Advanced practice in radiotherapy across Europe: stakeholders' perceptions of implementation and evolution.

INTRODUCTION: Adapting radiotherapy services with workforce innovation using skills-mix or task-shifting optimises resources, supporting current and future demands. Advanced practitioners (APs) work at a different level of practice (beyond initial registration) across four pillars: clinical practice, leadership and management, education, and research. There is limited cross-country research on the advanced therapeutic radiographers/radiation therapists (TR/RTTs), particularly in Europe. This study aimed to investigate European radiotherapy stakeholders' perceptions regarding current and future advanced practice (AP). METHODS: From June to September 2022, one-to-one online semi-structured interviews were conducted in English, and audio and video were recorded. Full verbatim audio files were independently transcribed and checked by interviewer and interviewees. Braun and Clarke's seven steps guided the thematic analysis (using NVivo). RESULTS: Thirty-three interviewees working or studying in 16 European countries represented practitioners (n=14), managers (n=6), educators (n=4), professional bodies (n=4), students (n=3), and regulators (n=2). Four overarching themes emerged: "AP drivers and outcomes", "AP challenges vs enablers", "Current vs future AP", "Becoming and being advanced practitioner". Participants identified research as the neglected AP pillar due to a lack of protected time, limited staff skills, no research culture, no funding, workload, and clinical priorities. Interviewees highlighted the importance of consistency in job titles, harmonisation of education models and curricula, definition of AP requirements, and support for all AP pillars through job plans and workforce planning. CONCLUSION: Neither the profession nor education of TR/RTTs are harmonised across Europe, which is highly reflected in advanced-level practice. Advanced TR/RTTs should work across all pillars, including research, and these should be embedded in master's programmes, including leadership. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study highlights a policy gap in the education and practice of APs in radiotherapy.

What makes a good clinical practice experience in radiography and sonography? An exploration of qualified clinical staff and student perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice can be a challenging experience for some healthcare students. The quality of the clinical experience can have a profound effect on the overall student learning experience in clinical practice and attrition. The aim of the study was to explore the perceptions of an optimal clinical practice experience by radiography and sonography students and qualified clinical staff. METHODS: A qualitative research design was adopted utilising focus groups (n = 5). The study population comprised of qualified radiography/sonography staff (n = 10) from across a number of placement sites used by City, University of London and radiography and sonography students (n = 15) from the same institution. Full verbatim transcriptions were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Four key themes emerged: 1) favourable/unfavourable traits, 2) creating an optimal learning environment 3) challenges and 4) considerations for clinical education. Key factors for a positive learning experience included clinical supervisors being approachable, whilst encouraging and empowering students. Qualified radiography/sonography clinical staff highlighted student motivation as an important aspect for successful placement learning. CONCLUSION: The study has provided an insight into a number of positive attributes that enhance student learning experiences whilst on clinical placement. Unhelpful attributes and challenges, such as student motivation and time limitations, were also revealed. It is important that supervisors within the clinical departments actively work towards the provision of a positive learning experience. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study can better inform clinical staff regarding the importance of enhancing the student learning experience and facilitating high quality learning within the clinical department. Moreover, to encourage clinical staff to ensure robust "support" is established for students on placement.

Advanced practice roles amongst therapeutic radiographers/radiation therapists: A European survey.

INTRODUCTION: Advanced Practice (AP) roles in Radiotherapy (RT) over time are variable, often locally developed and not underpinned by professional standards which leads to conceptual and practical gaps. This study aimed to assess AP roles amongst Therapeutic Radiographers/Radiation Therapists (TR/RTTs) and identify educational gaps for this level across Europe. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was designed, validated, and distributed across Europe. Convenience sampling was used to recruit advanced TR/RTTs practitioners or TR/RTTs working in AP roles. Descriptive analysis from closed questions and thematic analyses from open questions are reported. RESULTS: A total of 272 responses were obtained, of which 189 eligible participations were from 21 European countries. 42% of respondents acknowledged additional education required to perform AP, and 25% reported a minimum of five years of RT practice to perform AP roles/tasks. There is a trend to work more on the clinical practice domain with a low percentage of working time allocated to research. Inconsistency was found in job titles, scopes of practice, and educational backgrounds across and even within countries. Education needs regarding knowledge about image-guided and adaptive RT, multimodal imaging and technologies, and advanced treatment planning were found. Training needs on leadership and management skills and clinical site-specific expertise were identified. CONCLUSION: This study clearly shows a gap in education support, a need for standardisation in job titles and scopes of practice across Europe. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: As the first large-scale assessment of current AP roles and educational support amongst TR/RTTs across Europe, this study recommends the establishment of governance structure and role regulation. It also informs the curricula for master programmes to align the education with current and future practice.

Research ethics systems, processes, and awareness across Europe: Radiography research ethics standards for Europe (RRESFE).

