Training an alternate oncology workforce: Attendee feedback.

e13521 Background: Access to cancer care remains a significant challenge. The lack of skilled personnel is a major hindrance. An innovative district cancer care model was launched with the intention of delivering cancer care at the district level using a basic-level medical officer. The program has been functional since then and has been extended to more than 200 districts in eight states of India. This is one of the longest-standing, multiply-reviewed experiments on empowerment and uses of the alternate oncology workforce. This unique model undermines the importance of short-term training and continued mentorship. This data reviews the feedback from the training. Methods: The model of empowerment and delivery involves training medical officers over a 4-week period and two weeks for nursing personnel. The educational model is based on the teaching basics of oncology, how to review medical data, and how to create a medical history of cancer. The training involved basic communication skills and the basics of performing chemotherapy. A short duration was designed to make the program acceptable, and data from the pre- and post-education surveys were analyzed. From eight states in India, 290 physicians and 550 nurses provided training from 2014 to 2024. The training period was one day for physicians and 15 days for nurses. Batch sizes varied between 15-20 physicians. Physicians from 198 districts in India underwent training. Results: Physicians with basic medical qualifications (not specialized) were sent by various state departments for three weeks to a tertiary oncology center and one week to a state-owned government hospital with a cancer ward created for this program headed by a non-oncologist. Nurses with basic qualifications were sent for two weeks of training to a state-owned district hospital, which included basic oncology skills, communication skills, summarizing cancer patient reports, and communicating with a tumor board. A feedback survey was conducted at the end of the training. The usefulness and necessity of the training were accepted by all participants. Attendess felt that the time was sufficient, but 15 % desired that the training could have been longer, with 96 % finding the topics to be adequately covered. Some of the shortcomings reported were non-distribution of the printed modules by 5%, one month as short duration by 20%, and 10% expected more clinical exposure. The majority (98%) found training to be very effective at an easily plausible communication level. All attendees were told that such training should be organized and, if needed, that they would be happy to attend thanks to its interaction level. Conclusions: A short oncology training module can be created to train an alternate oncology workforce. The continuity of the model for a prolonged period confers its sustainability and replicability. It enjoys a high level of acceptance among physicians and stakeholders. This appears to be the shortest solution for improving access to cancer.