Discordance between cancer prevalence and training: a need for an increase in oncology education

Abstract

The impact of cancer on healthcare is increasing. Therefore, it is key that all doctors receive oncology training. This study surveyed UK undergraduate medical schools to determine the extent of oncology training provided by their curricula. Data on foundation year (FY) and core medical training (CMT) programmes were obtained and analysed for the proportion of oncology posts. Of the responding medical schools, five (36%) had a defined period dedicated to oncology (mean 2 weeks). Four foundation schools were in London, with 10,094 FY posts in 1699 programmes. Of these, 1.5% of post and 8.7% of programmes were in oncology. For CMT offered by the London deanery specialty schools, 11% of CMT post and 48% of programmes included oncology. Oncology was included in 11% posts and 48% programmes offered by the London Deanery specialty schools. Our results show that < 50% of junior doctors receive dedicated undergraduate or postgraduate oncology training. An increase in oncology training is therefore urgently required.

Fig 1.

Distribution of year of qualification of oncology specialist trainees. n=54.

Fig 2.

Prior undergraduate and postgraduate exposure to oncology of specialist trainees. 60% of trainees attended an oncology attachment as an undergraduate. 37.5% of trainees had a FY1/2 rotation including oncology, whereas 80.3% of trainees worked with oncology teams during their CMT training.

Fig 3.

Stage at which trainees decided to pursue a career in oncology. Some trainees indicated more than one grade. Most frequently trainees decided to choose oncology as a career at CMT2 training level.

Fig 4.

Factors influencing choice of medical oncology as a career. A five point scale was used, where 1 was very little influence and 5 was very strong influence. All 39 medical oncology trainees completed this question.

Fig 5.

Factors influencing choice of clinical oncology as a career. A five point scale was used where 1 was very little influence and 5 was very strong influence. 14 trainees answered the question (13 clinical oncology and 1 medical oncology trainee).