Medical Physics Residency Program Research Articles

Perspectives on program duration and research: A survey of graduates of a 3-year medical physics residency program.

The goal of this manuscript is to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of a 3-year medical physics residency program with the first year dedicated to research and the remaining 2 years dedicated to clinical training. An anonymous survey was distributed to graduates of a 3-year medical physics residency program with a dedicated year of research. Questions focused on several categories: (1) in retrospect, factors graduates considered at the time of application, (2) aspects of respondents' career and life after graduating from residency, (3) respondents' opinions on the residency duration, and (4) research productivity during residency. Of 22 graduates who were contacted, 17 filled out the survey. In retrospect, the most impactful consideration at the time of application was quality of clinical training. Extra time for research was reported as the factor with the most positive career impact and financial considerations as the most negative impact of completing a 3-year residency. Preference for a 3-year residency at the time of application and in retrospect was expressed by 47% and 88% of respondents, respectively. 71% of respondents would recommend applying to a 3-year program to current residency candidates, and 29% respondents said their recommendation on entering a 3-year program would depend on the candidate's interests. 76% of respondents preferred dedicated time for research during residency. The optimal duration of medical physics residency depends on the goals and career objectives of the incoming residents. Two years may be an optimal duration for clinical training. For candidates interested in a career with a substantial research component, a 3-year program may be a good option, and graduates express favorable opinions after completing such a program. A 4-year residency duration is not viewed favorably by the graduates.

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.

Improving access in medical physics residency programs for physicists with disabilities.

Within the landscape of medical physics education, residency programs are instrumental in imparting hands-on training and experiential knowledge to early-career physicists. Ensuring access to educational opportunities for physicists with disabilities is a legal, ethical, and pragmatic requirement for programs, considering that a significant proportion of the United States population has a disability. Grounded in conceptual frameworks of competency-based medical education and the social model of disability, this work provides an introduction to some practical recommendations for medical physics residency programs. Strategies include embracing universal design principles, fostering partnerships with disability service offices, using inclusive language, developing and publicizing clear procedures for disclosing disabilities and requesting accommodations, and maintaining an overall commitment to equitable access to education. This work urges medical physics residency leadership to proactively move towards training environments that support the needs of residents across the spectrum of disability, highlighting why disability inclusion fundamentally enriches diversity.

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.

Blinding of Residency Applications in Medical Physics: Promises and Pitfalls

The feasibility of blinding applications for a medical physics residency program has yet to be demonstrated in the literature. We explore the application of an automated approach with human review and intervention to blind applications during the annual medical physics residency review cycle. Applications were blinded using an automated process and used for the first phase of residency review in the program. We retrospectively compared self-reported demographic and gender data with blinded and nonblinded cohorts from 2 sequential years of review from a medical physics residency program. Demographic data were analyzed comparing applicants with candidates selected to move to the next phase of the review process. Interrater agreement was also evaluated from the applicant reviewers. We show the feasibility of blinding applications for a medical physics residency program. We observed no more than a 3% difference between the gender selection within the first phase of application review but greater differences when examining race and ethnicity between the 2 methods. The greatest difference was shown to be between Asian and White candidates, where there are statistical differences in the scores in the rubric categories of essay and overall impression. We suggest that each training program critically evaluate its selection criteria for potential sources of bias within the review process. We recommend further critical investigation of processes to promote equity and inclusion to ensure the methods and outcomes are aligned with the mission of the program. Finally, we recommend that the common application provide an option for blinding applications at the source so this can be an option to facilitate efforts for evaluating unconscious bias in the review process.

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.

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.

