Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:11:02.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The value of pre-application clinical department visits in radiotherapy: a qualitative evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2018

Pete Bridge Open the ORCID record for Pete Bridge [Opens in a new window] ,
Jenny Callender ,
Jo Edgerley  and
Cath Gordon
Pete Bridge*
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Jenny Callender
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Jo Edgerley
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Cath Gordon
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Pete Bridge, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. Tel: +44 (0)151 795 8366. E-mail: pete.bridge@liverpool.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

The mandatory clinical radiotherapy department visit undertaken by potential applicants aims to provide understanding of the profession and therefore reduce attrition. Increasing pressure on clinical departments makes visits a logistical challenge. This additional step may also present as an unnecessary barrier to applicants. With no evidence relating to visits, this study aimed to explore the perceptions of both students and clinical educators concerning potential benefits and challenges.

Method

A focus group interview method was used to gather in-depth qualitative data concerning the clinical department visit experiences from first-year undergraduate students and clinical educators.

Results

Three themes emerged from the student focus groups: the perceived purpose of the clinical visit, the visit content and the outcomes and impact arising from the visit. Clinical educator data also followed these themes in addition to ‘logistical impact’ theme.

Conclusion

The clinical visit has value to applicants in affirming their decision to study radiotherapy. There is variation in expectation and content for these visits and they are logistically challenging. Nationally agreed guidelines for visit structure and content could improve visit efficiency and effectiveness. A national clinical visit form may reduce workload for educators and applicants.

Keywords

admissionsclinical visiteducationradiotherapytraining
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 110 - 115
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Cite this article: Bridge P, Callender J, Edgerley J, Gordon C. (2019) The value of pre-application clinical department visits in radiotherapy: a qualitative evaluation. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice18: 110–115. doi: 10.1017/S1460396918000717

References

1. Cancer Research UK. 100 years of radiotherapy but public still in the dark over the treatment. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/press-release/2011-01-28-100-years-of-radiotherapy-but-public-still-in-the-dark-over-the-treatment, 2011. Accessed on 13th November 2018.Google Scholar
2. Department of Health. Radiotherapy Services in England. London: Department of Health, 2012.Google Scholar
3. Society and College of Radiographers. Improving Student Retention: Guidelines and Good Practice. London: Society and College of Radiographers, 2009.Google Scholar
4. Colyer, H. Improving Retention of the Radiotherapy Workforce – The Role of Practice Placement in Student Attrition from Pre-registration Programmes in England: Executive Summary and Recommendations. London: Society and College of Radiographers, 2013.Google Scholar
5. Universities UK. https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/news/Pages/Response-to-latest-UCAS-applicant-figures.aspx, 2017. Accessed on 13th November 2018.Google Scholar
6. Wright, C A, Schneider-Kolsky, M E, Jolly, B, Baird, M A. Using focus groups in radiation therapy research: ethical and practical considerations. J Radiother Pract 2012; 11 (4): 217–228.Google Scholar
7. Graneheim, U H, Lundman, B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004; 24 (2): 105–112.Google Scholar
8. Medical Research Council. Good Research Practice; Principles and Guidelines. London: Medical Research Council, 2012.Google Scholar