Cathryne Palmer

The scholarly radiation therapist. Part one: charting the territory

As radiation therapy practice evolves with advancing treatment and planning technologies, merging of imaging modalities, changing working models and the advancement to higher education, radiation therapists are frequently finding themselves on the frontline of translating new knowledge into practice. To a large degree, this growing involvement in self-directed original research, with associated dissemination of completed results, has led to an increasing number of therapists being encouraged to pursue an academic path in addition to a clinical career. In Canada, radiation therapists are being appointed as faculty to university departments for the first time. It is heartening that such opportunities are increasing; therapists are able to play a profound role in developing an evidence-based professional body of knowledge while at the same time being recognised for scholarly endeavours. However, despite these many positive steps, barriers and challenges to the development of a scholarly culture for radiation therapists still exist. Part one of this two-part series explores the history of the profession and the subsequent development of a scholarly culture.

The scholarly radiation therapist. Part two: developing an academic practice—the Princess Margaret Hospital experience

Part two of this two-part series presents the results of a departmental initiative implemented in 2003 at a large urban cancer centre, Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. This new model for radiation therapists was called Advanced Integrated Practice (AIP) and was developed, in part, to encourage and promote scholarship within radiation therapy. The AIP model incorporated integrated clinical specialty roles designed to blend exemplary clinical practice with focused academic activities. This paper discusses an evaluation of the AIP model undertaken to obtain a formal measure of how the model had evolved, how the radiation therapists and other stakeholders were responding to the new model, whether the initial outcomes were realized and to create plans for further development of the design. The evaluation utilized a mixture of traditional qualitative research methodologies such as focus groups, quantitative surveys and a variety of other available measurable outcomes. Outcomes from the model included increased opportunities for diverse roles that incorporated an element of academic practice and augmented career choice and scope for radiation therapists. In addition, academic output and research work also increased within the department. Lessons learned from the implementation and evaluation of the model are shared, and the authors offer some suggestions to increase scholarly activity within the profession.

A Brief Introduction to Qualitative Research

Abstract This paper provides an overview of qualitative research and highlights the benefits of a qualitative approach to research in the radiation sciences milieu. Qualitative research methodologies can be used independently of, or to enhance, quantitative approaches. We draw attention to the process of generating a qualitative research question. In addition, we provide an overview of the purpose, benefits and drawbacks of the four main qualitative research methodologies: interviews, focus groups, observation studies and chart (document review), for you to consider for your next research endeavour.

Differences in radiation therapy staff and students’ perceptions of clinical teaching characteristics

Background : The clinical practicum provides an opportunity for students to apply and integrate classroom theory and clinical practice and competence effectively. In a teaching hospital, it is the responsibility of all staff to participate in clinical teaching and every interaction with a student constitutes a learning experience. The clinical teaching characteristics that are important to students and facilitate learning are not clearly defined in radiation therapy practice. Objective : To determine and compare the perceptions of the most and the least important clinical teaching characteristics as identified by radiation therapy staff and students. Methods : A self-administered, online questionnaire was used. The questionnaire was developed using clinical teaching characteristics identified in the literature and from Knox and Mogan’s Nursing Clinical Teaching Effectiveness Inventory. Participants were asked to rate on a 4-point, Likert-type scale the importance of the teaching characteristics with 1 being ‘not at all important’ and 4 being ‘very important’. Of the 150 questionnaires distributed, 49 radiation therapists and 10 students responded to the survey, constituting a 39% response rate. Results : There was generally a greater agreement between staff and students in terms of rating the least important teaching characteristics, being in the categories of interpersonal relationships and personality traits. Staff ranked characteristics in the category of Clinical Competence as most important, whereas the most important clinical teaching characteristics for students were dispersed amongst all categories. Conclusion : Radiation therapy staff and students place great emphasis on the demonstration of clinical competence in the teaching–learning process; clinical teachers should be made aware of and develop these characteristics, which ultimately assist in the student’s success.