The clinician educator career in oncology.

11022 Background: There has been progress in both the definition of the work of a clinician educator (CE) and the skillset required. The CE career pathway has not been studied in oncology. Our aim is to study the current state of oncologists’ identification as a CE and their perceptions of the barriers and enablers for a CE career. Methods: A 27-item cross-sectional survey was completed by ASCO program directors (PDs) and associate/assistant PDs (APDs). The survey asked about their current career and perceptions about CE careers including barriers/enablers. Prior to distribution, the survey was reviewed by experts in oncology education and approved by the ASCO Education Council. Frequency statistics are presented. Results: Eighty-eight of 297 PDs/APDs responded (30%). 70 (80%) perceived CE as a viable career track, 48 (55%) had a CE track available to faculty at their institution and 72 (82%) considered themselves as a CE. Most PDs/APDs (59; 67%) reported no formal medical education training for their trainees and the majority (67; 76%) did not have a CE track for their fellows. While medical education responsibilities are perceived to be common amongst graduates (39% reporting >50% of graduates), 59 (67%) of PDs/APDs reported <10% of their trainees pursue medical education as a research focus. Compared to clinical, laboratory or discovery research, 71 (81%) of PDs/APDs felt their fellows were less or significantly less prepared for a career in education research. Table highlights the perceived barriers/enablers to a CE career. Conclusions: Many PDs/APDs perceive themselves as clinician educators. However, little to no formal education training currently exists to identify and nurture trainees into careers in education. Identification of training milestones in education and establishing guidelines for academic promotion for CEs in oncology are needed.[Table: see text]

Design, implementation, and assessment of an online-based oncology education program for medical students: An ASCO Oncology Student Interest Group initiative.

11024 Background: Undergraduate medical education in oncology is often fragmented and non-standardized among medical schools (BMC Med Educ 17:100, 2017). Oncology education initiatives are thus critically needed to increase cancer awareness and improve medical students’ understanding of the principles and multidisciplinary approach of oncology. We designed and implemented an online education program with the aim of providing medical students with an early exposure to the field of oncology. Our program was adapted from the Australian Ideal Oncology Curriculum for Medical Schools and included six sessions covering the basics of cancer biology, prevention and screening, diagnosis and patient management, principles of treatment modalities, principles of surgical oncology, as well as counselling and communications skills. Methods: Medical students at our institution were invited to participate. We also invited medical students from other faculties via the support of student groups namely the nation’s medical student union and our ASCO Oncology Student Interest Group (OSIG). Invitations were sent by email and/or via social media along with a brochure outlining the conference’s program and instructions to use the Zoom platform. Students were asked to voluntarily fill online pre- and post-conference anonymous surveys. Students self-assessed their competency, personal attributes, future career aspirations, and provided an evaluation of the program. A five-point Likert scale was used for most questions, in which 1 indicated strong disagreement and 5 indicated strong agreement with the statement. Results: Nearly 300 students from over 50 medical schools in Turkey attended the live program. Only students (n = 228) who completed both the pre- and post-conference surveys were included in our study. ASCO OSIG members made up 24.1% (n = 55) of the students. Among the participants, 73.7% (n = 168) were preclinical students (years 1-3) and 26.3% (n = 60) were clinical students (years 4-6). Students’ overall self-reported rating of their knowledge significantly improved in each of the six sessions, with the greatest pre-post difference observed for diagnosis and patient management (2.51 ± 1 vs 3.87 ± 0.81) followed by principles of treatment modalities (2.54 ± 0.96 vs 3.79 ± 0.88), P < 0.001. Most students believed the program was beneficial in improving their current understanding of oncology with a mean of 4.43 ± 0.76. Most students (92.5%) were “likely” or “very likely” to recommend the program to their colleagues. Conclusions: Students’ evaluation of the online oncology program demonstrated significant benefit and knowledge improvement. Our successfully piloted teaching model of oncology for medical students can be adapted and implemented at medical schools globally. Further development and continuation of our educational initiative is undergoing.