#Astroboard review update#
#Astroboard review series#

Availability of sufficient resources for clinical operations so that the priority for residents is education.Ĥ. How the specialty, as a whole, as well as individual programs, can engage, recruit and retain diverse applicants.ģ. The quality and extent of each candidate’s interest in radiation oncology.Ģ. To that end, we encourage stakeholders to carefully consider the following factors as they evaluate the size, selection process and scope of their training programs:ġ. It is a foundational principle that residency training positions should be filled by qualified candidates who are enthusiastic about the field. Radiation Oncology Workforce (February 2022)ĪSTRO continues to support the critical role of high-quality residency training to optimally educate and prepare our future workforce.

#Astroboard review update#

It is the intention of the ASTRO Workforce Task Force to regularly update ASTRO members about the progress of the study while maintaining the boundaries required to ensure that the analysis and recommendations remain the independent domain of the outside firm. The ASTRO Board is committed to maintaining distance from the analysis to ensure that there are no perceptions of any internal influence. Read the post at Additionally, ASTRO released the following statement on issues impacting residency training programs. The Workforce Task Force Chair Bruce Haffty, MD, FASTRO, and co-chairs Chirag Shah, MD, and Pranshu Mohindra, MD, recently discussed this process and provided further context around the radiation oncology workforce in an ASTRO Blog. radiation oncologist workforceĪSTRO IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE that it has retained the services of Health Management Associates to conduct a thorough analysis of the expected workforce needs in radiation oncology over the next decade. All rights reserved.ASTROnews - Spring 2022 ASTROnews ASTRO Board approves independent assessment of U.S. It is hoped that this work will be a catalyst for further investigation, development, and study of the efficacy of peer review techniques and how these efforts can help improve the safety and quality of our treatments.Ĭopyright © 2013 American Society for Radiation Oncology. This report is intended to clarify and broaden the understanding of radiation oncology professionals regarding the meaning, roles, benefits, and targets for peer review as a routine quality assurance tool. This might consist of a daily multidisciplinary (eg, physicians, dosimetrists, physicists, therapists) meeting to review patients being considered for, or undergoing planning for, radiation therapy (eg, intention to treat and target delineation), as well as meetings to review patients already under treatment (eg, adequacy of image guidance). Each radiation oncology facility should evaluate the issues raised and develop improved ways to apply the concept of peer review to its individual process and workflow. This report summarizes many of the areas throughout radiation therapy that may benefit from the application of peer review. Peer review is one of the most effective means for assuring the quality of qualitative, and potentially controversial, patient-specific decisions in radiation oncology.

#Astroboard review series#

This report is part of a series of white papers commissioned for the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Board of Directors as part of ASTRO's Target Safely Campaign, focusing on the role of peer review as an important component of a broad safety/quality assurance (QA) program.