Results of the 2014 Survey of the Association of Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs (ADROP)

Abstract Background In 2014, the Association of Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs (ADROP) conducted an in-depth survey of program directors along several axes. We report the results of this survey and compare the major findings with those of the 2007 ADROP survey. Methods and materials The survey was written and approved by ADROP leadership in 2012, announced online through broadcasts throughout 2013 and early 2014, and closed in mid-2014. The results based on question groups related to (1) hours spent in activities, (2) budget and nonprogram resources, (3) physics/biology didactics, (4) mock exams/didactics/research, (5) electives, (6) students, and (7) resources/challenges were tabulated. Descriptive comparisons with the 2007 survey were performed. Results There was 26% participation (23/88 programs). Major areas of time commitment were faculty and site organization, maintenance, and corrections (70 hours/year) and didactics/conferences and rounds (200 hours/year). The median program director protected time was 23% (range 0%-50%). All responding programs (100%) had biology and physics courses and assigned directors, but only approximately 20% of respondents had a threshold grade in these courses for graduation. Major resources desired were templates of goals/objectives by disease site, competency evaluations by level, journal club repository, and software for contouring, oral examination preparation, grant writing, publication writing, oral presentation, and effective teaching. Major activity challenges were Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education external review and time commitment. Conclusions Overall, the 2014 results are similar to those of the 2007 survey. The average time commitment remains considerably higher than the 10% minimum required in the current ACGME program requirements. The survey results may guide ADROP membership in centralizing some of the identified resources needed.