ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Enhancing the teaching skills of radiation therapists is of benefit to both students and therapists and is ultimately important for patient outcomes. However, there is a paucity of evidence-based interventions for improving the teaching skills of radiation therapists. An intervention was developed to tackle this initiative. In accordance with a local, quality improvement initiative, a two-part workshop was developed for radiation therapists to improve their ability to (1) effectively communicate with students, (2) provide meaningful feedback to students, (3) increase consistency in conducting competency assessments, and (4) increase an understanding of cultural competency as it pertains to both teaching and health care more broadly. METHODS: Participants included 67 radiation therapists (18 males and 49 females) currently working at an urban, tertiary care center in Ontario. Not all therapists attended both the workshops (48 attended both workshops, 67 attended A only, and 49 attended B only). The sessions were divided into workshop A, targeting communication and evaluation, and workshop B, targeting competency assessment and cultural competency. Self-report questionnaires assessing clinician ratings of their confidence in these skills were administered before workshop A and B, after workshop A and B, and at a follow-up after 75 days. For radiation therapists who completed the questionnaire at all three time points, changes in their confidence ratings were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) before workshop, after workshop, and at follow-up (for workshop A: n = 29 and for workshop B: n = 24). It was hypothesized that teaching skills of communication and evaluation would improve after workshop A. Similarly, teaching skills of competency assessment and cultural competency would both improve after workshop B. RESULTS: All four repeated measures ANOVAs indicated significant improvements in clinician self-assessment in the four teaching skills targeted in the workshops. DISCUSSION: Radiation therapists reported being significantly more confident in their teaching skills after the intervention. CONCLUSION: There is preliminary evidence for the efficacy of this teaching intervention in improving the confidence of radiation therapists in the assessed skills.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Peer assessments have been used within health professional programs to provide some degree of judgment of professional behavior and to facilitate feedback among peers. In an attempt to further support the clinical learning of our students, the clinical education team at the Odette Cancer Centre initiated a pilot to introduce peer assessments as a part of strategies for learning and engagement within laboratory sessions. The aim of our work was to retrospectively review peer assessments completed during these sessions in an attempt to identify professional behaviors, both positive and negative, and subsequently correlate the assessments with observed behaviors noted, both formally and anecdotally, within clinical faculty assessments. Further to this, our team attempted to explore student perceptions on the impact of peer assessments to their own learning. METHODS: Students in the final year of a 3-year undergraduate medical radiation sciences program were asked to assess their peers during laboratory sessions using a modified version of an assessment tool previously known to the students, the Assessment of Readiness for Clinical tool. Students (N = 14) were required to evaluate each of their peers who participated in the same session and provide supporting comments for their rating. For each student, responses from peer assessors were anonymized and collated. Comments and numerical ratings on the peer assessments were compared. The student assessments were subsequently compared with similar measures extracted from faculty assessments. Students also participated in a debriefing session to provide feedback regarding the integration of these assessments within the learning sessions and the potential impact they had on their own professional behaviors. RESULTS: The majority of students rated their peers in all criteria at a score of 2 (performed or surpassed expectations). There was some correlation between numerical ratings and comments written in the assessments. Comments on peer assessments were in concordance with observations extracted from previous assessments by clinical faculty and teachers for 71% of the students. Students expressed a favorable attitude toward the use of the peer assessments but did not find the numerical ratings useful and instead valued supporting constructive comments that cited specific examples for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Peer assessments were found to be of some benefit to the learning of our students, particularly the anecdotal supporting comments that accompanied the ratings. However, their use must be accompanied by formalized training and guidelines to teachers and learners as well as a careful consideration of the tool chosen to ensure the most purposeful impact on behavior change.
