Marcelino Hermida López

#ÚltimaHora 🔴 Una narcolancha embiste a una patrullera de Aduanas durante una persecución en Almería #Echobox=1778841495" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">elmundo.es/andalucia/2026…

#ÚltimaHora 🔴 La fiscal general ordena al fiscal Luzón no rebajar más la pena de Aldama pese a su colaboración #Echobox=1777909897" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">elmundo.es/espana/2026/05…

La IA desafía el modelo educativo: "Si una máquina puede sintetizar años de información en segundos, enseñar no puede consistir en transferir contenidos" #Echobox=1777658069" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">elmundo.es/ciencia-y-salu…

Did you read get a chance to read one of our latest on 🧒🏽resident versus 👩🏽‍⚕️faculty 💭perceptions of treatment planning review🖥️ by @RachelJimenezMD & team? advancesradonc.org/article/S2452-… Once you read it 👆🏽, check out the editorial 👇🏽by our #MedEd expert @d_golden! Part 1️⃣: 🚀Congrats to Boyd et al on an important study examining how radiation oncology trainees learn radiation treatment plan (RTP) evaluation in the US. This is core competency work—and long overdue. 👏 📊 Study design: Survey of residents + faculty at 14 ACGME-accredited hashtag#radonc programs about RTP evaluation education. Survey included: ✅ multiple choice ✅ Likert responses ✅ free-text responses 📬 Survey distribution: 👩‍⚕️ 169 residents 👨‍🏫 79 faculty Response rates: 📌 Residents: 43% 📌 Faculty: 28% For this population, that’s a reasonable response rate. ⭐ Key finding: Residents report substantially less RTP education than faculty report providing. 56% of residents felt they had inadequate exposure to RTP review. Yet… 🧠 85% of faculty reported reviewing ≥50% of treatment plans with residents. That’s a striking discrepancy. 🧑‍⚕️ Important nuance: PGY5s report adequate exposure (as shown in Figure 1). So exposure may improve with seniority—but the earlier years matter too. 🧠Competency perceptions diverged as well: More than half of residents did not feel competent in RTP evaluation vs ~90% of faculty felt residents were competent That gap matters for training confidence and readiness🏃🏽‍♀️. 🧩 This isn’t unique to radonc. Similar “learners report less teaching than teachers report delivering” patterns exist across education research. This is often called a “perception gap.” Why does the perception gap happen❓ Because learners don’t always experience certain activities as “teaching,” even if educators believe they are teaching in the moment. 🔥 Key concept: Feeling of learning ≠ actual learning. Students may feel they’re not learning during active engagement—even when measurable learning improves. So subjective impressions must be interpreted cautiously. Boyd et al also identified common barriers to RTP evaluation: ⏰ time constraints 📅 schedule misalignment 📈 competing clinical demands 😐 lack of interest (either party) Classic “education vs workflow” collision. Some barriers are fixable with intentionality. Example: Faculty can set aside protected RTP review time daily/weekly. Even if a plan is already approved, reviewing it still has huge educational value. ⚠️ As with all survey studies, bias is a risk: 📌 Response bias: - Residents who feel undertaught may be more likely to respond - Faculty who value teaching may also be more likely to respond Another important limitation: social desirability bias. Faculty may feel pressure to report higher teaching engagement because “good educators teach.” This could inflate reported teaching frequency. So what can we do with these findings? 🚨First: teaching & learning is a two-way street. Faculty should be explicit about when they are teaching RTP evaluation—not just doing it. Example: Running into dosimetry, quickly reviewing a plan, then sprinting out 🏃‍♂️. …may not register as teaching to a resident. But simply reframing can change everything. Try saying: 🗣️“Let’s take 2 minutes to review this plan and discuss how we approach it.” Same activity. Totally different educational signal. ✅ Structure helps. Faculty are encouraged to use a rubric-based verbal framework (ex: FCB-CHOPS) to guide consistent plan review teaching. Consistency builds pattern recognition. Why rubrics work: 1️⃣When residents repeatedly hear a structured process, they internalize it. 2️⃣Over time they develop their own mental checklist for RTP evaluation. That translates into: 📌 competence 📌 confidence 📌 independence 🛑But it’s not all on faculty. Residents: you can also proactively engage educators. Ask for structured review: ☑️“Can we quickly walk through this plan using the rubric?” (Respectfully… and preferably not while your attending is juggling 17 fires 🔥) Residents should also seek other expert educators: 💡 dosimetrists 💡 physicists Many are thrilled to teach—and often have unique perspectives on plan quality and tradeoffs. 🎯 Bottom line: Boyd et al highlight that RTP evaluation—an essential residency skill—may be undertaught or under-recognized as being taught in many programs. Take-home message for 👩🏽‍⚕️faculty: ✅ Engage residents in plan review intentionally ✅ Label teaching explicitly ✅ Use structured frameworks consistently Take-home message for 🧒🏽residents: ✅ Be proactive ✅ Request structured review ✅ Learn from the entire team (physics/dosimetry included) 👏 Overall: Important study + actionable implications. If we want confident independent attendings, we need deliberate, visible, consistent RTP evaluation education—starting early. #RadOnc #MedEd #ResidencyTraining #RadiationOncology @ASTRO_org

When you start a chess game, you have 20 possible moves available. After the first full move (White then Black), there are already over 400 possible positions. By the third move, that number jumps to around 8,900, and after the fourth it reaches nearly 200,000. By the time you get to move #40, the total number of possible games explodes to roughly 10⁴⁰, a number comparable to the total number of atoms in the observable universe.