Jani Ashesh B, Marshall David, Vapiwala Neha, Davis Sara Beth, Langer Mark
Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015 Nov-Dec;5(6):e673-8. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2015.06.007. Epub 2015 Jun 21.
In 2014, the Association of Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs (ADROP) conducted an in-depth survey of program directors along several axes. We report the results of this survey and compare the major findings with those of the 2007 ADROP survey.
The survey was written and approved by ADROP leadership in 2012, announced online through broadcasts throughout 2013 and early 2014, and closed in mid-2014. The results based on question groups related to (1) hours spent in activities, (2) budget and nonprogram resources, (3) physics/biology didactics, (4) mock exams/didactics/research, (5) electives, (6) students, and (7) resources/challenges were tabulated. Descriptive comparisons with the 2007 survey were performed.
There was 26% participation (23/88 programs). Major areas of time commitment were faculty and site organization, maintenance, and corrections (70 hours/year) and didactics/conferences and rounds (200 hours/year). The median program director protected time was 23% (range 0%-50%). All responding programs (100%) had biology and physics courses and assigned directors, but only approximately 20% of respondents had a threshold grade in these courses for graduation. Major resources desired were templates of goals/objectives by disease site, competency evaluations by level, journal club repository, and software for contouring, oral examination preparation, grant writing, publication writing, oral presentation, and effective teaching. Major activity challenges were Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education external review and time commitment.
Overall, the 2014 results are similar to those of the 2007 survey. The average time commitment remains considerably higher than the 10% minimum required in the current ACGME program requirements. The survey results may guide ADROP membership in centralizing some of the identified resources needed.
2014年，放射肿瘤学项目主任协会（ADROP）沿着多个维度对项目主任进行了深入调查。我们报告此次调查结果，并将主要发现与2007年ADROP调查的结果进行比较。
该调查由ADROP领导层于2012年编写并批准，在2013年全年及2014年初通过网络广播发布，于2014年年中结束。基于与以下方面相关的问题组得出的结果进行了列表整理：（1）活动所花费的时间；（2）预算和非项目资源；（3）物理/生物教学；（4）模拟考试/教学/研究；（5）选修课程；（6）学生；（7）资源/挑战。与2007年的调查进行了描述性比较。
参与率为26%（88个项目中的23个）。时间投入的主要领域是教员和场地组织、维护及修正（每年70小时）以及教学/会议和查房（每年200小时）。项目主任的平均保护时间为23%（范围为0% - 50%）。所有回复的项目（100%）都开设了生物和物理课程并指定了负责人，但只有约20%的受访者要求这些课程达到毕业的最低成绩标准。期望的主要资源包括按疾病部位划分的目标模板、按水平进行的能力评估、期刊俱乐部资料库以及用于轮廓勾画、口试准备、基金申请撰写、论文发表撰写、口头报告和有效教学的软件。主要的活动挑战是研究生医学教育认证委员会的外部审查和时间投入。
总体而言，2014年的结果与2007年的调查结果相似。平均时间投入仍远高于当前研究生医学教育认证委员会（ACGME）项目要求中规定的10%的最低标准。调查结果可能会指导ADROP成员集中获取一些已确定所需的资源。
