Radiation therapists' perceptions of participating in Professional Supervision – a pilot study

Abstract

Introduction

Professional Supervision (PS) is a common approach used to reduce the fallout from stress and burnout. It involves monthly face‐to‐face meetings between a supervisor and supervisee to address well‐being and professional goals. This pilot study examines 12 radiation therapists (RTs) perceptions of participating in PS.

Methods

Conducted in the Christchurch Radiation Oncology Centre, this mixed‐methods pilot study introduced PS in March 2022. In August 2023, 12 RTs completed a QUALTRICS online questionnaire consisting of 33 questions, including the Supervisor Working Alliance Inventory (SWAI). The SWAI assessed the alliance of supervision from a supervisee's perspective and comprised of 19 questions on a 7‐point Likert scale and nine yes/no statements with optional comments. Five demographic questions were also included.

Results

All 12 RTs completed the questionnaire, with quantitative results indicating a positive alliance between supervisors and supervisees. RTs found PS to be a safe and comfortable space for reflective practice and support. Thematic analysis of qualitative data from additional comments revealed PS enabled RTs to reflect on career achievements, appreciate highlights of being an RT and consider future career paths within the profession.

Conclusions

Radiation therapists responded positively to PS, suggesting its potential in managing workplace stressors, promoting career advancement and providing dedicated time for reflection, support and guidance. RTs endorsed the efficacy of PS in enhancing their practice and advocated for its widespread adoption among RTs.

The study explores the efficacy of Professional Supervision (PS) as an intervention for mitigating burnout among radiation therapists (RTs). Twelve participants engaged in monthly face‐to‐face sessions. Conducted at the Christchurch Radiation Oncology Centre, the pilot study utilised a QUALTRICS questionnaire assessing the Supervisor Working Alliance Inventory (SWAI) and qualitative data analysis. Findings indicate a positive alliance between supervisor and supervisee, with RTs expressing appreciation for the reflective space and support provided by PS, suggesting its potential to address workplace stressors and promote professional growth.

Introduction

Several studies indicate that radiation therapists (RTs) are susceptible to burnout. ¹ , ² , ³ The risk of burnout is mainly due to workplace stressors, which include a lack of career progression, treating dying patients, poor coping strategies and working in a sometimes stressful and overwhelming environment. ³ , ⁴ , ⁵ , ⁶

Peer group supervision (PGS) can be an effective way to help healthcare practitioners manage and cope with the stressors they encounter in the workplace environment. ⁷ , ⁸ RTs across five radiation therapy centres in New Zealand trialled PGS in 2017 and 2018. ⁷ The resulting study indicated that PGS may help reduce burnout for RTs in their first 5 years of practice. They perceived PGS as a way to improve patient care and reduce stress, as they felt they could discuss patient‐related matters at the meetings. In contrast, more experienced RTs used the groups as a ‘professional support group’ rather than ‘PGS’ to manage the organisational stressors associated with burnout. These RTs appeared to struggle with the restraints around the process and structure of PGS. ⁷

An alternative to PGS is Professional Supervision (PS). ⁹ PS is a structured process where a qualified professional provides guidance, support and feedback to another professional. It typically involves regular meetings between the supervisor and the supervisee, during which they discuss the supervisee's work, challenges, goals and professional development. The primary purpose of PS is to enhance the quality of the supervisee's work, promote reflective practice, ensure adherence to professional standards and ethics, provide emotional support and facilitate professional growth and learning. It can occur in various settings, including healthcare, education, social work, counselling and other allied health professional domains. ⁹ , ¹⁰ , ¹¹

Professional Supervision aims to create a supportive and constructive environment where the supervisee feels comfortable discussing their experiences, concerns and uncertainties. It often involves exploring cases, discussing ethical dilemmas, skill development and personal development. The supervisor helps the supervisee navigate their professional challenges and responsibilities effectively. ⁹ , ¹¹ Overall, PS can be crucial in promoting professional competence, resilience and well‐being among practitioners while enhancing the quality of services delivered to clients or patients. ⁹ , ¹⁰

In the Christchurch Radiation Oncology Center, in New Zealand, PS was implemented with the aid of an RT who completed a Postgraduate Certificate in Professional Supervision, thereby becoming qualified to facilitate the process for practising RTs. A small group of RTs in this department volunteered to participate in PS. This pilot study aimed to explore these RT's perceptions of participating in PS and to determine if it is a helpful intervention in an RT setting.

