放射肿瘤学中的沟通与协作技能培训:定量验证调查。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Matthew Charles Knox, Diana Naehrig, Yaw Sinn Chin
{"title":"放射肿瘤学中的沟通与协作技能培训:定量验证调查。","authors":"Matthew Charles Knox,&nbsp;Diana Naehrig,&nbsp;Yaw Sinn Chin","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.13722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Communication and collaboration are integral in radiation oncology practice. A recently published qualitative study identified several deficiencies in skills development for Australian/New Zealand trainees. We aim to validate these findings to guide curriculum development.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A quantitative survey was developed through an iterative process, using themes identified in the previous qualitative investigation. This survey was distributed to radiation oncologists and trainees across Australia and New Zealand via email. Data collection and management utilised the REDCap system. Question types varied to maximise richness of data, including ranking, likert-scales and free-text questions. Results are primarily reported descriptively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Totally 35 participants submitted completed survey responses with broad representation across geography, gender and clinician seniority. To learn communication, participants reported strong preferences towards informal observation (60% agreement) and self-reflection (49% agreement), and against online learning (77% disagreement) methodologies. Nearly 35% acknowledge poor communication at least weekly, with time pressure being a major barrier (63% agreement). Clinical uncertainty and existing patient/family assumptions (both 74% agreement) contribute to difficulties in breaking bad news, with online learning being the only negatively perceived training modality (23% agreement). No participants reported any formal training/mentoring in multi-disciplinary team (MDT) engagement. Conflict was commonly witnessed/experienced (97%) and 26% of participants avoid MDTs due to difficulties experienced.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This study validates the themes previously identified. We identified a strong preference for informal learning methodologies and against online modules, discordant to published literature. Effective collaboration within MDTs is identified as a particular area of need. We recommend future curriculum modification considers these results to maximise efficacy.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":"68 5","pages":"586-594"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1754-9485.13722","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Communication and collaboration skills training in radiation oncology: A quantitative validation survey\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Charles Knox,&nbsp;Diana Naehrig,&nbsp;Yaw Sinn Chin\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1754-9485.13722\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Communication and collaboration are integral in radiation oncology practice. A recently published qualitative study identified several deficiencies in skills development for Australian/New Zealand trainees. We aim to validate these findings to guide curriculum development.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A quantitative survey was developed through an iterative process, using themes identified in the previous qualitative investigation. This survey was distributed to radiation oncologists and trainees across Australia and New Zealand via email. Data collection and management utilised the REDCap system. Question types varied to maximise richness of data, including ranking, likert-scales and free-text questions. Results are primarily reported descriptively.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Totally 35 participants submitted completed survey responses with broad representation across geography, gender and clinician seniority. To learn communication, participants reported strong preferences towards informal observation (60% agreement) and self-reflection (49% agreement), and against online learning (77% disagreement) methodologies. Nearly 35% acknowledge poor communication at least weekly, with time pressure being a major barrier (63% agreement). Clinical uncertainty and existing patient/family assumptions (both 74% agreement) contribute to difficulties in breaking bad news, with online learning being the only negatively perceived training modality (23% agreement). No participants reported any formal training/mentoring in multi-disciplinary team (MDT) engagement. Conflict was commonly witnessed/experienced (97%) and 26% of participants avoid MDTs due to difficulties experienced.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study validates the themes previously identified. We identified a strong preference for informal learning methodologies and against online modules, discordant to published literature. Effective collaboration within MDTs is identified as a particular area of need. We recommend future curriculum modification considers these results to maximise efficacy.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16218,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":\"68 5\",\"pages\":\"586-594\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1754-9485.13722\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1754-9485.13722\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1754-9485.13722","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍:沟通与协作是放射肿瘤学实践中不可或缺的一部分。最近发表的一项定性研究发现,澳大利亚/新西兰受训人员在技能培养方面存在一些不足。我们旨在验证这些研究结果,为课程开发提供指导:方法:利用之前定性调查中确定的主题,通过迭代过程制定了一项定量调查。该调查通过电子邮件向澳大利亚和新西兰的放射肿瘤学家和受训人员发放。数据收集和管理使用了 REDCap 系统。为了最大限度地增加数据的丰富性,问题类型多种多样,包括排名、喜欢量表和自由文本问题。结果主要是描述性报告:共有 35 位参与者提交了完整的调查问卷,其中具有广泛的地域、性别和临床医生资历代表性。在学习沟通方面,参与者强烈倾向于非正式观察(60%同意)和自我反思(49%同意),反对在线学习(77%不同意)方法。近 35% 的人承认至少每周一次沟通不畅,时间压力是主要障碍(63% 同意)。临床的不确定性和患者/家属现有的假设(均为 74% 同意)造成了在传达坏消息时的困难,而在线学习是唯一一种被认为是负面的培训方式(23% 同意)。没有参与者报告在多学科团队(MDT)参与方面接受过任何正规培训/指导。冲突是常见的目击/经历(97%),26%的参与者因遇到困难而回避多学科小组:本研究验证了之前确定的主题。我们发现,与已发表的文献相比,人们更倾向于非正式的学习方法,而不喜欢在线模块。MDT 内部的有效协作被认为是一个特别需要的领域。我们建议未来的课程修改应考虑这些结果,以最大限度地提高效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Communication and collaboration skills training in radiation oncology: A quantitative validation survey

Communication and collaboration skills training in radiation oncology: A quantitative validation survey

Introduction

Communication and collaboration are integral in radiation oncology practice. A recently published qualitative study identified several deficiencies in skills development for Australian/New Zealand trainees. We aim to validate these findings to guide curriculum development.

Methods

A quantitative survey was developed through an iterative process, using themes identified in the previous qualitative investigation. This survey was distributed to radiation oncologists and trainees across Australia and New Zealand via email. Data collection and management utilised the REDCap system. Question types varied to maximise richness of data, including ranking, likert-scales and free-text questions. Results are primarily reported descriptively.

Results

Totally 35 participants submitted completed survey responses with broad representation across geography, gender and clinician seniority. To learn communication, participants reported strong preferences towards informal observation (60% agreement) and self-reflection (49% agreement), and against online learning (77% disagreement) methodologies. Nearly 35% acknowledge poor communication at least weekly, with time pressure being a major barrier (63% agreement). Clinical uncertainty and existing patient/family assumptions (both 74% agreement) contribute to difficulties in breaking bad news, with online learning being the only negatively perceived training modality (23% agreement). No participants reported any formal training/mentoring in multi-disciplinary team (MDT) engagement. Conflict was commonly witnessed/experienced (97%) and 26% of participants avoid MDTs due to difficulties experienced.

Conclusions

This study validates the themes previously identified. We identified a strong preference for informal learning methodologies and against online modules, discordant to published literature. Effective collaboration within MDTs is identified as a particular area of need. We recommend future curriculum modification considers these results to maximise efficacy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
133
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology (formerly Australasian Radiology) is the official journal of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, publishing articles of scientific excellence in radiology and radiation oncology. Manuscripts are judged on the basis of their contribution of original data and ideas or interpretation. All articles are peer reviewed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信