This paper outlines the New Zealand (NZ) responses to the biennial facilities surveys of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR), Faculty of Radiation Oncology (FRO) from 2011 to 2019.

AIM:This paper outlines the results of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) Faculty of Radiation Oncology (FRO) 2018 workforce census. Here we report the responses of New Zealand radiation oncologists and trainees in order to understand characteristics of the New Zealand radiation oncology workforce.METHOD:The workforce census was conducted online during July-September 2018. Distribution was by Survey Monkey to all radiation oncologists (fellows, life members, educational affiliates, retired) and trainees on the RANZCR membership database, including members from Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. All responses were aggregated for analysis. This paper addresses only responses from New Zealand members. The census was designed to explore issues relevant to the New Zealand workforce, and questions from previous workforce censuses were repeated in order to monitor trends.RESULTS:The response rate for New Zealand radiation oncologists was 73.3% (44/60). The majority (67%) were male. The average age was 50.8 years. Three-fifths (59.5%) reported New Zealand ethnicity. One-third obtained their specialist qualifications outside of Australia and New Zealand. Most worked in the public sector only (63.4%), with only two in exclusive private practice. Most radiation oncologists attained a consultant post immediately on completion of training, but there were 26 who pursued an overseas fellowship. Most worked one full-time equivalent or greater (FTE), with 17.5% working less than 1.0 FTE. Radiation oncologists reported working a median of 50.0 hours per week, with half working over 10 hours above their contracted hours. Most time was spent on clinical duties with minimal time spent on research. Radiation oncologists reported seeing an average of 235 new patients per year (median: 230). Leadership positions were held by 21/43 respondents. Within 15 years, 55% of the current workforce reported an intention to retire, including 30% of those currently practising highly specialised brachytherapy. Females in the workforce were less likely to work fulltime and spent less time in research and management activities. All trainees reported full-time work, although 50% expressed a desire for part-time training. Half of the trainees reported working 6-10 hours on call, and 60% reported two or less hours of protected teaching per week. Despite this, 90% of trainees were satisfied with their career choice.CONCLUSIONS:Radiation oncology is a small specialty in New Zealand, with a significant reliance on overseas-trained specialists. The specialty continues to work significant overtime hours while time spent on research and non-clinical duties remains low. The growth in staffing between the 2014 and 2018 census has been low. Trainee numbers do not appear sufficient to meet the demand for replacing staff, due to retirements and the reduction of hours. Radiation intervention rates are low in New Zealand, but growth would be reliant on an expansion of the workforce beyond simply replacing staff losses. The radiation oncology workforce in New Zealand remains vulnerable, and careful consideration must be given to expansion and retention to ensure a viable workforce for the future.

INTRODUCTION:The need to measure reporting workload in teaching departments remains a current pertinent need. In Australia, the Pitman-Jones reporting RVUs have been in the public domain since 2003 (revised in 2009). These are expressed in arbitrary units. In New Zealand, single-site Christchurch Hospital reporting times have been validated and placed in the public domain. Concurrently, the RANZCR has been developing a formulaic descriptor lexicon for imaging studies (the Body System Framework). There is a need to bring these three strands of work together into a common public resource. In 2015, under the auspices of the Chief Accreditation Officer, RANZCR convened the Radiologist Workload Working Group. The goal of the group was to develop a robust method of measuring radiologist workload in teaching departments in Australia and New Zealand for the RANZCR accreditation processes of teaching departments as training sites. This paper concerns itself with one aspect of the group's work, namely reaching a consensus on radiologist study ascribable times for common imaging studies.METHOD:The BSF examination descriptors were reduced to a smaller, generic dataset of descriptors at the expense of loss of specificity. BSF study ascribable times had been previously obtained by stopwatch observation. The dataset was harmonized with the Christchurch descriptors to ensure commonality of case mix. The two lead authors reached an approximate consensus study ascribable time for each descriptor in agreement with the BSF and Christchurch data. Specifically, the Christchurch reporting times were relied on extensively to validate the new dataset's study ascribable times. The first draft of descriptors and times was tabled at the meetings of the RANZCR Radiologist Workload Working Group, and was progressively refined by iterative consensus.RESULTS:The output of the Radiologist Workload Working Group comprises a simplified modality-based table of robust descriptors and 'best estimate' corresponding study ascribable times. These can be used with the extant Pitman-Jones methodology in order to estimate the reporting workload of a medical imaging teaching department in units of time. As a first for Australia and New Zealand, nuclear medicine and PET study ascribable times have been incorporated and balanced against radiology study ascribable times.CONCLUSION:The RANZCR 2016 study ascribable times are ready for use by the Australian and New Zealand radiologist and nuclear medicine specialist community. We hope these times will also stimulate further data collection in our two countries towards a robust, bi-national study ascribable times database.

