Results of the 2013-2015 Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Survey of Chief Residents in the United States

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this project was to survey radiation oncology chief residents to define their residency experience and readiness for independent practice.

Methods and materials: During the academic years 2013 to 2014 and 2014 to 2015, the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology (ARRO) conducted an electronic survey of post-graduate year-5 radiation oncology residents in the United States during the final 3 months of training. Descriptive statistics are reported.

Results: Sixty-six chief residents completed the survey in 2013 to 2014 (53% response rate), and 69 completed the survey in 2014 to 2015 (64% response rate). Forty to 85% percent of residents reported inadequate exposure to high-dose rate and low-dose rate brachytherapy. Nearly all residents in both years (>90%) reported adequate clinical experience for the following disease sites: breast, central nervous system, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, head and neck, and lung. However, as few as 56% reported adequate experience in lymphoma or pediatric malignancies. More than 90% of residents had participated in retrospective research projects, with 20% conducting resident-led prospective clinical trials and 50% conducting basic science or translational projects. Most chief residents reported working 60 or fewer hours per week in the clinical/hospital setting and performing fewer than 15 hours per week tasks that were considered to have little or no educational value. There was more than 80% compliance with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) work hour limits. Fifty-five percent of graduating residents intended to join an established private practice group, compared to 25% who headed for academia. Residents perceive the job market to be more competitive than previous years.

Conclusions: This first update of the ARRO chief resident survey since the 2007 to 2008 academic year documents US radiation oncology residents' experiences and conditions over a 2-year period. This analysis may serve as a valuable tool for those seeking to improve training of the next generation of oncology leaders.