Methods

Ethical approval was granted by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee (reference number D23/096). This mixed‐methods pilot study was based in a single oncology centre in New Zealand. The combined use of quantitative and qualitative methods enhances the richness and depth of the study's findings, providing better insight into the participants' perceptions of PS. ¹²

Participants

Starting in March 2022, PS was introduced, and since then, 12 RTs have engaged in the supervision process. RTs volunteered to participate in PS by responding to an internal email invitation sent to the 52 RTs (equivalent to 39.94 FTE) in the oncology centre outlining places available to participate. Initially, eight places were available and filled. The RT trained to facilitate PS was contracted for 5 h/week, hence the limitation to eight RTs. Over time, three RTs resigned and went to other departments, and other RTs filled their places. During the tenure, an extra PS place also became open for an RT to participate, hence why 12 RTs have participated in PS so far, although not all have done so for the same length of time.

Survey development

An online QUALTRICS questionnaire was developed to collect the responses. The questionnaire used the Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory (SWAI) to measure the alliance in supervision from the supervisee's perspective. ¹³ The SWAI includes 19 statements, utilising a 7‐point Likert scale for the participant to select their level of agreement with the statement. This scale ranges from almost never given a score of 1 to almost always given a score of seven ¹³ (Table 1). All these questions were assigned a mandatory field to ensure participants selected their responses before moving on to the next question.

Table 1.

Frequency of occurrence.

Occurrence	Scale
Almost never	1
Rarely	2
Occasionally	3
Sometimes	4
Often	5
Very often	6
Almost always	7

In addition to those nineteen statements, nine more questions were added. These questions comprised of two sections. In the first section, the participant had to select if they agreed or disagreed with the statement (yes or no), which was mandatory for the participant to complete. The second gave participants the option to provide comments or examples of why they had answered yes or no. Writing additional comments under each question was not mandatory to complete the questionnaire.

Lastly, five questions were added to collect participant demographics. This data included gender, ethnicity, years qualified and how long they have participated in PS. In total, there were 33 questions in the QUALTRICS questionnaire.

Survey distribution and collection

All 12 RTs who were having or had undergone PS were invited to participate in a voluntary QUALTRICS questionnaire via email. This email contained a participant information sheet and a link to the online questionnaire. The information sheet explained the research rationale, aims, and methodology. Participants were informed that they could withdraw from the research without being disadvantaged. They were also informed that completing the QUALTRICS questionnaire would be deemed as informed consent.

Participants were advised that the study was anonymous, and best efforts to preserve anonymity would be undertaken in all reports, presentations and publications. However, they were also advised that this could not be fully guaranteed due to the small number of participants. The questionnaire was distributed via an independent administrator in the clinical department, not the researchers or the supervisor, to help minimise the identification of the participants to the two external researchers. Participants were also informed that they could request a copy of the collated project results.

The email containing the questionnaire link was sent to participants in August 2023, and the study closed in November 2023. Participants were sent email reminders to complete the questionnaire. Not all RTs participated in PS for the same length of time. Some RTs joined later due to staff resigning or more places becoming available. This resulted in the study being open for an extended period, allowing the RTs more time to experience PS and thus being able to include them in the study.

Data analysis

All data collected were anonymous, and a study identification code was assigned. The data will be stored electronically for 5 years.

An analysis of the collected data from the SWAI was completed following SWAI guidelines. The scoring was divided into two subscales. The rapport subscale included questions 1 through 11, and the client focused subscale included questions 12–19. The mean of each subscale was calculated to determine how effective the alliances were. Due to the high correlation between the scales, they were also combined to give an overall score of the alliance from the supervisee's perspective. A higher score in each subscale and a higher overall score indicated the most effective alliances. ¹³

A thematic analysis was conducted for the qualitative data. The first step was for the researchers to familiarise themselves with all the participants' comments. The comments were read thoroughly multiple times before conducting the thematic analysis. This ensured that the comments were not unfamiliar to the researchers conducting the analysis. Therefore, it allowed them to focus on identifying key findings when conducting the thematic analysis.

Comments were entered into a separate Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet, and the researchers performed a thematic analysis individually. This initial stage was done individually to minimise interpretation bias. After they had conducted their analysis, they discussed and compared the themes they had discovered. A consensus of the most common emergent themes was reached, identifying four themes.

