It was identified in the largest graduate unit of the Faculty of Medicine of a major Canadian University that there was a critical unmet curricular need for an introductory statistics and study design course. Based on the collective findings of an external institute review, both quantitative and qualitative data were used to design, develop, implement, evaluate, and refine such a course.

In response to the identified need and inherent challenges to streamlining curriculum development and instructional design in research-based graduate programs representing many biomedical disciplines, the institute used the analyze, design, develop, implement and evaluate instructional design model to guide the data-driven development and ongoing monitoring of a new study design and statistics course.

The results demonstrated that implementing recommendations from the first iteration of the course (Fall 2021) into the second iteration (Winter 2023) led to improved student learning experience (3.18/5 weighted average (Fall 2021) to 3.87/5 (Winter 2023)). In the second iteration of the course, a self-perceived statistics anxiety test was administered, showing a reduction in statistics anxiety levels after completing the course (2.41/4 weighted average before the course to 1.65/4 after the course).

Our experiences serve as a valuable resource for educators seeking to implement similar improvement approaches in their educational settings. Furthermore, our findings offer insights into tailoring course development and teaching strategies to optimize student learning.

This study will evaluate radiation medicine professionals’ perceptions of clinical and professional risks and benefits, and the evolving roles and responsibilities with artificial intelligence (AI).

Radiation oncologists (ROs), medical physicists (MPs), treatment planners (TP-RTTs) and treatment delivery radiation therapists (TD-RTTs) at a cancer centre in preliminary stages of implementing an AI-enabled treatment planning system were invited to participate in uniprofessional focus groups. Semi-structured scripts addressed the perceptions of AI, including thoughts regarding changing roles and competencies. Sessions were audiorecorded, transcribed and coded thematically through consensus-building.

A total of 24 participants (four ROs, five MPs, seven TP-RTTs and eight TD-RTTs) were engaged in four focus groups of 58 minutes average duration (range 54–61 minutes). Emergent themes addressed AI’s impact on quality of care, changing professional tasks and changing competency requirements. Time-consuming repetitive tasks such as delineating targets, generating treatment plans and quality assurance were thought conducive to offloading to AI. Outcomes data and adaptive planning would be incorporated into clinical decision-making. Changing workload would necessitate changing skills, prioritising plan evaluation over generation and increasing interprofessional communication. All groups discussed AI reducing the need for TP-RTTs, though displacement was thought more likely than replacement.

It is important to consider how professionals perceive AI to be proactive in informing change, as gains in quality and efficiency will require new workflows, skills and education.

Simulation has been effective for changing attitudes towards team-based competencies in many areas, but its role in teaching interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in radiation medicine (RM) is unknown. This study reports on feasibility and IPC outcomes of a team-based simulation event; ‘Radiation Medicine Simulation in Learning Interprofessional Collaborative Experience’ (RM SLICE).

Radiation therapy (RTT), medical physics (MP) and radiation oncology (RO) trainees in a single academic department were eligible. Scheduled closure of a modern RM clinic allowed rotation of five high-fidelity cases in three 105-minute timeslots. A pre/post-survey design evaluated learner satisfaction and interprofessional perceptions. Scales included the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS), UWE Entry Level Interprofessional Questionnaire (UWEIQ), Trainee Test of Team Dynamics and Collaborative Behaviours Scale (CBS).

Twenty-one trainees participated; six ROs (28·57%), six MPs (28·57%) and nine RTTs (42·86%). All cases were conducted, resolved and debriefed within the allotted time. Twenty-one complete sets (100%) of evaluations were returned. Participants reported limited interaction with other professional groups before RM SLICE. Perceptions of team functioning and value of team interaction in ‘establishing or improving the care plan’ were high for all cases, averaging 8·1/10 and 8·9/10. Average CBS scores were 70·4, 71·9 and 69·5, for the three cases, scores increasing between the first and second case for 13/21 (61·9%) participants. RIPLS and UWEIQ scores reflected positive perceptions both pre- and post-event, averaging 83·5 and 85·2 (RIPLS) and 60·6 and 55·7 (UWEIQ), respectively. For all professions for both scales, the average change in score reflected improved IP perceptions, with agreement between scales for 15/20 (75·0%) participants. Overall, perception of IPC averaged 9·14/10, as did the importance of holding such an event annually.

Team-based simulation is feasible in RM and appears to facilitate interprofessional competency-building in high-acuity clinical situations, reflecting positive perceptions of IPC.

With recent technological advances in image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), through cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), more image-related clinical information is being collected, at more frequent intervals throughout the treatment course. As radiation therapy (RT) programmes further develop IGRT technology, the aim of this study is to assess whether the distribution and communication of professional responsibilities is evolving to ensure appropriate use of the technology.

Radiation therapists practicing at any of the 14 Ontario RT centres were sent an electronic survey (n = 400). Closed-ended quantitative items addressed perceptions regarding policies, comfort, and professional responsibility in addressing CBCT concerns. Focus was on gynaecological, lung, head and neck (H&N) disease sites. Options for qualitative comments and explanations were included where appropriate.

Seventy-nine surveys were submitted. Respondents from 12/14 (85·7%) centres used CBCT for at least one of three disease sites, most commonly on a daily basis. Five of these centres (41·7%) did not require radiation oncologist CBCT review, with others requiring it Day 1 or weekly. Potential CBCT observations of concern were grouped as set-up issues, tumour changes, organ-at-risk (OAR) changes, contour changes and ancillary findings (especially lung and airway changes). Respondents believed they consulted another professional about a CBCT in 20·2% of H&N patients, 19·6% of lung patients and 9·7% of gynaecological patients. The level of comfort in doing so varied from 77·0% for H&N to 89·5% for lung. Respondents were most likely to believe themselves responsible for changes in OARs (92·2% believing themselves responsible), and least likely for ancillary findings (62·7%).

Through preliminary insight from Ontario therapists, a degree of inconsistency is apparent between perceptions, practices and assigned roles in the management of CBCT information. Clear definition of the scope and nature of therapists’ responsibility for interpreting and addressing changes on CBCT images should be developed within each centre.