INTRODUCTION: The Radiography Research Ethics Standards for Europe (RRESFE) project aims to provide a cross-sectional snapshot of current research ethics systems, processes, and awareness of such, across Europe together with identifying the associated challenges, education, and training needs. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey targeting radiography researchers in Europe was conducted. Data collection took place between April 26 and July 12, 2021, using a snowball sampling approach. Descriptive and analytical statistics were used to identify trends in research ethics frameworks across Europe. RESULTS: 285 responses were received across 33 European and 23 non-European countries. Most (n = 221; 95%) European respondents stated ethics approval is required before commencing research in their country. Requirements around research ethics approval and awareness of such requirements varied by European region (X2 (2, n = 129) = 7.234, p = 0.013) and were found to differ depending on the type of research participant and study design. Additionally, European respondents reported ethics approval is a national requirement more often than their non-European counterparts (X2 (1, n = 282) = 4.316, p = 0.049). Requirements for ethics approval were also associated with the undergraduate programme duration (2-year vs. 3-year vs. 3.5 year vs. 4-year vs. multiple programme durations; X2 (4, n = 231) = 10.075, p = 0.016) and availability of postgraduate training (postgraduate training available vs. postgraduate training not available; X2 (1, n = 231) = 15.448, p = <0.001) within respondents' country. CONCLUSION: Respondents from countries with longer programme durations/availability of multiple programme lengths, availability of postgraduate training, and establishment of European Qualifications Framework Level 6 were generally associated with less uncertainty and more comprehensive research ethics requirements. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Results are informative of the current status of research ethics within evidence-based radiography.

Research ethics training, challenges, and suggested improvements across Europe: Radiography research ethics standards for Europe (RRESFE).

INTRODUCTION: The Radiography Research Ethics Standards for Europe (RRESFE) project aimed to provide a cross-sectional view of the current state of radiography research ethics across Europe. This included investigating education and training in research ethics, and identifying the key challenges and potential improvements associated with using existing research ethics frameworks. METHODS: This cross-sectional online survey targeting radiography researchers in Europe was conducted between April 26 and July 12, 2021. Descriptive and analytical statistics were used to identify research ethics education and training trends. Content analysis of qualitative responses was employed to identify significant challenges and proposed improvements in research ethics frameworks of practice. RESULTS: There were 232 responses received across 33 European countries. Most (n = 132; 57%) respondents had received some research ethics training; however, fewer participants had received training on safeguarding vulnerable patients (n = 72; 38%), diversity and inclusivity (n = 62; 33%), or research with healthy volunteers (n = 60; 32%). Training was associated with a greater perceived importance of the need for research ethics review (p = 0.031) and with the establishment of EQF Level 6 training (p = 0.038). The proportion of formally trained researchers also varied by region (p = <0.001). Time-to-ethics-approval was noted as the biggest challenge for professionals making research ethics applications. CONCLUSION: Early and universal integration of research-oriented teaching within the radiography education framework which emphasises research ethics is recommended. Additionally, study findings suggest research ethics committee application and approval processes could be further simplified and streamlined. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The survey contributes to a growing body of knowledge surrounding the importance of education and training in research ethics for assuring a high standard of research outputs in Radiography and has identified hurdles to obtaining research ethics approval for further investigation and address.

Advanced practice roles of therapeutic radiographers/radiation therapists: A systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Advances in Radiotherapy (RT) technology and increase of complexity in cancer care have enabled the implementation of new treatment techniques. Subsequently, a greater level of autonomy, responsibility, and accountability in the practice of Therapeutic Radiographers/Radiation Therapists (TR/RTTs) has led to Advanced Practice (AP) roles. The published evidence of this role is scattered with confusing terminology and divergence regarding the perception of whether a specific role represents AP internationally. This study aims to establish an international baseline of evidence on AP roles in RT to identify roles and activities performed by TR/RTTs at advanced level practice and to summarise the impact. METHODS: A systematic PRISMA review of the literature was undertaken. Thematic analysis was used to synthesise the roles and associated activities. Six RT external experts validated the list. The impact was scrutinised in terms of clinical, organisational, and professional outcomes. RESULTS: Studies (n = 87) were included and categorised into four groups. AP roles were listed by clinical area, site-specific, and scope of practice, and advanced activities were organised into seven dimensions and 27 sub-dimensions. Three most-reported outcomes were: enhanced service capacity, higher patient satisfaction, and safety maintenance. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based AP amongst TR/RTTs show how AP roles were conceptualised, implemented, and evaluated. Congruence studies have shown that TR/RTTs are at par with the gold-standard across the various AP roles. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This is the first systematic literature review synthetisising AP roles and activities of TR/RTTs. This study also identified the main areas of AP that can be used to develop professional frameworks and education guiding policy by professional bodies, educators and other stakeholders.

An examination of Advanced Clinical Practice: Qualitative insights from therapeutic radiography advanced and consultant practitioners based in England.

INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic radiographers play a vital and changing role in the delivery of radiotherapy services treating patients with cancer. Advanced Practitioners (AP) and Consultant Practitioners (CP) in radiotherapy have developed advanced clinical skills and specialisms, enhancing the ability of the profession to offer a greater depth of cancer services and ease pressure elsewhere in the system.The aim of this study was to define the opportunity and potential for Advanced Clinical Practice (ACP) roles in oncology services. Specific objectives were to explore local profiles, role development and opportunities for standardisation of ACPs in therapeutic radiography and to determine resource requirements to roll out and ensure continuation of the existing and new roles. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The research was addressed through a qualitative study design using focus groups. Convenience sampling was used to recruit therapeutic radiography advanced and consultant practitioners (N = 36) from the respective radiotherapy departments in England to participate in regional focus groups. Four regional areas were identified for inclusion. Data generated was analysed thematically. RESULTS: The findings are presented in four themes: ownership of professional identity, desire for standardisation and guidance, drivers of role development and self-directed educational routes. CONCLUSION: Key findings from the focus groups indicated the need for standardisation in job descriptions, roles and responsibilities and a key understanding of career progression. The professional identity of the AP is acknowledged by independent, autonomous working; however, this can only be facilitated if the correct training is undertaken and the necessary support structures are in place to enable career progression. Challenges associated with role development are 1) lack of career and pathway guidance, 2) lack of clear educational routes, 3) lack of standardised roles.