Tweetnado of #radonc #meded: I want to expand on a reply I sent earlier in the week on simulation mins in RadOnc training https://bit.ly/3igccZW . Should we raise the bar and create new requirements for training beyond the mins we have for peds/brachy/etc? 1/7

We are a procedural specialty that works with both our hands and our hands. In that way we are more similar to surgical specialties. If you look at reqs for surgical specialties, they are very granular in their reqs (see pics). TS is here: https://bit.ly/3gyBB0I  2/7

So, how are we doing without mins? The ACGME published the logs for graduating seniors from 2018/19 class this year and I'll SS this for you to decide. It's behind the ACGME wall so I can't link it. 3/7

This data is fecund! Avg Radonc res has done 4 heterotopic bone, but 2 Hodgkin Lymphoma! And look at the mins for things like HL, SCLC, Cervix etc vs Peds for which we have prescribed minimums. The ACGME is using this to develop recommended mins, seen in this FAQ 4/7

IMO this is a good start, but doesn't go far enough. Our requirements should be similar to the surgical specialties and reflect % of practice, risk to patients, curative role etc. Raising the bar on training benefits our specialty in several ways.. 5/7

1) It's better for patients. Do you want your 24 yo daughter with bulky early stage HL seeing someone for RT who never did it in training? 2) It keeps pace with our allies in surgical specialties. 3) It will help weed out programs that don't have the volume req for training. 6/7

This is something we can do as a community. We could determine mins and submit them to the ACGME as a recommendation for discussion/negotiation. Let's raise the bar. Thoughts? 7/7