ArticleCureus2025
Enhancing Resident Doctors' Preparedness and Confidence in Oncology Through a Practical Handbook.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim The aim of this quality improvement project (QIP) was to enhance the preparedness and confidence of resident doctors starting their oncology rotation at Royal Stoke University Hospital through the creation of a targeted, practical oncology handbook. Methods The QIP was designed using the Model for Improvement framework: Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA). A baseline survey was conducted among resident doctors during their oncology placement to assess their confidence in recognizing oncological emergencies, managing common oncological problems, and accessing resources to support them during the rotation. Feedback highlighted the need for a departmental oncology handbook covering these essential topics. The Oncology Handbook was subsequently developed and distributed in both print and digital formats. Its impact was evaluated through a post-intervention survey. Results Baseline survey responses from resident doctors (n = 5) revealed low confidence, with no respondents reporting being "fairly confident" or "very confident" in recognizing oncological emergencies or in investigating and managing any of the six surveyed oncology presentations. Confidence in locating resources was also low, with 40% reporting "not confident" and 40% reporting "somewhat confident." Following the introduction of the Oncology Handbook, confidence improved substantially across all domains: 100% of respondents reported being either "very confident" or "fairly confident" in recognizing and managing core oncology presentations. In addition, 100% felt "very confident" about finding resources and guidelines for oncology, and 100% of respondents "strongly agreed" that the Oncology Handbook was useful. Qualitative feedback described the resource as "clear," "practical," and "invaluable during on-calls." Conclusions A targeted, trainee-led intervention in the form of the Oncology Handbook significantly improved preparedness and confidence among resident doctors starting their oncology rotation. Integration into the formal induction program and establishing a process for regular updates are key next steps to sustain its impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.