are not only viable but can be an effective means of improving learning outcomes for RO residents, RTT students, and MP residents.

Do Radiation Oncology Residents Have a Preferred Radiation Treatment Planning Review Format?

In an era of increasing virtual communication, we aimed to investigate current formats used by radiation oncology residents for reviewing radiation treatment plans with attendings, preferences for formats, and reasons contributing to preferences. Residents enrolled in Canadian radiation oncology programs received questionnaires examining training level, typical review formats, preferred format, and reasons for preference. Analysis excluded PGY-1s due to insufficient exposure. Fifty-two residents participated. National response rate was 55%. Overall, hybrid review was the most used format (77%). Virtual review was the most preferred format (44%). Preference for virtual review was most common among junior residents (57%), while in-person review was most preferred by senior residents (45.4%). Few residents typically use their preferred format (35%). Reasons for preference varied between groups in convenience (p < 0.01), interactivity (p < 0.01), and teaching quality (p = 0.04). The persistence of e-learning suggests that virtual treatment planning education will continue to some degree. Junior residents prefer virtual review, while a clearly preferred review format was less apparent among senior residents. Preferences are multifactorial, and the trends seen in reasons for preference between formats may reflect advantages inherent to each. Progress is still needed in optimizing treatment planning education, as suggested by few residents using their preferred format. Residents and staff should collectively decide which educational format for treatment planning best meets educational needs.