Results

All 12 RTs that had participated in PS completed the questionnaire, hence a 100% response rate. This cohort of RTs mainly consisted of NZ European females aged between 20 and 45 years who had been qualified for up to 25 years (Table 2). No male RTs volunteered to take part in PS.

Table 2.

Participant characteristics.

Characteristic	No. of RTs (n = 12)
Gender
Male	0
Female	12
Non‐binary/third gender	0
Prefer not to say	0
Other	0
Ethnicity
NZ European	11
Maori	0
Samoan	0
Cook Island Maori	0
Chinese	0
Indian	0
Other	1
Age
20–25 years	2
26–30 years	1
31–35 years	5
36–40 years	2
41–45 years	2
Years qualified
0–5 years	3
6–10 years	3
11–15 years	3
16–20 years	2
20–25 years	1
Time attending PS
0–6 months	5
7–12 months	2
13–18 months	4
19–24 months	1

Findings from the analysis of quantitative data

Table 3 provides the results from the SWAI questionnaire, questions 1–19. The SWAI results were positive, with all the mean scores above 6.1 and the minimum score being 5, except for question 11, ‘In supervision, I am more curious than anxious when discussing difficulties in my job’, which had a minimum score of 3.

Table 3.

Results questions 1–19.

Question no.	Question	Min score	Max score	Mean score	Standard deviation
Rapport
1	I feel comfortable working with my supervisor	6	7	6.8	0.39
2	My supervisor welcomes my explanations about my performance in my workplace	6	7	6.8	0.39
3	My supervisor makes the effort to understand me	6	7	6.9	0.29
4	My supervisor encourages me to talk about my work in ways that are comfortable for me	5	7	6.8	0.62
5	My supervisor is tactful when commenting about my performance	6	7	6.8	0.45
6	My supervisor encourages me to formulate my own interventions within my team	6	7	6.8	0.45
7	My supervisor helps me talk freely in our sessions	5	7	6.8	0.62
8	My supervisor stays in tune with me during Supervision	5	7	6.8	0.62
9	I would feel free to mention to my supervisor any troublesome feelings I might have about them	5	7	6.4	0.79
10	My supervisor treats me like an equal in our supervisory sessions	6	7	6.9	0.29
11	In supervision, I am more curious than anxious when discussing difficulties in my job	3	7	6.1	1.24
Client
12	In supervision, my supervisor places a high priority on understanding the perspective of the team I am working in	6	7	6.8	0.45
13	My supervisor encourages me to take time to understand what my team is saying and doing	6	7	6.8	0.39
14	My supervisor's style is to carefully and systematically consider the material I bring to supervision	6	7	6.7	0.49
15	When correcting my performance errors, my supervisor offers alternative ways of intervening within my team	6	7	6.7	0.49
16	My supervisor helps me to stay on track during our meetings	5	7	6.3	0.78
17	I work with my supervisor on specific goals in the supervisory session	5	7	6.5	0.67
18	My supervisor provides me with feedback on how our sessions are going	5	7	6.3	0.87
19	My supervisor allows me time to reflect and provide feedback on our supervision sessions together	5	7	6.5	0.67

The quantitative results indicate how RTs perceived PS as a safe place to discuss any concerns they faced or recent experiences and felt comfortable doing so. This can be seen in Question 1 (Table 3) as ten RTs selected that they almost always (score of 7) felt comfortable working with their supervisor, and the remaining two selected that they felt this way very often (score of 6). RTs also indicated that their supervisor allowed them time to reflect and provided feedback in their supervision sessions, as question 19, which addressed this aspect, had a mean score of 6.5 (Table 3). All this strongly indicates that PS provided a time for reflective practice and discussion. Finally, the 100% positive response rate from Question 20 revealed that all RTs perceived PS as important enough to continue throughout their career (Table 4).

Table 4.

Results questions 20–28.

Question no.	Question	Yes	No
20	Do you see Professional Supervision as important enough to continue throughout your career?	12	0
21	Do you see Professional Supervision contributing to you pursuing a fulfilling career in Radiation Therapy?	12	0
22	Does Professional Supervision make you feel more valued in your role?	11	1
23	Do you feel Professional Supervision has improved your job satisfaction?	12	0
24	Do you feel that Professional Supervision enables you to be reflective in your practice between the monthly sessions?	12	0
25	Do you trust what you discuss in Professional Supervision is completely confidential?	12	0
26	Do you feel your time for supervision is prioritised and respected by your team?	11	1
27	Do you feel your supervisor prioritises well‐being and helps you develop self‐care strategies?	12	0
28	Is there anything else you want to comment on about participating in Professional Supervision?	11	1

Findings from the thematic analysis of the qualitative data

The analysed qualitative data were collected from questions 20–28 (Table 4).

