Commission On Accreditation Of Medical Physics Education Programs Research Articles

Overview of medical physics education and research programs in a non-academic environment.

Northwest Medical Physics Center (NMPC) is a nonprofit organization that provides clinical physics support to over 35 radiation therapy facilities concentrated in the Pacific Northwest. Although clinical service is the primary function of NMPC, the diverse array of clinical sites and physics expertise has allowed for the establishment of structured education and research programs, which are complementary to the organization's clinical mission. Three clinical training programs have been developed at NMPC: a therapy medical physics residency program accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), an Applied Physics Technologist (APT) program, and a summer undergraduate internship program. A partnership has also been established with a major radiation oncology clinical vendor for the purposes of validating and testing new clinical devices across multiple facilities. These programs are managed by a dedicated education and research team at NMPC, made up of four qualified medical physicists (QMPs). The education and research work has made a significant contribution to the organization's clinical mission, and it has provided new training opportunities for early-career physicists across many different clinical environments. Education and research can be incorporated into nonacademic clinical environments, improving the quality of patient care, and increasing the number and type of training opportunities available for medical physicists.

AAPM BTSC Report 377: Physicist Brachytherapy Training in 2021-A survey of therapeutic medical physics residency program directors.

Brachytherapy (BT) was the first radiotherapeutic technique used to treat human disease and remains an essential modality in radiation oncology. A decline in the utilization of BT as a treatment modality has been observed and reported, which may impact training opportunities for medical physics residents. A survey of therapeutic medical physics residency program directors was performed as part of an assessment of the current state of BT training during residency. In March 2021, a survey consisting of 23 questions was designed by a working unit of the Brachytherapy Subcommittee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and approved for distribution by the Executive Committee of the AAPM. The survey was distributed to the directors of the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP)-accredited therapeutic medical physics residency programs by the AAPM. The participant response was recorded anonymously in an online platform and then analyzed using MATLAB and Microsoft Excel software. The survey was distributed to the program directors of 110 residency programs. Over the course of 6 weeks, 72 directors accessed the survey online, and 55 fully completed the survey. Individual responses from the directors (including partial submissions) were evaluated and analyzed. Nearly all participating programs (98%) utilize high dose rate BT treatments with 74% using low dose rate BT techniques. All programs treated gynecological sites using BT, and the next most common treatment sites were prostate (80%) and breast (53%). Overall, the residency program directors had a positive outlook toward BT as a radiotherapeutic treatment modality. Caseload and time limitations were identified as primary barriers to BT training by some programs. Based on the responses of the program directors, it was identified that the residency programs might benefit from additional resources such as virtual BT training, interinstitutional collaborations as well as resident fellowships. Programs might also benefit from additional guidance related to BT-specific training requirements to help program directors attest Authorized Medical Physicist eligibility for graduating residents.

Academic program recommendations for graduate degrees in medical physics: AAPM Report No. 365 (Revision of Report No. 197).

Academic program recommendations for graduate degrees in medical physics: AAPM Report No. 365 (Revision of Report No. 197).

Competency-Based Medical Education in Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning

PurposeTo develop a technology-enhanced education methodology with competency-based evaluation for radiation therapy treatment planning. The education program is designed for integration in the existing framework of Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP) accredited medical physics residency programs. Methods and MaterialsThis education program pairs an accessible, multi-institutional infrastructure with established medical education evaluation tools to modernize treatment planning education. This program includes 3 evaluation components: (1) competency-based evaluation, (2) inter- and intramodality comparison, and (3) learner feedback. For this study, synchronous bilateral breast cancer was selected to demonstrate a complex treatment site and nonstandardized technique. Additionally, an online study was made available to a public cohort of worldwide participants of certified Medical Dosimetrists and Medical Physicists to benchmark performance. Before evaluation, learners were given a disease site-specific education session on potential clinical treatment strategies. During the assessment, learners generated treatment plans in their institutional planning system under the direct observation of an expert evaluator. Qualitative proficiency was evaluated for all learners on a 5-point scale of graduated task independence. Quantitative dosimetry was compared between the learner cohort and public cohort. A feedback session provided learners context of multi-institutional experience through multimodality and technique comparison. After study completion, learners were provided a survey that was used to gauge their perception of the education program. ResultsIn the public study, 34 participants submitted treatment plans. Across 3 CAMPEP-accredited residency programs, 6 learners participated in the education and evaluation program. All learners successfully completed treatment plans that met the dosimetric constraints described in the case study. All learners favorably reviewed the study either comprehensively or in specified domains. ConclusionsThe competency-based education and evaluation program developed in this work has been incorporated in CAMPEP-accredited residency programs and is adaptable to other residency programs with minimal resource commitment.

Research productivity of radiation therapy physics faculty in the United States

PurposeResearch productivity metrics are important for decisions regarding hiring, retention, and promotion in academic medicine, and these metrics can vary widely among different disciplines. This article examines productivity metrics for radiation therapy physicists (RTP) in the United States.Methods and materialsDatabase searches were performed for RTP faculty at US institutions that have RTP residencies accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP). Demographics, academic rank, number of publications, academic career length, Hirsch index (h‐index), m‐quotient, and history of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding as a principal investigator (PI) were collected for each RTP. Logistic regression was performed to determine the probability of academic rank as a function of h‐index and m‐quotient. Statistical tests used included the Wilcoxon ranked sum test and the Pearson χ 2 test.ResultsA total of 1038 faculty and staff were identified at 78 institutions with CAMPEP‐accredited residencies. The average RTP academic career duration is 13.5 years, with 46.7 total publications, h‐index of 10.7, and m‐quotient of 0.66. Additionally, 10.5% of RTP have a history of NIH funding as a PI. Large disparities were found in academic productivity of doctoral‐prepared physicists compared to those with a terminal master's degree. For differences in junior and senior faculty, statistical tests yielded significance in career duration, number of publications, h‐index, and m‐quotient. Gender disparities were identified in the overall distribution of RTP consistent with the membership of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Further gender disparities were found in the number of doctoral‐prepared RTP and physicists in senior faculty roles.ConclusionsThis manuscript provides objective benchmark data regarding research productivity of academic RTP. These data may be of interest to faculty preparing for promotion, and also to institutional leadership.

The state of gender diversity in medical physics.

The purpose of this study was to quantify gender diversity in leadership positions within the field of medical physics, as well as within award categories and other recognitions by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The April 2019 PDF version of the AAPM membership directory was searched for all users self‐reporting as holding a leadership position at their place of employment, those elected to leadership positions within the AAPM, those serving as chair of an AAPM council, and those listed as having received an award or other such recognition from AAPM (beginning in 1972 with the William D. Coolidge Award). Historical data for these categories were obtained from archived membership directories on the AAPM website. The AAPM website was also used to identify members who have served on the Medical Physics Editorial Board. The Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP) website was used to identify the current directors of graduate and residency programs (as of July 2019). Because gender was not a reported field in any of these categories, gender was assigned by reviewing names and photographs. Percentage representation in these respects was compared to the overall percentage of women in the AAPM in 2019 (23.3%) and reported the number of women working as medical physicists globally (29.8%). Within the AAPM, the percentage of women reporting clinical leadership roles is 12.0% within the US, 13.6% in Canada, and 18.0% in all other countries combined. Women comprise only 7.5% of CAMPEP graduate program directors and 21.5% of residency program directors. The percentage of female presidents in AAPM is 8.1%. A woman has never served as Editor‐in‐Chief of Medical Physics, and the average for the past 10 yr for female board membership is 13.6%. With the exception of the John R. Cameron Young Investigators Symposium Award, the percentage of all female AAPM awardees is less than the percentage of women AAPM members. The lowest percentage of female representation within AAPM is among council chairs with only one woman having held a chair position out of 42 positions (2.4%) from 1970 to July 2019. Similar to the traditional discipline of physics, medical physics displays a clear gender disparity with regard to leadership positions, both within educational training programs and the AAPM. Further investigation into the demographics of the field and psychosocial factors affecting medical physicists may help to elucidate the origin of these disparities and inform strategies to address them.

Development of a residency program in radiation oncology physics: an inverse planning approach.

Over the last two decades, there has been a concerted effort in North America to organize medical physicists’ clinical training programs along more structured and formal lines. This effort has been prompted by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP) which has now accredited about 90 residency programs. Initially the accreditation focused on standardized and higher quality clinical physics training; the development of rounded professionals who can function at a high level in a multidisciplinary environment was recognized as a priority of a radiation oncology physics residency only lately. In this report, we identify and discuss the implementation of, and the essential components of, a radiation oncology physics residency designed to produce knowledgeable and effective clinical physicists for today's safety‐conscious and collaborative work environment. Our approach is that of inverse planning, by now familiar to all radiation oncology physicists, in which objectives and constraints are identified prior to the design of the program. Our inverse planning objectives not only include those associated with traditional residencies (i.e., clinical physics knowledge and critical clinical skills), but also encompass those other attributes essential for success in a modern radiation therapy clinic. These attributes include formal training in management skills and leadership, teaching and communication skills, and knowledge of error management techniques and patient safety. The constraints in our optimization exercise are associated with the limited duration of a residency and the training resources available. Without compromising the knowledge and skills needed for clinical tasks, we have successfully applied the model to the University of Calgary's two‐year residency program. The program requires 3840 hours of overall commitment from the trainee, of which 7%–10% is spent in obtaining formal training in nontechnical “soft skills”.PACS number(s): 01.40 Di, 01.40.gb, 87.10‐e

SU-B-213-02: Development of CAMPEP Standards

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: 1. Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual 2. Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks 3. Describe the development of educational standards 4. Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

SU-B-213-01: Introduction

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: 1. Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual 2. Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks 3. Describe the development of educational standards 4. Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

SU-B-213-04: Evaluation of Residency Programs

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: 1. Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual 2. Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks 3. Describe the development of educational standards 4. Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

SU-B-213-05: Development of ABR Certification Standards

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

SU-B-213-03: Evaluation of Graduate Programs

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: 1. Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual 2. Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks 3. Describe the development of educational standards 4. Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

SU-B-213-00: Education Council Symposium: Accreditation and Certification: Establishing Educational Standards and Evaluating Candidates Based on these Standards

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: 1. Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual 2. Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks 3. Describe the development of educational standards 4. Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

SU‐B‐213‐06: Development of ABR Examination Questions

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization.In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards.The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion.Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

SU‐B‐213‐07: Panel Discussion

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization.In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards.The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion.Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

TH‐D‐350‐04: A Structured Approach to Constructing a Radiation Oncology Physics Residency Program

Purpose: This paper describes systematic choices and their rationale for structuring a curriculum for a Radiation Oncology Physics Residency accreditable by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP). Method and Materials: The AAPM Report No. 90, “Essentials and Guidelines for Hospital‐based Medical Physics Residency Training Programs” lists ten rotation topics related to routine clinical treatment planning and delivery procedures and processes and the technical support and quality assurance that support them. The procedures implemented in a specific radiotherapy department depend upon the equipment and software purchased by the facility as well as the individual preferences of the radiation oncologists and staff of the department. Specific procedures and processes appropriate for the rotation categories were identified and listed. However, an approach to developing a Resident's competency performing the processes can be generalized into three phases. In Phase I the Resident observes a Mentor carry out the process and reads background material. In Phase II the Resident carries out the process under close supervision by the Mentor. In Phase III the Resident carries out the process independently. The Mentor documents satisfactory completion of each phase. The Assessment of the Resident's competency is completed by oral examinations by the Residency Program Faculty. Results: The approach was applied to writing a Self‐Study Document for CAMPEP. The document contained a detailed description of ten competency‐based rotations using the three phase format. The descriptions of the rotations composed the majority of the 233‐page study. Conclusion: A Radiation Oncology Physics Residency Program can be systematically constructed by identifying processes and procedures associated with AAPM Report No. 90 competencies and then developing the Resident's competencies with these processes and procedures in three phases. Conflict of Interest : This work supported in part by a grant from the American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.