We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
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).
Methods
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.
Results
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.
Conclusions
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.
Success with the examination is about technique as much as knowledge. This book will be as good as others from the knowledge point of view but adds huge insight into technique. All examinations, whether it be your driving test or the FRCS (Tr & Orth), demand a disciplined technique. This book gives many pointers as to where a good technique helps to overcome the stress of the examination. Knowledge is a must but in itself is not enough. I would advocate this book to all orthopaedic year 1 trainees. That is when you need to start preparation – not year 4. Use this book to guide preparation for the examination. If I can add my own advice, then it is to practise every day. Pester your consultants to viva you every day for 10 minutes. Understand the principles of everything you do in the course of your orthopaedic practice.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.