All 12 RTs provided additional comments for the majority of the nine questions. Comments written under the question asking if there was anything else the participants wanted to comment on about participating in PS; stated how beneficial RTs found PS and how they think it would benefit all RTs or thanked the supervisor and clinical manager for introducing PS as an intervention. However, some comments provided additional insight into the RTs' perceptions of PS.

Four main themes from the RTs comments were identified from the qualitative data.

• Provides guidance and support.

• Aids with career progression, job satisfaction and fulfilment.

• Feeling valued, motivated and validated.

• Being reflective of practice and becoming a better RT.

Provides guidance and support

A recurring theme highlighted by the RTs was that PS offered them the guidance and support they needed in the workplace and that it was sometimes the only place they could find it. It was a place where they could discuss challenging situations and expand their knowledge by having external input on how they could have managed such situations while being a safe space to bring up any other issues. They also found the supervisor very helpful, as they assisted them along their journey, whether to equip them with the tools needed to navigate working in a sometimes demanding profession or dealing with challenging topics. Furthermore, PS provided the support and guidance required by the RTs to an extent that allowed them to exceed their expectations of their role in the department and how much they contributed to the workforce.

I was completely burnt out from the demands of RT and there was no support available to help process or give strategic direction on areas of change. Supervision entirely flipped this narrative, helped to restore career autonomy, and helped me to re‐gain perspective and strategic direction. This should be available to all RT to help navigate and process an incredibly complex and demanding profession. (0–6 months attending PS)

Professional supervision enabled me to reflect upon my own feelings and actions. The support of the supervisor facilitated me to achieve more than I thought I was capable of in my job and increased my fulfilment of my Radiation Therapy career. (13–18 months attending PS)

For me, supervision is a game changer that has influenced my sustainability in a fast paced, complex and challenging environment. I think given the nature of our roles and the daily pressures we face, this should be a mandatory part of our service to allow for the development of safe practitioners, improve issues with burnout in the workforce and to ultimately ensure that patients are met by healthy and holistic practitioners that ensures patient well‐being is met and remains at the forefront of care. Burnout practitioners lose the ability to deliver health care in this manner due to significant compassion fatigue, so if we can continue to operate a restorative and reflective model for staff through supervision, then our patients, their families and our service wins. (0–6 months attending PS)

Aids with career progression, job satisfaction and fulfilment

Similarly, the RTs found that PS aided their career progression and helped them to become better practitioners. It provided RTs with the opportunity to be able to reflect on their career achievements and the highlights of being an RT, which ultimately allowed them to have greater career fulfilment and satisfaction with the role they have in people's lives and as part of the team they are in. They found this valuable, and it helped them rediscover why they became an RT and again find that passion and satisfaction in their role. For some RTs, undergoing PS allowed them to consider a future within the profession and stop the search for jobs outside of the field.

Professional supervision enabled me to have huge positive growth in my career. For that reason, I think it is incredibly important to continue. (13–18 months attending PS)

It has helped me to re‐establish goals, re‐determined a new career directory, and helped me remember the “why” behind why I became an RT in the first place to relight this passion and help me to feel satisfied within my career. Without this, I honestly don't think I would have stayed in Radiation Oncology for much longer as I was exploring jobs outside of RT. I have now stopped this search and instead have reimagined how I can extend my training and improve oncology services internally. (0–6 months attending PS)

Feeling valued, motivated and validated

Radiation therapists also expressed how PS allowed them to feel valued, which could sometimes be forgotten when overwhelmed or overworked. It provided RTs with the tools to face new challenges and find the motivation to do so. It was also mentioned that due to the busy workplace environment, staff may sometimes not feel appreciated or lack affirmation and encouragement, but PS has been able to provide that. It has been a place in which RTs have felt understood and validated, giving them renewed motivation to keep growing in their career and setting new goals, ultimately allowing them that internal satisfaction.

Immensely!!! My internal voice has changed from a daily pattern of survival, “just get through today; keep your head low and make it to 4:30 pm”‐ to thriving again, to reimagining change, to seeking the best for my team, students and patients. To giving my all and to seeing the wins no matter how small. It has given me the gift of clarity, perspective and reinstated the ability to dream and goal set and it feels immensely satisfying! (0–6 months attending PS)

Having external validation for my efforts and work was in a genuine way, very special. Sometimes this is only achieved by stepping back, and you lose sight of this, especially when feeling overwhelmed or overworked. (13–18 months attending PS)

In an environment that lacks affirmation, appreciation and encouragement, supervision has made me feel more valued within my profession than what I ever have felt in my 10 years as an RT. I have struggled in performance reviews to never have feedback or areas of growth or development given, however supervision has done just that. It has challenged my professional and personal goals, it has allowed me to examine my strength and weaknesses and allowed me a way to explore how I can continue to grow and develop both as an RT and as an individual and has allowed me to feel validated, seen and understood for the first time as an RT. (0–6 months attending PS)

Being reflective of practice and becoming a better RT

Radiation therapists highlighted how PS allowed them a safe place to reflect and be supported by the supervisor, who offered advice and feedback. It provided a specific time for RTs to reflect on their practice, feelings, and thoughts, and further on to prompt more frequent self‐reflection and for those RTs to advocate for others around them to do so. Having a dedicated time for reflection with the supervisor also allowed for this reflection to be more in‐depth, as the supervisor could ask questions prompting further reflection, allowing the RT to see a different perspective and grow as a practitioner. Lastly, given the reflection carried out in PS and the support and guidance provided, RTs state how this allowed them to improve their practice. It encouraged them to continue growing and setting new goals as they progressed through their career and could also help them exceed their expectations of the practitioners they could be.

I really value that supervision is challenging. My supervisor asks the questions that sometimes I don't want to hear but allows the best reflection, even if uncomfortable, to allow me to change my perspective, to broaden my view and to grow. (0–6 months attending PS)

Supervision has helped me reflect on my practice and also offers an opportunity for structured support and feedback. As we progress through our career and our life our goals and priorities shift. Supervision is a way to help work through these changes. (19–24 months attending PS)

Discussion

This study investigated the perceptions of 12 RTs who participated in PS. The quantitative data in the SWAI questionnaire were reinforced by the qualitative data, indicating how RTs found PS to be a beneficial tool. The RTs expressed that PS allowed them to reflect and grow as professionals, provided them with much‐needed guidance and support, and made them feel valued and motivated. The RTs' positive outlook on PS was shown in their reflective comments for each comment section, allowing for rich data collection and greater insight into their perspectives.

No literature specifically addressing RTs participating in PS was found. However, existing literature has explored the perspectives of supervisees in other healthcare professions regarding PS, indicating its numerous benefits. ¹⁴ , ¹⁵ , ¹⁶ , ¹⁷ , ¹⁸ , ¹⁹ Studies have consistently highlighted the positive impact of PS on practitioners, emphasising its supportive, educational, and quality assurance aspects. ¹⁴ Supervisees have reported finding PS helpful in creating time for self‐reflection and addressing personal issues that may affect their work performance. ¹⁵ Additionally, they noted improvements in confidence, knowledge and skills, particularly in dealing with the psychological distress of oncology patients. ¹⁵ Furthermore, the literature indicates that it provides supervisees with a dedicated place for continuous support and allows them to improve their practice and gain confidence, ¹⁶ thus ultimately increasing the likelihood of improved patient outcomes. ¹⁶ While there is a lack of literature specifically focusing on RTs, the findings from studies involving other healthcare professionals suggest that PS could be similarly beneficial for RTs in enhancing their practice and overall well‐being.

The present study suggests that the Christchurch RTs found PS beneficial, further supporting previous studies' findings. ¹⁴ , ¹⁷ , ¹⁹ The benefits include:

• Enhanced self‐awareness, self‐acceptance, and self‐disclosure through reflective practice.

• Increased feelings of support and personal well‐being.

• Increased knowledge and awareness of solutions.

• Increased self‐development and confidence.

• Decreased emotional strain and burnout.

• Increased motivation and satisfaction with clinical work.

Other benefits also perceived by the RTs in the present study were assistance in dealing with workplace stressors, support in progressing through a career, gaining external validation, considering a future within the profession and having a fulfilling career.