INTRODUCTION:The aims of this study were to measure: (i) the growth in after-hours emergency department--referred CT (ED-CT) performed in accredited training departments between 2011 and 2013; (ii) the growth in ED CT relative to growth in ED presentations at the same hospitals; and (iii) trainee workload resulting from after-hours ED CT.METHODS:Ethics approval was obtained for all participating sites. Accredited training facilities in Australia and New Zealand with three or more trainees and serving one or more EDs were invited to participate (N = 32). Four nights were surveyed between August and December 2013. For data collection, the number of ED patients having one or more CT scans; ED CT scan total images; non-contrast head CTs; and ED patients (total and categories 1 and 2) attending the ED in the preceding 24 h and first half of calendar year were collected for 2013 and corresponding days in 2012 and 2011. Trainee staffing levels were measured.RESULTS:Eleven of 32 sites provided data for all four nights and 14 of 32 for one or more nights. A 15.7% increase in number of ED CTs between 1700 and 2200 h and 16.8% increase between 2201 and 0730 h occurred in the 2 years between 2011 and 2013 compared with a 6.9% increase in overall ED and 26% increase in categories 1 and 2 presentations over the same period. The number of CT images, however, increased 23%.CONCLUSION:Growth in demand by EDs for after-hours CT services has implications for service provision and trainee workloads in Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists-accredited training departments.

AIM:This paper outlines the key results of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) Faculty of Radiation Oncology (FRO) 2014 workforce census, and compares the results of New Zealand and Australian responses in order to identify similarities and differences in workforce characteristics.METHODS:The workforce census was conducted online in mid-2014. The census was distributed to all radiation oncologists (Fellows, life members, educational affiliates, retired) and radiation oncology trainees on the RANZCR membership database. Six weekly reminders were sent to non-respondents and all responses were aggregated for analysis. This paper addresses only consultant radiation oncologist responses.RESULTS:The combined response rate for New Zealand radiation oncologists was 85.7% (compared with 76% from Australian respondents). The census found that the demographic characteristics of New Zealand and Australian radiation oncologists are similar. Points of difference include (i) the role of educational affiliates in New Zealand, (ii) New Zealand radiation oncologists reporting higher hours spent at work, (iii) New Zealand radiation oncologists spending a higher proportion of time on clinical duties, (iv) A lower proportion of New Zealand radiation oncologists with higher degrees, and (v) private/ public workplace mix.CONCLUSION:A comparison by country would suggest that there are many similarities, but also some important differences that may affect workforce issues in New Zealand. Separate datasets are useful for RANZCR to better inform members, governments and other key stakeholders in each country. Separate datasets also provide a basis for comparison with future surveys to facilitate the monitoring of trends.

INTRODUCTION:This paper reports the key findings of the Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2014 workforce census and compares the results with earlier surveys.METHODS:The census was conducted in mid-2014 with distribution to all radiation oncologists, educational affiliates and trainees listed on the college database. There were six email reminders and responses were anonymous. The overall response rate was 76.1%.RESULTS:The age range of fellows was 32-96 (mean = 49 years, median = 47 years). The majority of the radiation oncologists were male (n = 263, 63%). The minority of radiation oncologists were of Asian descent (n = 43, 13.4%). Radiation oncologists graduated from medical school on average 23 years ago (median = 22 years). A minority of fellows (n = 66, 20%) held another postgraduate qualification. Most radiation oncologists worked, on average, at two practices (median = 2, range 1-7). Practising radiation oncologists worked predominantly in the public sector (n = 131, 49%), but many worked in both the public and private sectors (n = 94, 37%), and a minority worked in the private sector only (n = 38, 14%). The largest proportion of the workforce was from New South Wales accounting for 29% of radiation oncologists. Radiation oncologists worked an average of 43 h/week (median = 43 h, range 6-80). Radiation oncologists who worked in the private sector worked less hours than their public sector or public/private sector colleagues. (38.3 vs. 42.9 vs. 44.3 h, P = 0.042). Victorians worked the fewest average hours per week at 38 h and West Australians the most at 46 h/week. Radiation oncologists averaged 48 min for each new case, 17 min per follow up and 11 min for a treatment review. Radiation oncologists averaged 246 new patients per year (median = 250, range = 20-600) with men (average = 268), Western Australians (average = 354) and those in private practice seeing more (average = 275). Most radiation oncologists considered themselves as specialists (n = 151, 60%), but nearly all those from South Australia were generalists (n = 15, 94%) as were three-quarters of those from private practice. A minority of radiation oncologist respondents (10%) intended to retire within 5 years with a further 16% within 10 years.There was a stabilisation of trainee numbers in Australia and New Zealand with no increase compared with 2010 (142 in 2014 vs. 143 in 2010). The most common age bracket for trainees remained 31-35 years. One-third of trainees were of Asian descent and nearly half held other degrees. The majority of trainees were satisfied with their career, but 30% were not entirely satisfied. Nearly half of trainee respondents would have reconsidered their choice of specialty had they known about the possible oversupply in the workforce with 12.4% undecided about continuing their career in radiation oncology. There were still 16% of trainees with no protected time during the working week, and a further 21% with only 1 h. Only one trainee respondent preferred to work in private practice, and job availability remained a concern for 89% of respondents.CONCLUSIONS:The radiation oncologist workforce numbers have increased at a much slower rate, and unemployment remained low. Many parameters remained similar to the 2010 survey. However, there has been a decrease in the average number of new patients seen per year, working hours and also a slight decrease in the time spent per new patient. The trainee numbers have stabilised, but job availability remained a concern. A significant proportion of trainees were not satisfied with their career.

