Ahmed Eid1, Caren Hughes2, Meghan Karuturi3, Connie Reyes4, Jeffrey Yorio5, Holly Holmes6. 1. Department of General Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: aeid@mdanderson.org. 2. Department of Pharmacy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: calhughes@mdanderson.org. 3. Hematology Oncology Fellowship Program, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: mskaruturi@mdanderson.org. 4. Department of General Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: mcreyes1@mdanderson.org. 5. Hematology Oncology Fellowship Program, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: jtyorio@gmail.com. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: hholmes@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Because the cancer population is aging, interprofessional education incorporating geriatric principles is essential to providing adequate training for oncology fellows. We report the targeted needs assessment, content, and evaluation tools for our geriatric oncology curriculum at MD Anderson Cancer Center. METHODS: A team comprising a geriatrician, a medical oncologist, an oncology PharmD, an oncology advanced nurse practitioner, and two oncology chief fellows developed the geriatric oncology curriculum. First, a general needs assessment was conducted by reviewing the literature and medical societies' publications and by consulting experts. A targeted needs assessment was then conducted by reviewing the fellows' evaluations of the geriatric oncology rotation and by interviewing fellows and recently graduated oncology faculty. RESULTS: Geriatric assessment, pharmacology, and psychosocial knowledge skills were the three identified areas of educational need. Curriculum objectives and an evaluation checklist were developed to evaluate learners in the three identified areas. The checklist content was validated by consulting experts in the field. Online materials, including a curriculum, a geriatric pharmacology job aid, and pharmacology cases, were also developed and delivered as part of the curriculum. CONCLUSION: An interprofessional team approach was a successful method for identifying areas of learners' educational needs, which in turn helped us develop an integrated geriatric oncology curriculum. The curriculum is currently being piloted and evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: Because the cancer population is aging, interprofessional education incorporating geriatric principles is essential to providing adequate training for oncology fellows. We report the targeted needs assessment, content, and evaluation tools for our geriatric oncology curriculum at MD Anderson Cancer Center. METHODS: A team comprising a geriatrician, a medical oncologist, an oncology PharmD, an oncology advanced nurse practitioner, and two oncology chief fellows developed the geriatric oncology curriculum. First, a general needs assessment was conducted by reviewing the literature and medical societies' publications and by consulting experts. A targeted needs assessment was then conducted by reviewing the fellows' evaluations of the geriatric oncology rotation and by interviewing fellows and recently graduated oncology faculty. RESULTS: Geriatric assessment, pharmacology, and psychosocial knowledge skills were the three identified areas of educational need. Curriculum objectives and an evaluation checklist were developed to evaluate learners in the three identified areas. The checklist content was validated by consulting experts in the field. Online materials, including a curriculum, a geriatric pharmacology job aid, and pharmacology cases, were also developed and delivered as part of the curriculum. CONCLUSION: An interprofessional team approach was a successful method for identifying areas of learners' educational needs, which in turn helped us develop an integrated geriatric oncology curriculum. The curriculum is currently being piloted and evaluated.
Authors: Martine Extermann; Ivette Boler; Richard R Reich; Gary H Lyman; Richard H Brown; Joseph DeFelice; Richard M Levine; Eric T Lubiner; Pablo Reyes; Frederic J Schreiber; Lodovico Balducci Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kevin J Biese; Ellen Roberts; Michael LaMantia; Zeke Zamora; Frances S Shofer; Graham Snyder; Amar Patel; David Hollar; John Steve Kizer; Jan Busby-Whitehead Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Hyman B Muss; Jamie Von Roenn; Lloyd Earl Damon; Lisa Marie Deangelis; Lawrence E Flaherty; Paul M Harari; Karen Kelly; Michael P Kosty; Matthew J Loscalzo; Robert Mennel; Beverly S Mitchell; Joanne E Mortimer; Franco Muggia; Edith A Perez; Peter W T Pisters; Leonard Saltz; Lidia Schapira; Joseph Sparano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Arti Hurria; Kayo Togawa; Supriya G Mohile; Cynthia Owusu; Heidi D Klepin; Cary P Gross; Stuart M Lichtman; Ajeet Gajra; Smita Bhatia; Vani Katheria; Shira Klapper; Kurt Hansen; Rupal Ramani; Mark Lachs; F Lennie Wong; William P Tew Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Grace L Smith; Arti Hurria; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-04-29 Impact factor: 44.544