In the present study, the SWAI also had high response scores on the Likert scale, indicating RTs' agreement with the statements in each question and a positive perception of PS. However, for Question 11, this was not the case, as one RT only occasionally felt more curious than anxious when discussing difficulties in their job (score of 3). This brings to light that, in some situations, this may be the case and does not necessarily have a negative connotation. This RT was still very much in favour of PS, felt comfortable disclosing information, and saw the benefits and importance of it being available for all RTs.

While the results from this study are predominantly positive, it's acknowledged that PS could pose risks to supervisees if ineffective, particularly due to weak supervisory relationships. ¹⁷ This underscores the role of establishing a robust supervisory bond for PS to be of benefit. Also, the supervisee and supervisor must actively participate. Jones et al. ¹⁴ discussed how ownership of PS was vital to its success, it being the responsibility of both the supervisor and supervisee, based on their level of commitment and the relationship they formed. Additionally, the supervisee must be willing to disclose information, and the supervisor must offer some self‐disclosure. Knox et al. ²⁰ raised this, as supervisees discussed how supervisor self‐disclosure helped them gain insight, reassure them, and aid in normalising their situation. Thus, it allowed supervision to be more effective, as the supervisee felt a stronger relationship with the supervisor and became more confident in discussing further subjects.

A key insight from this study was the significance of the RTs' trust in the supervisor, enabling them to freely disclose information. Pack ¹⁹ conducted a phenomenological exploration of the meanings of clinical supervision from supervisee and supervisor perspectives. Pack found that supervisees emphasised the importance of supervision as a safe space for discussion. ¹⁹ In Pack's study, the choice of the supervisor was also important to supervisees. ¹⁹ However, in this study, the participants had no choice of supervisor because only one RT was trained in PS. All 12 RTs who participated in PS created a good professional connection with the supervisor, forming a safe trustworthy relationship with them. The 12 RTs did not feel uncomfortable disclosing information to the supervisor; however, a choice of supervisors would be beneficial if more RTs in the centre were interested in participating in PS. In this study, the RTs all volunteered to participate in supervision knowing who the supervisor was, so staff who felt uncomfortable or were friends with the supervisor may have excluded themselves from participating in PS. If there was a choice of supervisor, other staff may also have volunteered.

A study conducted by Dungey et al. ⁷ on PGS found that those newly qualified (within 5 years) focused more on discussing patient‐related stressors, while more experienced RTs focused on organisational‐related stressors. However, this was not the case in the current study. In Dungey et al.'s study, ⁷ newly qualified RTs were also more likely to perceive improvements in their patient care; however, in the present study, neither age nor years qualified influenced the RT's perception. Different perceptions and results in the present study may be due to this supervision being facilitated by a qualified supervisor and being one‐on‐one instead of a group setting, which could, therefore, influence the RT's perspective of PS regardless of their age, years qualified or time attending PS.

The present study shows how PS can be effective if there is trust, self‐disclosure and a mutual relationship between the supervisor and supervisee. For the RTs in the study, it changed how they approached different situations, felt about work and made them consider and think about a future within the field. Based on the positive experiences reported by the RTs with PS, the role of the professional supervisor has been established as a permanent 0.2 FTE position within the Christchurch Radiation Oncology Centre.

Limitations

The data gathered by the questionnaire can be subject to recall bias and the influence of the supervisee's perception from their most recent session with their supervisor. Also, environmental factors such as completing the questionnaire at work or home and being under a time constraint may have influenced RTs' recall and perception of PS.

It is important to note that the findings in this study should not be overly generalised, given that the selective cohort of RTs who participated in this study are all female and mainly NZ European, thus not entirely reflective of the demographics of the NZ RT workforce.

Conclusion

The overall perceptions from the 12 RTs towards PS were positive, prompting the supervisor's role to be made permanent. This study highlights that when RTs are provided with a secure environment that encourages trust and open communication, PS can foster career progression, enhance their confidence, self‐awareness and self‐acceptance, and prompt increased motivation and satisfaction with clinical work. By offering dedicated time for reflection, support, and guidance, PS proved instrumental in enhancing the well‐being and performance of the 12 RTs. They endorsed the efficacy of PS in enhancing their practice and advocated for its widespread adoption among RTs.

It is recommended that RT departments consider the insights learned from this study and investigate integrating PS into their practices. Following this initial investigation, further research on a larger scale involving more departments and a broader spectrum of RTs would provide valuable insights into PS and its impact in a radiation therapy centre.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting this study's findings are available on request from the corresponding author. However, due to privacy or ethical restrictions, the data are not publicly available.