Resident satisfaction with radiation oncology training

Awad A Ahmed; Stephen J Ramey; Mary K Dean; Stella K Yoo; Emma Holliday; Curtiland Deville; Cristiane Takita; Neha Vapiwala; Lynn D Wilson; Reshma Jagsi; Charles R Thomas Jr; Raphael Yechieli

doi:10.1016/j.adro.2018.03.003

Resident satisfaction with radiation oncology training

Adv Radiat Oncol. 2018 Mar 20;3(3):234-239. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2018.03.003. eCollection 2018 Jul-Sep.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine/Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, Florida.
² Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
³ Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
⁴ Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
⁵ Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
⁶ Department of Dermatology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
⁷ Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
⁸ Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
⁹ Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.

Abstract

Purpose: Residency training environments can differ significantly; therefore, resident satisfaction may vary widely among programs. Here, we sought to examine several variables in program satisfaction through a survey of radiation oncology (RO) trainees in the United States.

Methods and materials: An anonymous, institutional review board-approved, internet-based survey was developed and distributed to U.S. residents in RO in September 2016. This email-based survey assessed program-specific factors with regard to workload, work-life balance, and education as well as resident-specific factors such as marital status and postgraduate year. Binomial multivariable regression assessed the correlations between these factors and the endpoint of resident-reported likelihood of selecting an alternative RO residency program if given the choice again.

Results: A total of 215 residents completed the required survey sections, representing 29.3% of U.S. RO residents. When asked whether residency allowed for an adequate balance between work and personal life, the majority of residents (75.6%) agreed or strongly agreed, but a minority (9.3%) did not feel that residency allowed for sufficient time for personal life. The majority of residents (69.7%) indicated that they would choose the same residency program again, but 12.2% would have made a different choice. Almost three-fourths of residents (73.0%) felt that faculty and staff cared about the educational success of residents, but 9.27% did not. Binomial multivariable regression revealed that senior residents (odds ratio: 6.70; 95% confidence interval, 2.20-22.4) were more likely to desire a different residency program. In contrast, residents who reported constructive feedback use by the residency program (odds ratio:0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.91) were more satisfied with their program choice.

Conclusions: Most RO residents reported satisfaction with their choice of residency program, but seniors had higher rates of dissatisfaction. Possible interventions to improve professional satisfaction include incorporating constructive resident feedback to enhance the program. The potential impact of job market pressures on seniors should be further explored.