Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
PurposeLimited structured educational programs are available for the continued professional development of radiation oncology nurses. In this study, we evaluated a pilot curriculum focusing on clinical workflow and toxicity management for radiation oncology nurses at a single university-affiliated medical center network.Methods and MaterialsBased on a previous multi-institutional needs assessment, a targeted curriculum on clinical workflow and toxicity management was developed, including didactic lectures, written disease-specific toxicity management guidelines, and standardized medication/laboratory order preference lists in the electronic health record. An anonymized survey was circulated to all participants pre- and postcurriculum. The survey was composed of Likert-type subjective questions and 11 objective knowledge-based questions (KBQs). Paired Likert-type data were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Objective question data were compared with the McNamar's mid P test.ResultsThirteen nurses participated in the pilot curriculum and 100% completed pre- and post curriculum surveys. After the didactics, nurses reported a significant increase in their understanding of the responsibilities of a nurse and overall process of care and their ability to explain computed tomography simulation, as well as their ability to assess, manage, and grade radiation-related toxicities (P < .01). There was significant improvement in the percent of correct answers on objective KBQs from a baseline of 52% to 80% after the curriculum (P < .01). Qualitatively, 70% (9/13) of nurses rated the curriculum as “extremely useful” and 30% (4/13) as “quite useful.”ConclusionsOur pilot curriculum using a combination of in-person formal didactics, toxicity management guidelines, and electronic health record based order preference lists was well-received and showed promising results on KBQ assessment. This work may be used to guide the development of larger curricula for nurse onboarding and continuing education in a multicenter setting. Limited structured educational programs are available for the continued professional development of radiation oncology nurses. In this study, we evaluated a pilot curriculum focusing on clinical workflow and toxicity management for radiation oncology nurses at a single university-affiliated medical center network. Based on a previous multi-institutional needs assessment, a targeted curriculum on clinical workflow and toxicity management was developed, including didactic lectures, written disease-specific toxicity management guidelines, and standardized medication/laboratory order preference lists in the electronic health record. An anonymized survey was circulated to all participants pre- and postcurriculum. The survey was composed of Likert-type subjective questions and 11 objective knowledge-based questions (KBQs). Paired Likert-type data were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Objective question data were compared with the McNamar's mid P test. Thirteen nurses participated in the pilot curriculum and 100% completed pre- and post curriculum surveys. After the didactics, nurses reported a significant increase in their understanding of the responsibilities of a nurse and overall process of care and their ability to explain computed tomography simulation, as well as their ability to assess, manage, and grade radiation-related toxicities (P < .01). There was significant improvement in the percent of correct answers on objective KBQs from a baseline of 52% to 80% after the curriculum (P < .01). Qualitatively, 70% (9/13) of nurses rated the curriculum as “extremely useful” and 30% (4/13) as “quite useful.” Our pilot curriculum using a combination of in-person formal didactics, toxicity management guidelines, and electronic health record based order preference lists was well-received and showed promising results on KBQ assessment. This work may be used to guide the development of larger curricula for nurse onboarding and continuing education in a multicenter setting.
Shiao et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: