- Email: [email protected]
Sharing Experiential Knowledge and Clinical Evidence in an Online Radiation Oncology Social Network
Poster Viewing E417
Volume 96 Number 2S Supplement 2016 radiographic anatomy. Results regarding objective impact on contour delineation agreement are pending study completion. eContour also improves resident satisfaction with available contouring resources. These preliminary data suggest that the eContour content and interactive webbased platform design have the potential to improve contour accuracy and ultimately impact quality of radiation delivery. Author Disclosure: E.F. Gillespie: None. N. Panjwani: None. D.W. Golden: Partnership; RadOncQuestions.com. J.R. Gunther: None. T.R. Chapman: None. J.V. Brower: None. R. Kosztyla: None. J.M. Bykowski: None. P. Sanghvi: None. J.D. Murphy: None.
3027 Sharing Experiential Knowledge and Clinical Evidence in an Online Radiation Oncology Social Network N. Housri,1 J.C. Ye,2 J.T. Lucas, Jr,3 G. Green,4 A.M. Baschnagel,5 L.M. Burt,6 T. Dan,7 B.R. Mancini,8 S. Lloyd,9 and S. Housri10; 1Veterans Affairs, East Orange, NJ, 2NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, 3St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, 4University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 5Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, 6University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, 7 Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, 8Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 9Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 10theMedNet, New York, NY Purpose/Objective(s): Experiential medical knowledge and expert opinions are recognized as valid, valuable, and essential to medical practice, but have never been systematically recorded and stored in a searchable database within existing information technology systems. TheMednet, a social question and answer (Q&A) website for U.S. radiation oncologists (ROs), was started for ROs to share current and actionable information in a private, moderated platform. We sought to evaluate the ability of this social platform to capture and relay experiential knowledge, in addition to traditional sources of information. Materials/Methods: TheMednet was initially piloted in radiation oncology and open to all U.S. based ROs and RO residents. All registered ROs can post questions, answers, comments, and ‘helpful’ and ‘agree’ votes. Questions are posted via an ‘Ask Question’ button and answers are solicited from ROs involved in research relevant to the questions being asked. We retrospectively analyzed questions for reference sources, including personal experience, published data, current and future trials, and guidelines. Published data was verified via a PubMed search. Current clinical trials were verified on clinicaltrials.gov. Starting in August 2015, the number of searches was recorded. Results: Between September 2013 and January 2016, 720 answers were posted to 497 clinical questions. Each question was viewed an average of 174 times (range 16-1,824) and 90% of questions were viewed every month. Questions were searched a total of 5,975 times. Personal experience was cited in 70% of the answers, and 42% cited both personal experience and published data. In a sample of 546 answers to 327 questions, 58% cited data, including a total of 508 publications. These included 275 prospective clinical trials (54% of all citations), of which 81% were phase 3 trials. Thirty-eight percent of cited papers were retrospective studies. Current or future clinical trials were cited in 18% of answers and guidelines were cited in 7% of answers. There were 2,388 ‘helpful’ and ‘agree’ answer votes. Conclusion: TheMednet allows U.S. ROs to share, read, and search valuable experiential knowledge not found elsewhere. Personal experience is the most frequently cited reference source and often overlaps with references to published data. The second most common reference is phase 3 randomized trials. A social peer-to-peer Q&A website is an innovative and scalable way of sharing tacit knowledge and actionable insights on published data. Author Disclosure: N. Housri: Co-Founder; theMednet.org. Owner; the Mednet.org. J.C. Ye: None. J.T. Lucas: None. G. Green: None.
A.M. Baschnagel: None. L.M. Burt: None. T. Dan: None. B.R. Mancini: None. S. Lloyd: None. S. Housri: Co-Founder; theMednet.org. Owner; theMednet.org.
