Training activity information
Details
Prepare a range of interpretative reports for:
- Lung tumours
Type
Entrustable training activity (ETA)
Evidence requirements
Evidence the activity has been undertaken by the trainee repeatedly, consistently, and effectively over time, in a range of situations. This may include occasions where the trainee has not successfully achieved the outcome of the activity themselves. For example, because it was not appropriate to undertake the task in the circumstances or the trainees recognised their own limitations and sought help or advice to ensure the activity reached an appropriate conclusion.
Reflection at multiple timepoints on the trainee learning journey for this activity.
Considerations
- Local procedures for reporting
- Recommendations for follow up or further testing
- Follow up testing strategies
- Scientific and clinical terminology, including nomenclature
- Communication of complex scientific information to the multidisciplinary team
- Best practice guidelines for reporting
- Recommendations for patient treatment and management, including approved therapeutics relevant to genomics findings, and clinical trials
Reflective practice guidance
The guidance below is provided to support reflection at different time points, providing you with questions to aid you to reflect for this training activity. They are provided for guidance and should not be considered as a mandatory checklist. Trainees should not be expected to provide answers to each of the guidance questions listed.
Before action
What does success look like?
- Identify what is expected of you in relation to preparing a successful interpretative report for lung tumours.
- Consider how the learning outcomes apply, specifically in relation to analyse, interpret and prepare reports of clinically relevant findings and practice with relevant specialties, contribute to MDT.
- Discuss with your training officer to gain clarity of what is expected of you in relation to expectations for report structure, terminology, and content.
What is your prior experience of this activity?
- Think about what you already know about reporting standards, required content for lung tumour reports (e.g., specific gene alterations), and presenting findings concisely.
- Consider possible challenges you might face during the activity, such as conveying complex genomic information clearly or interpreting variants of unknown significance and think about how you might handle them.
- Recognise the scope of your own practice for this activity i.e. know when you will need to seek advice or help, and from whom. You will need to seek advice from your Training Officer when required, for example if integrating prognostic data that conflicts with the clinical history or requires specialist therapeutic context.
- Acknowledge how you feel about preparing interpretative reports for lung tumours.
What do you anticipate you will learn from the experience?
- Consider the specific skills you want to develop, such as structuring and writing comprehensive and clinically useful reports for lung cancer cases.
- Identify the specific insights you hope to gain into the information needs of clinicians and the importance of integrating genomic findings into patient care pathways.
What additional considerations do you need to make?
- Consult actions identified following previous experiences of report writing.
- Identify important information you need to consider before embarking on the activity, such as relevant reporting guidelines, template reports, and the specific clinical context of the patient.
In action
Is anything unexpected occurring?
- Are you noticing anything surprising or different from what you anticipate whilst preparing a report for a lung tumour case?
- Are you encountering situations such as:
- Difficulty integrating complex data (e.g., multiple concurrent variants and copy number changes) into a concise report summary?
- Uncertainty about the clinical significance or appropriate therapeutic recommendation for a specific variant?
- Challenges in phrasing the interpretation clearly to meet the needs of the Multidisciplinary Team (MDT)?
How are you reacting to the unexpected development?
- How is this impacting your actions? For example, are you responding to the situation appropriately? Did you adapt your writing style or seek immediate clarification?
- Consider the steps you are taking in the moment, such as immediately consulting departmental terminology guides to ensure standardised nomenclature is used or revising the interpretive summary to simplify complex genomic concepts.
- How are you feeling in that moment? For instance, did it impact your ability to draft the report independently or your confidence in the clinical message? Are you finding it difficult to adapt your approach?
What is the conclusion or outcome?
- Identify how you are working within your scope of practice. For example, are you successfully simplifying the complex genomic information into actionable therapeutic statements? Or are you needing support because the clinical significance of a rare variant requires specialist review before inclusion in the final interpretation?
- What are you learning as a result of the unexpected development? For example, are you gaining insight into the critical need for concise reporting language for lung tumours?
On action
What happened?
- Begin by summarising the key steps you took when preparing the interpretative report(s) for the lung tumour case(s).