Gender Differences in Work–Life Integration Among Medical Physicists

PurposeTo generate an understanding of the primary concerns facing medical physicists regarding integration of a demanding technical career with their personal lives. Methods and MaterialsIn 2019, we recruited 32 medical physics residents, faculty, and staff via emails to US medical physics residency program directors to participate in a 1-hour, semistructured interview that elicited their thoughts on several topics, including work–life integration. Standard techniques of qualitative thematic analysis were used to generate the research findings. ResultsOf the participants, 50% were women and 69% were non-Hispanic White individuals, with a mean (SD) age of 37.5 (7.4) years. They were evenly split between residents and faculty or staff. Participant responses centered around 5 primary themes: the gendered distribution of household responsibilities, the effect of career or work on home and family life, the effect of family on career or work, support and strategies for reconciling work–life conflicts, and the role of professional societies in addressing work–life integration. Participants expressed concern about the effect of heavy workloads on home life, with female respondents more likely to report carrying the majority of the household burden. ConclusionsMedical physicists experience challenges in managing work–life conflict amid a diverse array of personal and professional responsibilities. Further investigations are needed to quantitatively assess the division of work and household labor by gender in medical physics, particularly after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, but this study's qualitative findings suggest that the profession should consider ways to address root causes of work–life conflict to promote the future success and well-being of all medical physicists, and perhaps women in particular.

Model for implementation of a modern journal club in medical physics residency programs.

Journal clubs are a common educational experience for medical physics residents as a forum to discuss current research within the field. While journal clubs are valued by educational programs and accrediting bodies, there are a wide variety of ways in which these sessions are conducted. Unfortunately, there are currently few studies that have assessed the effectiveness of this educational method. This review defines journal club in the context of a medical physics residency and provides historical background for the meetings. Reasons why journal clubs are valued are presented, and several methods are described for conducting journal clubs. The format of journal clubs and scaffolding methods for guiding residents in gaining independence in critical reading skills are discussed. While the traditional journal club is a meeting, an alternative online virtual journal club is also described. Finally, a model of how a journal club can be applied in a medical physics residency is presented.

The Current State of Physics Plan Review Training in Medical Physics Residency Programs in North America

PurposeThis study aimed to identify the current state of residency training in physics plan reviews. Methods and MaterialsA voluntary, anonymous survey was sent to all program directors of accredited therapeutic medical physics residency programs in North America. Survey questions were developed to determine whether and how residents are trained in physics plan reviews. Survey questions were developed using expert validation and cognitive pretesting. ResultsUsing a prospectively approved study (COMIRB 18-1073), responses were collected from 70 program directors, representing a 70% response rate. All respondents (100%) designated patient safety to be the purpose of physics plan reviews. Of the respondents, 94% indicated that physicists should first receive training in physics plan reviews while in a residency program. The vast majority of respondents (99%) provide training to residents in physics plan reviews. Although 57 programs (81% of respondents) have residents perform physics plan reviews as part of clinical practice (with varying levels of independence), 13 programs (19% of respondents) do not. The majority of respondents use the following training methods: observe staff physicists (96%), perform supervised reviews on actual patients for training or clinical practice (93%), use a checklist (80%), and read reference materials (62%). Although simulation plans with embedded errors would be implemented by 71% of respondents, they are currently used in only 19% of programs. ConclusionsThe present study is the first to characterize chart-check teaching practices in medical physics residency programs. The vast majority of programs currently train residents in physics plan reviews. The most common teaching methods are observing and performing physics plan reviews, but there is variability in the level of resident involvement in clinical practice for physics plan reviews. There is room for the field to consider advancing current training methods, which is especially important given the critical roles that physics plan reviews have with regard to patient safety.

MR-linac is the best modality for lung SBRT.

The introduction of MR‐linac hybrid modality started a new era in image guidance for radiotherapy. It provides superior soft tissue contrast compared to conventional x‐ray imaging, and offers the ability to track and gate treatment delivery, yet challenges and limitations remain in various aspects.1 Our previous Parallel Opposed issues discussed the additional physicist qualification and residency requirements for the use of MRI in radiotherapy settings.2, 3 Herein, we continued our discussion on the clinical use of MR‐linac and its potential improvement in treatment efficacy for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Dr. Andrew Godley believes that “MR‐linac is the best modality for lung SBRT,” while Dr. Dandan Zheng explained her doubts and concerns. Dr. Andrew Godley received his Ph.D. in High Energy Physics from the University of Sydney in 2001. Dr Godley continued in particle physics at the University of South Carolina and Fermilab, until 2007 when he trained in medical physics at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Dr. Godley spent 7 years as a staff physicist at the Cleveland Clinic before joining the Miami Cancer Institute in 2018 to help develop their MR‐linac and SBRT programs. Dr. Dandan Zheng received her Ph.D. in Applied Science from the University of California Davis in 2007. After conducting a postdoctoral training in Radiation Oncology at Virginia Commonwealth University, she joined the department as an assistant professor in 2009. In 2012 Dr. Zheng moved to University of Nebraska Medical Center where she is currently an associate professor and the medical physics residency program director. Dr. Zheng is an avid peer reviewer/associate editor for many journals, and her research interests include image guidance, radiomics and machine learning, stereotactic RT, dose algorithms, and motion management.

