Introduction:
Radiation therapy is essential for cancer treatment, with Radiation Therapists (RTTs) playing a vital role in ensuring the safety and effective delivery through collaboration with multidisciplinary teams. A review concerning clinical education of RTTs highlights inconsistencies around the globe. In Portugal, undergraduate training in Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy (MIR) programs has increasingly adopted hybrid teaching models that combine theoretical classes, clinical simulation and clinical internships. A new clinical education model was introduced at the School of Health Sciences of University of Aveiro, in collaboration with the Radiotherapy Department of Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto), to strengthen the link between theoretical learning and real-world practice. This model emphasises students´ autonomy by studying and managing clinical cases and supporting patient care, rather than simply adhering to routine daily workflows. The innovative methodological approach aims to prepare students with essential competencies, including critical thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving skills.

Methodology:
A preliminary descriptive case study was conducted during the 2024–2025 academic year, involving fourteen MIR students in their final year of the degree. The 8-week (280-hour) clinical internship immersed students across three core phases of the radiotherapy workflow: Computed Tomography (CT) simulation, dosimetric planning, and treatment delivery. Each student followed multiple real patient cases under the guidance of a dedicated clinical tutor. Quantitative data were collected from tutor logs and included types of clinical cases and student participation across workflow phases.

Results:
Students were collectively assigned 180 clinical cases involving diverse pathologies (e.g., breast, prostate, lung, head and neck), of which 154 were effectively followed. Workflow engagement varied significantly: only 36 cases were followed across all three phases. Dosimetric planning engagement was the lowest, mainly due to logistical constraints such as scheduling mismatches and limited student access to real-time planning. Correlation analysis revealed a weak, non-significant association (r=0.246, p=0.3971) between the number of followed cases and participation across all workflow phases, suggesting considerable variability in student experiences. In clinical internship, students had higher engagement in treatment delivery and CT simulation compared to dosimetry, due to constraints at the institution.

Conclusions:
The implementation of this new clinical educational model in radiotherapy showed promising engagement in patient-centred learning, though full integration of students across all workflow stages of a patient remains a challenge. The variability in student involvement reinforces the need for improved scheduling coordination to provide more participation in dosimetry phases. Early results support the feasibility of the model and its role in fostering student autonomy and competence. Further studies should assess its longitudinal impact and refine learning content resources (e.g. case studies) and their logistical integration for a better alignment with clinical training and educational goals.

Keywords: Clinical education, radiotherapy, workflow integration, student autonomy.