The transition of the Basic Sciences in Oncology Course: incorporating stakeholder feedback
The Basic Sciences in Oncology Course (BSOC) is a professional development program currently administered by the Cancer Institute NSW under Priority 3 in the NSW Cancer Plan 2007–2010.
a Cancer Institute NSW discussion paper
More abstract & report summaries
Background
BSOC primarily assists radiation and medical oncology trainees to gain an understanding of key sciences that underpin clinical practice in their specialty areas of cancer treatment. This course provides 10 full days of learning, programmed throughout the calendar year, supported by approximately 80 lecturers. Approximately 40 participants attend each year. A minority of participants are from other oncology related disciples e.g. medical physics, cancer nursing, pharmacology.
During the past three years, the Cancer Institute NSW, although not a registered training organisation, has provided sponsorship and administrative support for this program. This has meant that BSOC has operated outside of normal governance and quality management arrangements applied to training programs that are usually purchased and offered to cancer health professionals.
In recent years concerns have arisen through BSOC participant feedback that the BSOC curriculum may not adequately address registrar needs. In addition, due to college curriculum changes, BSOC may need adjustment to meet college needs and to align with other training developments such as the emergence of registrar training networks.
Objectives
To identify future administration options for BSOC.
Methods
Stakeholder feedback commenced in 2008 to identify future administration options for BSOC. As no clear way forward was identified a facilitated transition forum was held in March 2009, endorsed by the BSOC Advisory Committee.
The Cancer Institute NSW hosted the transition consultation forum to discuss how best to coordinate and deliver BSOC in 2010 and beyond. New delivery options need to be considered in context of a range of registrar training developments, including the rise of registrar training networks and college curricula developments.
Results
Stakeholders value BSOC as it fills a learning void and provides interdisciplinary exposure and networking opportunities. The networking opportunities have been an unexpected consequence and benefit of the program that endorses the multidisciplinary focus needed to ensure holistic care and support is adequately provided to cancer patients.
Despite the need to review BSOC content, delivery and governance, based on the strength of support the continuation of a product similar to BSOC is desirable. The transition plan needs to address the themes identified in the tables above. If addressed, an improved and sustainable BSOC should emerge post transition.
The issues presented as themes above were common to all forum discussion groups. Stakeholders fully support the continuation of BSOC but acknowledge that a number of issues require attention, particularly governance and independence.
While stakeholders endorse the multidisciplinary aspects of BSOC, they acknowledge that BSOC could never adequately address all speciality needs. Therefore, if BSOC is to remain broad (meeting professional development needs of disciplines beyond radiation oncology and medical oncology) the program should focus on central areas within the oncology field relevant to most clinicians, which are not covered by clinical supervision or curricula content.
Sustainability may remain a challenge if permanent sponsorship can’t be guaranteed. Financial independence and co-sponsorship need to be explored. A tight governance structure supported by a business plan will assist BSOC beyond the transitionary phase. A priority for the new governing body is the development of a business plan. Funds may be needed to assist with its development.
To ensure good governance BSOC Advisory Committee members need to be proactive and have regular meetings. The frequency of meetings can be considered by the current Advisory Committee but will ultimately be determined by the new governing committee. Advisory Committee meetings dedicated to discussion of governance and financial independence will assist the transition and secure BSOC’s future. Advantages exist related to expansion of the Advisory Committee to ensure greater input from professionals with education expertise. Existing governance models used by registrar training networks should be examined and possibly adopted. The development of professional relationships between the new BSOC Advisory Committee and other registrar training network committees would be beneficial.
Conclusion
As a key stakeholder the Cancer Institute NSW is keen to ensure the BSOC program’s content builds upon the desired core scientific knowledge both of the bio-physical and behavioural sciences required by oncology professionals. It is also important to ensure that learning objectives incorporated within the program and skills to be acquired are being assessed and monitored so that the target audience needs are being adequately met. This will ensure adoption of a greater use of scientific evidence and implementation of skills gained in the variety of clinical practice settings that BSOC course attendees work within.
In the light of current fiscal constraints affecting the availability of government funds for achieving patient outcomes, ‘value for money’ and achievement of desired skill practices is an even more essential priority.
Should it be determined that the BSOC program is not addressing desired outcomes the Cancer Institute NSW may need to redirect its investment funds to ensure that skill gains and patient outcomes are able to be achieved.