↓ Skip to main content

Radiation oncology resident training in patient safety and quality improvement: a national survey of residency program directors

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Radiation oncology resident training in patient safety and quality improvement: a national survey of residency program directors
Published in
Radiation Oncology, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13014-018-1128-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew B. Spraker, Matthew J. Nyflot, Kristi R. G. Hendrickson, Stephanie Terezakis, Shannon E. Fogh, Gabrielle M. Kane, Eric C. Ford, Jing Zeng

Abstract

Physicians and physicists are expected to contribute to patient safety and quality improvement (QI) in Radiation Oncology (RO), but prior studies suggest that training for this may be inadequate. RO and medical physics (MP) program directors (PDs) were surveyed to better understand the current patient safety/QI training in their residency programs. PDs were surveyed via email in January 2017. Survey questions inquired about current training, curriculum elements, and barriers to development and/or improvement of safety and QI training. Eighty-nine RO PDs and 84 MP PDs were surveyed, and 21 RO PDs (28%) and 31 MP PDs (37%) responded. Both RO and MP PDs had favorable opinions of current safety and QI training, and used a range of resources for program development, especially safety and QI publications. Various curriculum elements were reported. Curriculum elements used by RO and MP PDs were similar, except RO were more likely than MP PDs to implement morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference (72% vs. 45%, p < 0.05). RO and MP PDs similarly cited various barriers, but RO PDs were more likely to cite lack of experience than MP PDs (40% vs. 16%, p < 0.05). PDs responded similarly independent of whether they reported using a departmental incident learning system (ILS) or not. PDs view patient safety/QI as an important part of resident education. Most PDs agreed that residents are adequately exposed to patient safety/QI and prepared to meet the patient safety/QI expectations of clinical practice. This conflicts with other independent studies that indicate a majority of residents feel their patient safety/QI training is inadequate and lacks formal exposure to QI tools.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 14%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 6 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 14%
Arts and Humanities 1 7%
Psychology 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unknown 9 64%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 April 2022.
All research outputs
#19,809,283
of 25,218,929 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,334
of 2,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,862
of 347,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#26
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,218,929 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,118 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 347,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.