Hendee's Radiation Therapy Physics, 4th ed. TPawlicki, DJScanderbeg & GStarkschall. New Jersey: Wiley‐Blackwell, 2016. Hardcover 352. pp. Price: $159.95. ISBN: 978‐0‐470‐37651‐5.

This is the 4th edition of a book on the physics of radiation therapy that covers basic principles and new technologies in the field and how these apply to the clinical practice. It is a well-referenced and easy to read text. The text is designed as an alternative or supplement to other well-established books in the field of radiotherapy physics. In addition, the authors have made an extra effort to provide a concise summary of the objectives for every chapter. They even set aside a chapter on patient safety and quality improvement. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

WE‐D‐204‐04: Learning the Ropes: Clinical Immersion in the First Month of Residency

Speakers in this session will present overview and details of a specific rotation or feature of their Medical Physics Residency Program that is particularly exceptional and noteworthy. The featured rotations include foundational topics executed with exceptional acumen and innovative educational rotations perhaps not commonly found in Medical Physics Residency Programs. A site‐specific clinical rotation will be described, where the medical physics resident follows the physician and medical resident for two weeks into patient consultations, simulation sessions, target contouring sessions, planning meetings with dosimetry, patient follow up visits, and tumor boards, to gain insight into the thought processes of the radiation oncologist. An incident learning rotation will be described where the residents learns about and practices evaluating clinical errors and investigates process improvements for the clinic. The residency environment at a Canadian medical physics residency program will be described, where the training and interactions with radiation oncology residents is integrated. And the first month rotation will be described, where the medical physics resident rotates through the clinical areas including simulation, dosimetry, and treatment units, gaining an overview of the clinical flow and meeting all the clinical staff to begin the residency program. This session will be of particular interest to residency programs who are interested in adopting or adapting these curricular ideas into their programs and to residency candidates who want to learn about programs already employing innovative practices. Learning Objectives: To learn about exceptional and innovative clinical rotations or program features within existing Medical Physics Residency Programs. To understand how to adopt/adapt innovative curricular designs into your own Medical Physics Residency Program, if appropriate.

WE‐D‐204‐00: Session in Memory of Franca Kuchnir: Excellence in Medical Physics Residency Education

Speakers in this session will present overview and details of a specific rotation or feature of their Medical Physics Residency Program that is particularly exceptional and noteworthy. The featured rotations include foundational topics executed with exceptional acumen and innovative educational rotations perhaps not commonly found in Medical Physics Residency Programs. A site‐specific clinical rotation will be described, where the medical physics resident follows the physician and medical resident for two weeks into patient consultations, simulation sessions, target contouring sessions, planning meetings with dosimetry, patient follow up visits, and tumor boards, to gain insight into the thought processes of the radiation oncologist. An incident learning rotation will be described where the residents learns about and practices evaluating clinical errors and investigates process improvements for the clinic. The residency environment at a Canadian medical physics residency program will be described, where the training and interactions with radiation oncology residents is integrated. And the first month rotation will be described, where the medical physics resident rotates through the clinical areas including simulation, dosimetry, and treatment units, gaining an overview of the clinical flow and meeting all the clinical staff to begin the residency program. This session will be of particular interest to residency programs who are interested in adopting or adapting these curricular ideas into their programs and to residency candidates who want to learn about programs already employing innovative practices. Learning Objectives: To learn about exceptional and innovative clinical rotations or program features within existing Medical Physics Residency Programs. To understand how to adopt/adapt innovative curricular designs into your own Medical Physics Residency Program, if appropriate.