3028 Improving Radiation Oncology Residency Structure: A MultiInstitutional Survey Study S.R. Rice,1 J.W. Snider III,2 J.Y. Lin,3 S.J. Feigenberg,3 and M.P. Mehta4; 1 University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 2Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland, 3University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, 4Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL Purpose/Objective(s): The current study was designed to measure radiation oncology residents’ satisfaction with their programs, to gauge the importance of residency features to trainees, and to correlate these aspects with resident opinion and satisfaction. Materials/Methods: An IRB-approved questionnaire was developed focusing on resident satisfaction, confidence in training, lectures/didactics, clinical workflow, clinical workload, research opportunities, and clinical caseload with an emphasis on non-biased, non-leading questions developed utilizing marketing research principles. An importance factor (IF), rated 0-10 by each respondent, was associated with each domain. Programs were contacted by email for questionnaire dissemination to residents anonymously. Surveys were completed online through a third-party website. Respondents were stratified based on year of training, training program, and geographical region. Results: To date, 112 residents have responded to the questionnaire, with an 88% completion rate. Respondents were evenly distributed as PGY-2 (28%), PGY-3 (25%), PGY-4 (23.5%) and PGY-5 (23.5%). Eighty-two and 88% of participants were pleased to exceedingly pleased with their program as a whole and program reputation, respectively. To that end, 78% would re-rank their program the same or higher, 66% would choose their program again, and 79% would want a family member to be treated at their facility. Quality of clinical training (median IF Z 10, mean Z 9.1), job placement upon graduation (median IF Z 9.5, mean Z 8.8), and adequate exposure to various disease sites (median IF Z 9, mean Z 8.4) rated as the most important factors in program improvement or continued success. Program reputation (median IF Z 8, mean Z 7.1), willingness of an attending to go uncovered (median IF Z 8.0, mean Z 6.8) and social aspects of residency (median IF Z 8.0, mean Z 7.2) were least important to resident satisfaction and program success. Residents continue to express concerns regarding insufficient exposure to sarcoma, lymphoma, genitourinary tumors, benign disease, and brachytherapy. Additionally, exposure is lacking in programs with regard to intraoperative radiation therapy, hyperthermia, and proton therapy. Conclusion: Resident satisfaction in radiation oncology training programs seems most closely linked to quality of clinical training, job placement upon graduation, and adequate exposure to various disease sites. A significant proportion of residents appear satisfied in their current program, and would choose to do residency at their home institution again. Further accrual and analysis is underway and will likely yield a robust nomogram for use in program building and improvement. Author Disclosure: S.R. Rice: None. J.W. Snider: None. J.Y. Lin: None. S.J. Feigenberg: None. M.P. Mehta: None.
3029 Taming Big Data: Implementation of a Clinical Use-Case Driven Architecture C. Mayo,1 M.L. Kessler,2 M. Feng,2 G. Weyburn,2 I. El Naqa,2 A. Eisbruch,2 M.M. Matuszak,3 D. McShan,2 J.M. Moran,2 C.J. Anderson,2 L. Holevinski,2 D. Owen,2 and R.K. Ten Haken3; 1 Department of Radiation Oncology University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 2University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 3Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Volume 96 Number 2S Supplement 2016 radiographic anatomy. Results regarding objective impact on contour delineation agreement are pending study completion. eContour also improves resident satisfaction with available contouring resources. These preliminary data suggest that the eContour content and interactive webbased platform design have the potential to improve contour accuracy and ultimately impact quality of radiation delivery. Author Disclosure: E.F. Gillespie: None. N. Panjwani: None. D.W. Golden: Partnership; RadOncQuestions.com. J.R. Gunther: None. T.R. Chapman: None. J.V. Brower: None. R. Kosztyla: None. J.M. Bykowski: None. P. Sanghvi: None. J.D. Murphy: None.
3027 Sharing Experiential Knowledge and Clinical Evidence in an Online Radiation Oncology Social Network N. Housri,1 J.C. Ye,2 J.T. Lucas, Jr,3 G. Green,4 A.M. Baschnagel,5 L.M. Burt,6 T. Dan,7 B.R. Mancini,8 S. Lloyd,9 and S. Housri10; 1Veterans Affairs, East Orange, NJ, 2NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, 3St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, 4University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 5Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, 6University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, 7 Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, 8Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 9Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 10theMedNet, New York, NY Purpose/Objective(s): Experiential medical knowledge and expert opinions are recognized as valid, valuable, and essential to medical practice, but have never been systematically recorded and stored in a searchable database within existing information technology systems. TheMednet, a social question and answer (Q&A) website for U.S. radiation oncologists (ROs), was started for ROs to share current and actionable information in a private, moderated platform. We sought to evaluate the ability of this social platform to capture and relay experiential knowledge, in addition to traditional sources of information. Materials/Methods: TheMednet was initially piloted in radiation oncology and open to all U.S. based ROs and RO residents. All registered ROs can post questions, answers, comments, and ‘helpful’ and ‘agree’ votes. Questions are posted via an ‘Ask Question’ button and answers are solicited from ROs involved in research relevant to the questions being asked. We retrospectively analyzed questions for reference sources, including personal experience, published data, current and future trials, and guidelines. Published data was verified via a PubMed search. Current clinical trials were verified on clinicaltrials.gov. Starting in August 2015, the number of searches was recorded. Results: Between September 2013 and January 2016, 720 answers were posted to 497 clinical questions. Each question was viewed an average of 174 times (range 16-1,824) and 90% of questions were viewed every month. Questions were searched a total of 5,975 times. Personal experience was cited in 70% of the answers, and 42% cited both personal experience and published data. In a sample of 546 answers to 327 questions, 58% cited data, including a total of 508 publications. These included 275 prospective clinical trials (54% of all citations), of which 81% were phase 3 trials. Thirty-eight percent of cited papers were retrospective studies. Current or future clinical trials were cited in 18% of answers and guidelines were cited in 7% of answers. There were 2,388 ‘helpful’ and ‘agree’ answer votes. Conclusion: TheMednet allows U.S. ROs to share, read, and search valuable experiential knowledge not found elsewhere. Personal experience is the most frequently cited reference source and often overlaps with references to published data. The second most common reference is phase 3 randomized trials. A social peer-to-peer Q&A website is an innovative and scalable way of sharing tacit knowledge and actionable insights on published data. Author Disclosure: N. Housri: Co-Founder; theMednet.org. Owner; the Mednet.org. J.C. Ye: None. J.T. Lucas: None. G. Green: None.