- Consider specific events, actions, or interactions which felt important, such as how you ensured the report structure met the needs of the Multidisciplinary Team (MDT), or how you phrased the final conclusion regarding the therapeutic implications of the findings.
- Include any ‘reflect-in-action’ moments where you had to adapt to the situation as it unfolded, for instance, immediately revising the language used in the interpretive summary to ensure the recommended therapeutic nomenclature aligned with the current national guidance for lung cancer.
- How did you feel during this experience, e.g., did you feel focused on ensuring the report was clinically actionable or challenged by the necessity of translating complex genomic findings into concise clinical language?
How has this experience contributed to your developing practice?
- Identify what learning you can take from this experience regarding report preparation. What strengths did you demonstrate, e.g., clear communication of factual results and efficient use of standardised report templates?
- What skills and/or knowledge gaps were evident, e.g., unfamiliarity with the specific phrasing required for reporting predictive biomarkers in lung cancer?
- Compare this experience against previous engagement with similar activities – were any previously identified actions for development achieved? Has your practice improved in ensuring the report’s conclusion is unambiguous for the referring specialist?
- Identify any challenges you experienced, such as needing to seek advice or clarification on scope of practice regarding the inclusion of novel or non-standard therapeutic recommendations, and how you reacted to this.
What will you take from the experience moving forward?
- Identify the actions or ‘next steps’ you will now take to support the assimilation of what you have learnt, including from any feedback you have received, with regards to improving the clarity and clinical utility of interpretative reports for lung tumours.
- What will you do differently next time you approach drafting a lung tumour report, for instance, by proactively reviewing MDT feedback on previous reports to standardize interpretive language?
- Do you need to practise any aspect of the activity further, such as reviewing the specific reporting standards for lung cancer genomic findings or key learning outcomes related to effective communication with relevant specialties?
Beyond action
Have you revisited the experiences?
- How have your subsequent experiences of preparing interpretative reports for lung tumours since completing this specific training activity led you to revisit your initial approach or decisions during that activity? For example, how a subsequent case requiring prognostic phrasing based on specific resistance mechanisms forced you to re-evaluate the conciseness and clinical relevance of your interpretive summary you applied during your first attempt at this training activity?
- Considering what you understand about reporting standards, clear communication, and clinical impact now, were the actions or considerations you identified after your initial reflection on this training activity sufficient? How have you since implemented or adapted improvements in your report writing structure and use of standardised nomenclature based on further learning and experiences? For example, how you proactively integrated specific terminology for reporting therapeutic recommendations (e.g., specific kinase inhibitors), demonstrating you have adapted improvements based on further learning?
- Has discussing reports where the clinical message was ambiguous or the importance of contributing effectively to MDT meetings with colleagues, peers, or supervisors changed how you now view your initial experience in this training activity? For example, how professional storytelling with a clinician about a report where unclear phrasing led to initial confusion regarding treatment strategy refined your understanding of the critical nature of clear, actionable reporting conclusions?
How have these experiences impacted upon current practice?
- How has the learning from this initial training activity, in combination with subsequent experiences, contributed to your overall confidence and competence in preparing interpretative reports for lung tumours, particularly in preparing for assessments like producing diagnostic clinical reports? For example, how your accumulated ability in synthesising complex genomic data into clear conclusions now enables you to confidently produce and defend a diagnostic clinical report?
- How has reflecting back on this specific training activity, combined with everything you’ve learned since, shaped your current approach to lung tumour reporting? How does this evolved understanding help you identify when something is beyond your scope of practice or requires escalation? For example, how your evolved approach means you now routinely seek advice immediately when required to include novel therapeutic recommendations that are not yet standard of care?
- Looking holistically at your training journey, how has this initial experience, revisited with your current perspective, contributed to your development in analysing, interpreting, and preparing reports of clinically relevant findings and practicing with relevant specialties?
Relevant learning outcomes
| # | Outcome |
|---|---|
| # 2 |
Outcome
Analyse, interpret and prepare interpretive reports of clinically relevant findings for patients with lung, central nervous system (CNS), sarcoma tumours, and somatic and germline variants in ovarian and breast cancer. |
| # 8 |
Outcome
Practice with relevant specialties for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients, and contribute to multidisciplinary team meetings. |