Srikar Chamala1, Heather T D Maness2, Lisa Brown3, C Brooke Adams4, Jatinder K Lamba5, Christopher R Cogle6. 1. Department of Pathology, Immunology and Laboratory Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 2. Center for Instructional Technology and Training, Information Technology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 3. UF Health Cancer Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacy, UF Health Shands Hospital, Gainesville, FL, USA. 5. Department of Pharmacotherapy & Translational Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 6. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 1600 SW Archer Road, Box 100278, Gainesville, FL, 32610-0278, USA. christopher.cogle@medicine.ufl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participants in two recent National Academy of Medicine workshops identified a need for more multi-disciplinary professionals on teams to assist oncology clinicians in precision oncology. METHODS: We developed a graduate school course to prepare biomedical students and pharmacy students to work within a multidisciplinary team of oncology clinicians, pathologists, radiologists, clinical pharmacists, and genetic counselors. Students learned precision oncology skills via case-based learning, hands-on data analyses, and presentations to peers. After the course, a focus group session was conducted to gain an in-depth student perspective on their interprofessional training experience, achievement of the course learning outcomes, ways to improve the course design in future offerings, and how the course could improve future career outcomes. A convenience sampling strategy was used for recruitment into the focus group session. A thematic content analysis was then conducted using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Major themes arising from student feedback were (1) appreciation of a customized patient case-based teaching approach, (2) more emphasis on using data analysis tools, (3) valuing interdisciplinary inclusion, and (4) request for more student discussion with advanced preparation materials. CONCLUSIONS: Feedback was generally positive and supports the continuation and expansion of the precision oncology course to include more hands-on instruction on the use of clinical bioinformatic tools.
BACKGROUND:Participants in two recent National Academy of Medicine workshops identified a need for more multi-disciplinary professionals on teams to assist oncology clinicians in precision oncology. METHODS: We developed a graduate school course to prepare biomedical students and pharmacy students to work within a multidisciplinary team of oncology clinicians, pathologists, radiologists, clinical pharmacists, and genetic counselors. Students learned precision oncology skills via case-based learning, hands-on data analyses, and presentations to peers. After the course, a focus group session was conducted to gain an in-depth student perspective on their interprofessional training experience, achievement of the course learning outcomes, ways to improve the course design in future offerings, and how the course could improve future career outcomes. A convenience sampling strategy was used for recruitment into the focus group session. A thematic content analysis was then conducted using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Major themes arising from student feedback were (1) appreciation of a customized patient case-based teaching approach, (2) more emphasis on using data analysis tools, (3) valuing interdisciplinary inclusion, and (4) request for more student discussion with advanced preparation materials. CONCLUSIONS: Feedback was generally positive and supports the continuation and expansion of the precision oncology course to include more hands-on instruction on the use of clinical bioinformatic tools.
Entities:
Keywords:
Case-based learning; Graduate medical education; Precision oncology
Authors: Laura A Levit; Edward S Kim; Barbara L McAneny; Lincoln D Nadauld; Kathryn Levit; Caroline Schenkel; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Sharyl J Nass; Christopher R Cogle; James A Brink; Curtis P Langlotz; Erin P Balogh; Ada Muellner; Dana Siegal; Richard L Schilsky; Hedvig Hricak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David Tamborero; Rodrigo Dienstmann; Maan Haj Rachid; Jorrit Boekel; Richard Baird; Irene Braña; Luigi De Petris; Jeffrey Yachnin; Christophe Massard; Frans L Opdam; Richard Schlenk; Claudio Vernieri; Elena Garralda; Michele Masucci; Xenia Villalobos; Elena Chavarria; Fabien Calvo; Stefan Fröhling; Alexander Eggermont; Giovanni Apolone; Emile E Voest; Carlos Caldas; Josep Tabernero; Ingemar Ernberg; Jordi Rodon; Janne Lehtiö Journal: Nat Med Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Orestis A Panagiotou; Lori Hoffman Högg; Hedvig Hricak; Samir N Khleif; Mia A Levy; David Magnus; Martin J Murphy; Bakul Patel; Robert A Winn; Sharyl J Nass; Constantine Gatsonis; Christopher R Cogle Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Cyriac Kandoth; Michael D McLellan; Fabio Vandin; Kai Ye; Beifang Niu; Charles Lu; Mingchao Xie; Qunyuan Zhang; Joshua F McMichael; Matthew A Wyczalkowski; Mark D M Leiserson; Christopher A Miller; John S Welch; Matthew J Walter; Michael C Wendl; Timothy J Ley; Richard K Wilson; Benjamin J Raphael; Li Ding Journal: Nature Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 49.962