WE‐D‐204‐02: Errors and Process Improvements in Radiation Therapy

Speakers in this session will present overview and details of a specific rotation or feature of their Medical Physics Residency Program that is particularly exceptional and noteworthy. The featured rotations include foundational topics executed with exceptional acumen and innovative educational rotations perhaps not commonly found in Medical Physics Residency Programs. A site‐specific clinical rotation will be described, where the medical physics resident follows the physician and medical resident for two weeks into patient consultations, simulation sessions, target contouring sessions, planning meetings with dosimetry, patient follow up visits, and tumor boards, to gain insight into the thought processes of the radiation oncologist. An incident learning rotation will be described where the residents learns about and practices evaluating clinical errors and investigates process improvements for the clinic. The residency environment at a Canadian medical physics residency program will be described, where the training and interactions with radiation oncology residents is integrated. And the first month rotation will be described, where the medical physics resident rotates through the clinical areas including simulation, dosimetry, and treatment units, gaining an overview of the clinical flow and meeting all the clinical staff to begin the residency program. This session will be of particular interest to residency programs who are interested in adopting or adapting these curricular ideas into their programs and to residency candidates who want to learn about programs already employing innovative practices. Learning Objectives: To learn about exceptional and innovative clinical rotations or program features within existing Medical Physics Residency Programs. To understand how to adopt/adapt innovative curricular designs into your own Medical Physics Residency Program, if appropriate.

WE‐D‐204‐03: CAMPEP Residencies in a Canadian Context: Comprehensive Cancer Centers and Integrated Learning Environments

Speakers in this session will present overview and details of a specific rotation or feature of their Medical Physics Residency Program that is particularly exceptional and noteworthy. The featured rotations include foundational topics executed with exceptional acumen and innovative educational rotations perhaps not commonly found in Medical Physics Residency Programs. A site‐specific clinical rotation will be described, where the medical physics resident follows the physician and medical resident for two weeks into patient consultations, simulation sessions, target contouring sessions, planning meetings with dosimetry, patient follow up visits, and tumor boards, to gain insight into the thought processes of the radiation oncologist. An incident learning rotation will be described where the residents learns about and practices evaluating clinical errors and investigates process improvements for the clinic. The residency environment at a Canadian medical physics residency program will be described, where the training and interactions with radiation oncology residents is integrated. And the first month rotation will be described, where the medical physics resident rotates through the clinical areas including simulation, dosimetry, and treatment units, gaining an overview of the clinical flow and meeting all the clinical staff to begin the residency program. This session will be of particular interest to residency programs who are interested in adopting or adapting these curricular ideas into their programs and to residency candidates who want to learn about programs already employing innovative practices. Learning Objectives: To learn about exceptional and innovative clinical rotations or program features within existing Medical Physics Residency Programs. To understand how to adopt/adapt innovative curricular designs into your own Medical Physics Residency Program, if appropriate.

WE‐D‐204‐01: Site‐Specific Clinical Rotation: Into the Minds of the Radiation Oncologists

Speakers in this session will present overview and details of a specific rotation or feature of their Medical Physics Residency Program that is particularly exceptional and noteworthy. The featured rotations include foundational topics executed with exceptional acumen and innovative educational rotations perhaps not commonly found in Medical Physics Residency Programs. A site‐specific clinical rotation will be described, where the medical physics resident follows the physician and medical resident for two weeks into patient consultations, simulation sessions, target contouring sessions, planning meetings with dosimetry, patient follow up visits, and tumor boards, to gain insight into the thought processes of the radiation oncologist. An incident learning rotation will be described where the residents learns about and practices evaluating clinical errors and investigates process improvements for the clinic. The residency environment at a Canadian medical physics residency program will be described, where the training and interactions with radiation oncology residents is integrated. And the first month rotation will be described, where the medical physics resident rotates through the clinical areas including simulation, dosimetry, and treatment units, gaining an overview of the clinical flow and meeting all the clinical staff to begin the residency program. This session will be of particular interest to residency programs who are interested in adopting or adapting these curricular ideas into their programs and to residency candidates who want to learn about programs already employing innovative practices. Learning Objectives: To learn about exceptional and innovative clinical rotations or program features within existing Medical Physics Residency Programs. To understand how to adopt/adapt innovative curricular designs into your own Medical Physics Residency Program, if appropriate.

