Radiation Oncology Virtual Education Rotation 2.0 for Residents: Preliminary Results

ABSTRACT

Purpose/Objective(s) Radiation Oncology Virtual Education Rotation (ROVER) is a virtual education platform developed to support radiation oncology education for medical students during COVID19 when away and in-person rotations were suspended. Due to the positive reception of ROVER, we created ROVER2.0 tailored to radiation oncology residents. Materials/Methods: ROVER2.0 comprises monthly case-based discussions on various topics with radiation oncology faculty from across the country and is tailored to radiation oncology residents. Sessions are 1 hour in duration and hosted over Zoom. Sessions were advertised on social media (Twitter) and on ARRO, ACRO, and ADROP mailing lists. Pre- and post-session surveys were used to explore resident perspectives on virtual education and assess the utility of virtual education as a modern learning platform. Results: Five ROVER2.0 sessions have been held, led by 17 faculty from 16 institutions (3-4 faculty per session) with a total of 868 registrants (R), 445 attendees (A), and 152 post-survey respondents (P) gastrointestinal (R = 186, A = 103, P = 50), genitourinary (R = 159, A = 83, P = 29), central nervous system (R = 140, A = 58, P = 19), pediatrics (R = 177, A = 94, P = 27), and head and neck (R = 206, A = 107, P = 27). 43.5% of registrants were female, 6.1% were PGY-1, 37.3% were PGY-2/3, and 45% were PGY-4-5. Of all registrants, 82% signed up for ROVER2.0 for the "opportunity to hear from a diverse expert panel." At baseline, 73.5% reported that their home programs conducted mock oral exams and programs were reported to have a median of 5 hours/week of dedicated didactics. A third or fewer reported that COVID-19 negatively impacted residency didactics (22.8%), faculty engagement in teaching (30.8%), or access to faculty (33.9%). 24.2%, 37.3%, and 38.5% of respondents felt that virtual platforms are superior, equal, or inferior to in-person learning, respectively. 98.0% considered the sessions very valuable or valuable and that it was very easy or easy (94.1%) to learn through the virtual format. 83.6% strongly agreed or agreed that they felt more confident treating the disease site cancer as a result of the session. 84.2% reported that they had no difficulty attending sessions due to clinical responsibilities. Conclusion: ROVER2.0 case-based sessions can augment radiation oncology residency didactics by providing exposure to different practices across the country as an adjunct to in-person learning. Most respondents felt that COVID-19 did not negatively impact educational quality, and a rapid transition to virtual platforms likely served as an important buffer. ROVER2.0 was met with enthusiasm and considered an effective teaching tool by radiation oncology resident participants. This virtual and open-access resource can facilitate accessible and equitable education to those negatively impacted by in-person learning restrictions and allow broader dissemination of information about radiation oncology.