INTRODUCTION:The aim of this study was to determine the self-reported prevalence of stress, job satisfaction and burnout among radiation oncologists in Australia and New Zealand. A secondary aim was to determine the association between stress and satisfaction parameters with burnout.METHODS:An anonymous online survey was distributed to all radiation oncologists listed on Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists membership database. There were 37 Likert scale questions on stress, 17 Likert scale questions on job satisfaction and burnout assessed by the Maslach Burnout Inventory - Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS). A principal component analysis was done for stress and satisfaction to identify specific areas. Independent samples t-tests and analysis of variances were done.RESULTS:There were 220 responses out of 348 eligible respondents (63.2% response rate).For stress, a principal component analysis identified five areas: delivery demands, demands on time, continuing professional development (CPD), value and security, and interpersonal/teaching demands. Specialist radiation oncologists were more stressed by value and security than generalists (P < 0.01). Lung cancer specialists had higher levels of stress associated with delivery demands, demands on time and CPD compared with others (P = 0.01). Those over 60 years were less stressed by delivery demands (P = 0.02), demands on time (P = 0.01) and CPD (P = 0.01) than their younger colleagues. Four satisfaction factors were identified in the principal component analysis: resources/remuneration, status/security, delivery of services and professional activities. [Correction added on 15 August 2014, after first online publication: stress/security was replaced with status/security.] Males and Australian radiation oncologists were more satisfied with professional activities (P = 0.02). Brachytherapy specialists were more satisfied with status/security (P = 0.01) while those interested in urology were more satisfied with resources/renumeration (P = 0.01) and professional activities (P = 0.01). The burnout results revealed at least 48.5% of respondents scoring highly in at least one of the three measures of burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and personal accomplishment) while 37.5% scoring highly in the emotional exhaustion and depersonalisation subscales. Public sector radiation oncologists had higher levels of emotional exhaustion and lower levels of personal accomplishment than their private sector counterparts, while those interested in lung cancer had higher levels of emotional exhaustion. Multiple regression analysis revealed that the stress subscale demands on time had a significant effect on emotional exhaustion. Higher CPD stress and interpersonal/teaching demands increased the feeling of depersonalisation, while satisfaction with delivery of services was associated with lower levels of depersonalisation and higher levels of personal accomplishment.CONCLUSIONS:This first study of stress, satisfaction and burnout among radiation oncologists in Australia and New Zealand had a reasonable response rate and identified specific areas of stress and satisfaction. Nearly half of the respondents scored highly in one burnout subscale. Some of the stress and satisfaction subscales correlated with certain aspects of burnout. Further research will be undertaken to refine the stress and satisfaction parameters and address burnout interventions.

INTRODUCTION:This paper reports the key findings of the first Faculty of Radiation Oncology survey of trainees dealing with experiences and perceptions on work practices and choice of specialty.METHODS:The survey was conducted in mid 2012 using a 37-question instrument. This was distributed by email to 159 current trainees and advertised through the Radiation Oncology Trainees Committee and other channels. There were six email reminders. Respondents were reassured that their responses were anonymous.RESULTS:The overall response rate was 82.8%. Gender was balanced among respondents with 67 (51.5%) being male and 63 (48.5%) being female. The most common age bracket was the 31 to 35 years range. There were similar proportions of trainee responders in each of the five years of training. A substantial number of trainees held other degrees besides medical degrees. The large majority were satisfied with radiation oncology as a career choice and with the Training Network within which they were training. Interest in oncology patients, lifestyle after training and work hours were given as the major reasons for choosing radiation oncology as a career. Nearly half of trainees were interested in undertaking some of their training in a part-time capacity and working part time as a radiation oncologist in the future. Over 70% of trainees stated they were working 36-55 clinical hours per week with additional non-clinical tasks, after-hours work and on-call duties. Nearly half of all trainees reported having one or less hours of protected time per week. Nonetheless, 40% of respondents indicated they had enough time to pursue outside interests. Radiation treatment planning and maintaining currency in general medicine were considered the most difficult aspects of training in radiation oncology. Most respondents were keen on the concept of fostering a research mentor. In terms of views on practice after completion of training, the majority were interested in pursuing a fellowship, and nearly all expressed an interest in maintaining an element of academic practice. The large majority of respondents preferred to work in an urban department as a component of their practice after training and nearly all wanted a component of public sector practice. There were only four per cent who preferred to work only within the private sector. Job availability was a concern for 94% of trainees, which far outweighed any other concerns.CONCLUSIONS:Trainees in radiation oncology are generally satisfied with their choice of specialty and their training. Most trainees are interested in fellowship positions, links with academia and largely public sector work in the future. Job availability for the future is their major concern.