Pilot Curriculum for Continued Professional Development of Radiation Oncology Nurses

Jay C Shiao; Dexiang Gao; Adam Mueller; Douglas E Holt; Marina Moskalenko; Jennifer Zaccone; Timothy V Waxweiler; Tyler P Robin; Sameer K Nath

doi:10.1016/j.adro.2023.101372

Pilot Curriculum for Continued Professional Development of Radiation Oncology Nurses

Adv Radiat Oncol. 2023 Sep 4;9(2):101372. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101372. eCollection 2024 Feb.

Authors

Jay C Shiao¹, Dexiang Gao², Adam Mueller³, Douglas E Holt⁴, Marina Moskalenko⁵, Jennifer Zaccone⁶, Timothy V Waxweiler⁶, Tyler P Robin⁶, Sameer K Nath⁶

Affiliations

¹ Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas.
² Department of Statistics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
³ Department of Radiation Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
⁴ Gamma West Cancer Services, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
⁵ The Urology Center of Colorado, Denver, Colorado.
⁶ Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.

Abstract

Purpose: Limited structured educational programs are available for the continued professional development of radiation oncology nurses. In this study, we evaluated a pilot curriculum focusing on clinical workflow and toxicity management for radiation oncology nurses at a single university-affiliated medical center network.

Methods and materials: Based on a previous multi-institutional needs assessment, a targeted curriculum on clinical workflow and toxicity management was developed, including didactic lectures, written disease-specific toxicity management guidelines, and standardized medication/laboratory order preference lists in the electronic health record. An anonymized survey was circulated to all participants pre- and postcurriculum. The survey was composed of Likert-type subjective questions and 11 objective knowledge-based questions (KBQs). Paired Likert-type data were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Objective question data were compared with the McNamar's mid P test.

Results: Thirteen nurses participated in the pilot curriculum and 100% completed pre- and post curriculum surveys. After the didactics, nurses reported a significant increase in their understanding of the responsibilities of a nurse and overall process of care and their ability to explain computed tomography simulation, as well as their ability to assess, manage, and grade radiation-related toxicities (P < .01). There was significant improvement in the percent of correct answers on objective KBQs from a baseline of 52% to 80% after the curriculum (P < .01). Qualitatively, 70% (9/13) of nurses rated the curriculum as "extremely useful" and 30% (4/13) as "quite useful."

Conclusions: Our pilot curriculum using a combination of in-person formal didactics, toxicity management guidelines, and electronic health record based order preference lists was well-received and showed promising results on KBQ assessment. This work may be used to guide the development of larger curricula for nurse onboarding and continuing education in a multicenter setting.