A.M. Baschnagel: None. L.M. Burt: None. T. Dan: None. B.R. Mancini: None. S. Lloyd: None. S. Housri: Co-Founder; theMednet.org. Owner; theMednet.org.
3028 Improving Radiation Oncology Residency Structure: A MultiInstitutional Survey Study S.R. Rice,1 J.W. Snider III,2 J.Y. Lin,3 S.J. Feigenberg,3 and M.P. Mehta4; 1 University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 2Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland, 3University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, 4Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL Purpose/Objective(s): The current study was designed to measure radiation oncology residents’ satisfaction with their programs, to gauge the importance of residency features to trainees, and to correlate these aspects with resident opinion and satisfaction. Materials/Methods: An IRB-approved questionnaire was developed focusing on resident satisfaction, confidence in training, lectures/didactics, clinical workflow, clinical workload, research opportunities, and clinical caseload with an emphasis on non-biased, non-leading questions developed utilizing marketing research principles. An importance factor (IF), rated 0-10 by each respondent, was associated with each domain. Programs were contacted by email for questionnaire dissemination to residents anonymously. Surveys were completed online through a third-party website. Respondents were stratified based on year of training, training program, and geographical region. Results: To date, 112 residents have responded to the questionnaire, with an 88% completion rate. Respondents were evenly distributed as PGY-2 (28%), PGY-3 (25%), PGY-4 (23.5%) and PGY-5 (23.5%). Eighty-two and 88% of participants were pleased to exceedingly pleased with their program as a whole and program reputation, respectively. To that end, 78% would re-rank their program the same or higher, 66% would choose their program again, and 79% would want a family member to be treated at their facility. Quality of clinical training (median IF Z 10, mean Z 9.1), job placement upon graduation (median IF Z 9.5, mean Z 8.8), and adequate exposure to various disease sites (median IF Z 9, mean Z 8.4) rated as the most important factors in program improvement or continued success. Program reputation (median IF Z 8, mean Z 7.1), willingness of an attending to go uncovered (median IF Z 8.0, mean Z 6.8) and social aspects of residency (median IF Z 8.0, mean Z 7.2) were least important to resident satisfaction and program success. Residents continue to express concerns regarding insufficient exposure to sarcoma, lymphoma, genitourinary tumors, benign disease, and brachytherapy. Additionally, exposure is lacking in programs with regard to intraoperative radiation therapy, hyperthermia, and proton therapy. Conclusion: Resident satisfaction in radiation oncology training programs seems most closely linked to quality of clinical training, job placement upon graduation, and adequate exposure to various disease sites. A significant proportion of residents appear satisfied in their current program, and would choose to do residency at their home institution again. Further accrual and analysis is underway and will likely yield a robust nomogram for use in program building and improvement. Author Disclosure: S.R. Rice: None. J.W. Snider: None. J.Y. Lin: None. S.J. Feigenberg: None. M.P. Mehta: None.
3029 Taming Big Data: Implementation of a Clinical Use-Case Driven Architecture C. Mayo,1 M.L. Kessler,2 M. Feng,2 G. Weyburn,2 I. El Naqa,2 A. Eisbruch,2 M.M. Matuszak,3 D. McShan,2 J.M. Moran,2 C.J. Anderson,2 L. Holevinski,2 D. Owen,2 and R.K. Ten Haken3; 1 Department of Radiation Oncology University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 2University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 3Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI