Medical Physics Education Programs Research Articles

AAPM BTSC Report 377.B: Physicist brachytherapy training in 2022 - A survey of therapeutic medical physics residents.

A survey of medical physics residency program directors was conducted in Spring 2021 to examine the current state of brachytherapy (BT) training during residency. In this related work, a subsequent survey of therapeutic medical physics residents in 2022 was conducted to assess the confidence and experience of the trainees. Concerns for access to high-quality and diverse training in BT have escalated in importance due to recent declines in BT utilization. A survey consisting of 26 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 current trainees and recent graduates of the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs accredited therapeutic medical physics residency programs by the AAPM. The participant response was anonymously recorded in an online platform and subsequently analyzed using spreadsheet software. The survey was distributed to 796 current medical physics residents or recent graduates over the course of 6weeks in February and March of 2022. The survey received 736 views and a total of 182 responses were collected, with 165 respondents completing the survey in full. Among those responses, 110 had completed their residency training, with program start dates ranging from calendar years 2015 to 2021. Individual responses from the survey takers (including partial survey submissions) were evaluated and analyzed to compile results. Medical physics residents reported the highest levels of confidence and caseload for gynecological BT procedures when compared with other surveyed treatment techniques. This indicates opportunities to improve training and increase access to clinical caseload are needed in order to improve competency and confidence. Time constraints (clinical and rotation-based) were indicated as impediments to BT proficiency. Medical physics residents reported enthusiasm for additional training opportunities in BT, and it is evident that additional structure and programs are required to ensure adequate access to BT training during residency.

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.

Gender-Based Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Medical Physics

Gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment have been well-studied in the fields of science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine. However, less is known about these topics and their effect within the profession of medical physics. We aimed to better understand and clarify the views and experiences of practicing medical physicists and medical physics residents regarding gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment. We conducted in-depth, semistructured, and confidential interviews with 32 practicing medical physicists and medical physics residents across the United States. The interviews were broad and covered the topics of discrimination, mentorship, and work/life integration. All participants were associated with a department with a residency program accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs and had appointments with a clinical component. Participants shared views about gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment that were polarized. Some perceived that discrimination and harassment were a current concern within medical physics, while some either perceived that they were not a concern or that discrimination positively affected women and minoritized populations. Many participants shared personal experiences of discrimination and harassment, including those related to unequal compensation, discrimination against mothers, discrimination during the hiring process, gender-biased assumptions about behaviors or goals, communication biases, and overt and persistent sexual harassment. There is an urgent need to acknowledge, better understand, and address gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment in the field of medical physics.

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).

AAPM Task Group 298: Recommendations on certificate program/alternative pathway candidate education and training.

Entry into the field of clinical medical physics is most commonly accomplished through the completion of a Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Educational Programs (CAMPEP)-accredited graduate and residency program. To allow a mechanism to bring valuable expertise from other disciplines into clinical practice in medical physics, an "alternative pathway" approach was also established. To ensure those trainees who have completed a doctoral degree in physics or a related discipline have the appropriate background and didactic training in medical physics, certificate programs and a CAMPEP-accreditation process for these programs were initiated. However, medical physics-specific didactic, research, and clinical exposure of those entering medical physics residencies from these certificate programs is often comparatively modest when evaluated against individuals holding Master's and/or Doctoral degrees in CAMPEP-accredited graduate programs. In 2016, the AAPM approved the formation of Task Group (TG) 298, "Alternative Pathway Candidate Education and Training." The TG was charged with reviewing previous published recommendations for alternative pathway candidates and developing recommendations on the appropriate education and training of these candidates. This manuscript is a summary of the AAPM TG 298 report.

Medical physicist certification and training program accreditation.

As a profession, medical physics combines an advanced understanding of physics and math with knowledge of biology, anatomy and physiology. Consequently, rigorous education and training is required to assure that medical physicists have the requisite fundamental knowledge, specialized technical skills, and clinical understanding to contribute to the medical care of patients safely. There is, therefore, an interest in standardizing the educational pathways and in developing mechanisms to assure that competency is achieved and maintained. Throughout the world, several countries, regions, and professional organizations have developed mechanisms for accrediting medical physics educational programs, both for didactic work performed in undergraduate or post-graduate settings, and for clinical training conducted in hospitals and clinics. In addition, several national and international programs exist for certifying individual medical physicists. In some cases, once initial certification is achieved, the diplomate enters a program of maintenance of certification, to ensure that the skills obtained during training are not lost over a career. This article explores the differences and similarities in the training program accreditation and physicist certification mechanisms.

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.

Quantitative Medical Physics National Job Data Distribution Analysis

The purpose of this study was to investigate the contemporary distribution of medical physics (MP) employment opportunities across the United States. An annual record (2018-2019) of advertised full-time MP jobs was created using publicly available information from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine and Indeed websites. Listed jobs were categorized based on position name, work experience, job function, and geographic region. To account for regional population differences, a preponderance of employment opportunities per 10 million people was computed. Using Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs residency accreditation data, the nationwide locations of the MP training centers and the number of residency positions per annum were identified. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was used for statistical analysis. A total of 441 unique MP jobs were identified nationwide per annum (2018-2019). The highest percentage of MP jobs was reported from the South region (33.6%), and the lowest (17.2%) was from the West. Analysis revealed that 148 jobs (33.6%) were academic and 293 (66.4%) were nonacademic. The South had the most academic jobs overall (31.8%), whereas the West had the fewest (13.5%). Regionally, the highest percentage of academic jobs (46.9%) was reported from the Northeast, whereas the West had the lowest percentage (26.3%). The analysis of academic versus nonacademic job comparison by regions showed statistically significant differences (P = .0133). The Midwest and the West regions, respectively, showed the highest (18.2) and lowest (10.24) number of jobs per unit population, measured in 10 million. To our knowledge, this is one of the first national quantitative job data analyses of MP job distributions. This study revealed the level of demand for qualified candidates in 2018 to 2019, showing an imbalance between academic and nonacademic positions across the regions of the United States. Moreover, the geographic distribution of job listings deviated significantly from expectation given the relative population of each region.

Integration of Gross Anatomy Laboratory sessions into Medical Physics Curriculum using Segmentation and Augmented‐Reality

Anatomy teaching to Medical Physics (MP) trainees is recognized by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs, and yet anatomy laboratory sessions have not been integrated in MP training curricula. This study outlines the development of anatomy laboratory sessions for MP trainees and serves as the initial step to developing an anatomical curriculum guideline for MP. The two objectives of this qualitative study are: (a) to explore the educational potential of integrated anatomy laboratory sessions in the MP curriculum and (b) to evaluate the benefits of interprofessional education activities between MP trainees and Radiation Oncology residents.Participants included 17 MP graduate students, 2 MP residents and 8 Radiation Oncology residents, over two years. Two 2‐hour anatomy laboratory sessions per year were organized following the respective in‐class lectures on the pelvis, head and neck and thorax. After the two laboratory sessions, participants were asked to fill out a survey reflecting on their experience in the laboratory.Both MP students and radiation oncology residents voiced an appreciation for the anatomy laboratory sessions for the consolidation and application of knowledge. Most mentioned that these sessions helped to “visualize” and “have a better understanding” of the anatomy taught in class and made them more “confident”. In terms of interprofessionalism, both the MP and the radiation oncology trainees expressed a better understanding of one another’s level of knowledge in anatomy. Both groups suggested to have more interprofessional sessions. They also suggested to build a stronger link between cadaveric anatomy and imaging anatomy through augmented reality technology.The integration of anatomy laboratory sessions into the anatomy curriculum for MP enhances trainees’ understanding of human anatomy and its pivotal role in radiation therapy treatment. Furthermore, interprofessional activities prior to clinical placement of MP students reinforce technical and professional communication.Support or Funding InformationThe authors would like to thank the support provided by the Centre for Medical Education Innovation and Research Seed Fund (to GPJCN).

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.

WE‐H‐201‐04: Models for Developing Medical Physics Educators and Education Programs in the Developing Countries and the Potential Role of US Universities and Individual Medical Physicists

The desperate need for radiotherapy in low and mid‐income countries (LMICs) has been well documented. Roughly 60 % of the worldwide incidence of cancer occurs in these resource‐limited settings and the international community alongside governmental and non‐profit agencies have begun publishing reports and seeking help from qualified volunteers. However, the focus of several reports has been on how dire the situation is and the magnitude of the problem, leaving most to feel overwhelmed and unsure as to how to help and why to get involved.This session will help to explain the specific ways that Medical Physicists can uniquely assist in this grand effort to help bring radiotherapy to grossly‐underserved areas. Not only can these experts fulfill an important purpose, they also can benefit professionally, academically, emotionally and socially from the endeavor. By assisting others worldwide with their skillset, Medical Physicists can end up helping themselves. Learning Objectives: Understand the need for radiotherapy in LMICs. Understand which agencies are seeking Medical Physicists for help in LMICs. Understand the potential research funding mechanisms are available to establish academic collaborations with LMIC researchers/physicians. Understand the potential social and emotional benefits for both the physicist and the LMIC partners when collaborations are made. Understand the potential for collaboration with other high‐income scientists that can develop as the physicist partners with other large institutions to assist LMICs.Wil Ngwa ‐ A recent United Nations Study reports that in developing countries more people have access to cell phones than toilets. In Africa, only 63% of the population has access to piped water, yet, 93% of Africans have cell phone service. Today, these cell phones, Skype, WhatsApp and other information and communication technologies (ICTs) connect us in unprecedented ways and are increasingly recognized as powerful, indispensable to global health. Thanks to ICTs, there are growing opportunities for Medical Physicists to reach out beyond the bunker and impact the world far beyond, without even having to travel.These growing opportunities in global health for Medical Physicists, powered by ICTs, will be highlighted in this presentation, illustrated by high impact examples/models across the globe that are improving patient safety and healthcare outcomes, saving lives. Learning Objectives: Published definitions of global health and the emerging field of global radiation oncology Learn about the transformative potential of ICTs in global radiation oncology care, research and education with focus on Medical Physics Learn about high impact examples of ICT‐powered global radiation oncology and the increasing opportunities for participation by Medical Physicists.Yakov Pipman ‐ The number and scope of volunteer Medical Physics activities in support of low‐to‐middle income countries has been increasing gradually. This happens through a variety of formal channels and to some extent through less formal but personal initiatives. A good deal of effort is dedicated by many, but many more could be recruited through a structured framework to volunteer.We will look into typical volunteer activities and how they fit with organizations already involved in advancing Medical Physics in LMIC. We will identify the range of these organizational activities and their scope to reveal areas of further need.We will point to a few key features of MPWB (www.mpwb.org) as a volunteering and collaborating structure and how members can get involved and contribute to these efforts at the grass roots level. The goal is that scarce resources can thus be channeled to complement rather than compete with those already in place. Learning Objectives: Understand the strengths and limitations of various organizations that support Medical Physics efforts in LMIC. Learn about ways to volunteer and contribute to Global Health through a grass roots organization focused on Medical Physics in LMIC.Perry Sprawls ‐ With the growing capability and complexity of medical imaging methods in all countries of the world, the expanding role of medical physicists includes optimizing imaging procedures with respect to image quality, radiation dose, and other conflicting factors. With access to appropriate educational resources local medical physicists in all countries can provide direct clinical support and educational for other medical professionals. This is being supported through the process of Collaborative Teaching that combines the capabilities and experience of medical physicists in countries spanning the spectrum of economic, technological, and clinical development. The supporting resources are on the web at: www.sprawls.org/resources. Learning Objectives: Identify the medical physics educational needs to support effective and optimized medical imaging procedures. Use collaborative teaching resources to enhance the role of medical physicists in all countries of the world.

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

AAPM/SNMMI Joint Task Force: report on the current state of nuclear medicine physics training.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) recognized the need for a review of the current state of nuclear medicine physics training and the need to explore pathways for improving nuclear medicine physics training opportunities. For these reasons, the two organizations formed a joint AAPM/SNMMI Ad Hoc Task Force on Nuclear Medicine Physics Training. The mission of this task force was to assemble a representative group of stakeholders to: Estimate the demand for board‐certified nuclear medicine physicists in the next 5–10 years,Identify the critical issues related to supplying an adequate number of physicists who have received the appropriate level of training in nuclear medicine physics, andIdentify approaches that may be considered to facilitate the training of nuclear medicine physicists. As a result, a task force was appointed and chaired by an active member of both organizations that included representation from the AAPM, SNMMI, the American Board of Radiology (ABR), the American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine (ABSNM), and the Commission for the Accreditation of Medical Physics Educational Programs (CAMPEP). The Task Force first met at the AAPM Annual Meeting in Charlotte in July 2012 and has met regularly face‐to‐face, online, and by conference calls. This manuscript reports the findings of the Task Force, as well as recommendations to achieve the stated mission.PACS number: 01.40.G‐

MO‐DE‐BRA‐02: From Teaching to Learning: Systems‐Based‐Practice and Practice‐Based‐Learning Innovations in Medical Physics Education Programs

Purpose:The increasing complexity in the field of radiation medicine and concomitant rise in patient safety concerns call for enhanced systems‐level training for future medical physicists and thus commensurate innovations in existing educational program curricula. In this work we report on the introduction of three learning opportunities to augment medical physics educational programs towards building systems‐based practice and practice‐based learning competencies.Methods:All initiatives were introduced for senior ‐level graduate students and physics residents in an institution with a newly established medical‐physics graduate program and therapeutic‐physics residency program. The first, centered on incident learning, was based on a spreadsheet tool that incorporated the reporting structure of the Radiation Oncology‐incident Learning System (ROILS), included 120 narratives of published incidents and enabled inter‐rater variability calculations. The second, centered on best‐practices, was a zero‐credit seminar course, where students summarized select presentations from the AAPM virtual library on a weekly basis and moderated class discussions using a point/counterpoint approach. Presentation styles were critiqued. The third; centered on learning‐by‐teaching, required physics residents to regularly explain fundamental concepts in radiological physics from standard textbooks to board certified physics faculty members.Results:Use of the incident‐learning system spreadsheet provided a platform to recast known accidents into the framework of ROILS, thereby increasing awareness of factors contributing to unsafe practice and appreciation for inter‐rater variability. The seminar course enhanced awareness of best practices, the effectiveness of presentation styles and encouraged critical thinking. The learn‐by‐teaching rotation allowed residents to stay abreast of and deepen their knowledge of relevant subjects.Conclusion:The incorporation of systems‐driven initiatives broadens comprehension of the wider systems context of medical physics, enhances awareness of resources for innovation, communication and sustained learning while maintaining a metric‐driven focus on patient safety within the formative phase of student careers. The initiatives were well‐received, feasible, and utilized available or shared‐resources translatable across educational programs.

SU‐E‐E‐04: Assessment of Medical Physics Students and Trainees Interest and Awareness of Non‐Clinical Careers

Purpose:The majority of medical physics education programs focus on preparing aspiring physicists for a career in the clinic, which could under‐represent non‐clinical opportunities in medical physics. Non‐clinical careers offer an opportunity to affect patient care on a worldwide scale, and increase the number of career options for graduating students. Our purpose is to evaluate the knowledge within the medical physics community of the opportunities available to aspiring physicists outside of the clinic.Methods:We have conducted a survey of current students and trainees’ and of physicists who joined the AAPM within the past 5 years. Respondents were asked to complete questions related to their knowledge and interest in non‐clinical careers. Practicing physicists were asked about the impact of non‐clinical careers in medical physics.Results:Over 150 students and 135 new physicists responded to our survey requests. 60% of students expressed that they did not feel knowledgeable concerning their non‐clinical options, whereas only 32% of recent graduates stated that they were unaware of non‐clinical opportunities. 68% of students expressed at least an intermediate interest in non‐clinical options. Of those interested, 54% of them did not feel knowledgeable of non‐clinical opportunities. Of the 110 respondents with intermediate or greater interest, 72%, 66%, 24% and 20% expressed interest to pursue opportunities in industry, academic research, health physics, and regulation, respectively. This was not reflected by the recent graduates, where only 43% of respondents considered a non‐clinical career path.Conclusions:A majority of current medical physics students surveyed expressed that they are under‐informed about non‐clinical career opportunities. Recent graduates indicated a higher level of awareness of non‐clinical options, but many chose not to consider them for their initial career placement. More work is needed from medical physics education programs to better inform students of non‐clinical options and how to prepare them.

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-213-05: 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‐213‐06: 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.