SU‐F‐E‐12: Elective International Rotations in Medical Physics Residency Programs

Purpose:The purpose of this educational program is to motivate talented, intelligent individuals to become stakeholders in the global effort to improve access to radiotherapy.Methods:The need to improve global access to radiotherapy has been clearly established and several organizations are making substantial progress in securing funding and developing plans to achieve this worthwhile goal. The incorporation of elective international rotations in residency programs may provide one possible mechanism to promote and support this future investment. We recently incorporated an elective 1‐month international rotation into our CAMPEP accredited Medical Physics residency program, with our first rotation taking place in Vietnam. A unique aspect of this rotation was that it was scheduled collaboratively with our Radiation Oncology residency program such that Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics residents traveled to the same clinic at the same time.Results:We believe the international rotation substantially enhances the educational experience, providing additional benefits to residents by increasing cross‐disciplinary learning and offering a shared learning experience. The combined international rotation may also increase benefit to the host institution by modeling positive multidisciplinary working relationships between Radiation Oncologists and Medical Physicists. Our first resident returned with several ideas designed to improve radiotherapy in resource‐limited settings – one of which is currently being pursued in collaboration with a vendor.Conclusion:The elective international rotation provides a unique learning experience that has the potential to motivate residents to become stakeholders in the global effort to improve access to radiotherapy. What better way to prepare the next generation of Medical Physicists to meet the challenges of improving global access to radiotherapy than to provide them with training experiences that motivate them to be socially conscious and equip them with the clinical and problem solving skills required to deliver effective treatments in resource limited settings?

SU‐E‐P‐01: Adaptation of Commercial, Web‐Based, Medical Residency Management Software (MedHub, Inc.) for a Medium‐Sized Medical Physics Residency Program

Purpose:Management of a CAMPEP‐accredited medical physics residency program (CaMPRP) is demanding. In our experience, the time required to manage a CaMPRP increased linearly with the number of residents. Managing our paper‐based CaMPRP became unwieldy and inefficient when we increased in size from three to four residents resulting in the purchase of commercial, web‐based residency management software (MedHub, Inc).Methods:All documentation for our CaMPRP was converted into a format that fits the MedHub structure including: all assessments, procedure participation, mentor/resident meeting summaries, director/resident meeting summaries, journals, tumor board and departmental meeting attendance, written reports, presentations, resident/faculty/staff evaluations, didactic coursework approval, licenses, absence tracking, and ethics/professionalism coursework. The conversion process was performed over a 4‐month period and required approximately 120 hours of director time and 100 hours of administrator time. Task assignments and documentation required of residents and faculty are now scheduled and dispersed through MedHub via email. Regular reminders are automatically emailed from MedHub for incomplete documentation. The MedHub server is maintained centrally by a university‐wide system administrator. Data is encrypted and meets FERPA and HIPAA standards.Results:MedHub is a repository for all documentation required of a CaMPRP and is viewable from supported internet browsers. Resident progress and compliance is transparent and viewable in real‐time by residents and administration. Resident and faculty compliance with required documentation and attendance have increased dramatically, approaching 100%. Management of our CaMPRP is now consistent with the medical residency programs who use Medhub campus‐wide. Anonymity is preserved for evaluations of personnel. Lost paper documentation is no longer a concern. Data mining tools are being created to analyze documentation to help increase focus and productivity.Conclusion:Medical residency management software has been successfully adapted by a CaMPRP. This management tool has been very useful toward increasing compliance, access, transparency, anonymity and productivity.

WE-E-213-00: So You Want to Fund a Medical Physics Residency Program

WE-E-213-00: So You Want to Fund a Medical Physics Residency Program