Results for “physicists” — Page 7

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-250: What Does It Take to Correctly Assess the High Failure Modes of an Advanced Radiotherapy Procedure Such as Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy?

Purpose: Assess the correct implementation of risk-based methodology of TG 100 to optimize quality management and patient safety procedures for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy. Methods: A detailed process map of SBRT treatment procedure was generated by a team of three physicists with varying clinical experience at our institution to assess the potential high-risk failure modes. The probabilities of occurrence (O), severity (S) and detectability (D) for potential failure mode in each step of the process map were assigned by these individuals independently on the scale from1 to 10. The risk priority numbers (RPN) were computed and analyzed. The highest 30 potential modes from each physicist’s analysis were then compared. Results: The RPN values assessed by the three physicists ranged from 30 to 300. The magnitudes of the RPN values from each physicist were different, and there was no concordance in the highest RPN values recorded by three physicists independently. The 10 highest RPN values belonged to sub steps of CT simulation, contouring and delivery in the SBRT process map. For these 10 highest RPN values, at least two physicists, irrespective of their length of experience had concordance but no general conclusions emerged. Conclusion: This study clearly shows that the risk-based assessment of a clinical process map requires great deal of preparation, group discussions, and participation by all stakeholders. One group albeit physicists cannot effectively implement risk-based methodology proposed by TG100. It should be a team effort in which the physicists can certainly play the leading role. This also corroborates TG100 recommendation that risk-based assessment of clinical processes is a multidisciplinary team effort.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2014

WE-E-12A-01: Medical Physics 1.0 to 2.0: MRI, Displays, Informatics

Medical Physics 2.0 is a bold vision for an existential transition of clinical imaging physics in face of the new realities of value-based and evidence-based medicine, comparative effectiveness, and meaningful use. It speaks to how clinical imaging physics can expand beyond traditional insular models of inspection and acceptance testing, oriented toward compliance, towards team-based models of operational engagement, prospective definition and assurance of effective use, and retrospective evaluation of clinical performance. Organized into four sessions of the AAPM, this particular session focuses on three specific modalities as outlined below. MRI 2.0: This presentation will look into the future of clinical MR imaging and what the clinical medical physicist will need to be doing as the technology of MR imaging evolves. Many of the measurement techniques used today will need to be expanded to address the advent of higher field imaging systems and dedicated imagers for specialty applications. Included will be the need to address quality assurance and testing metrics for multi-channel MR imagers and hybrid devices such as MR/PET systems. New pulse sequences and acquisition methods, increasing use of MR spectroscopy, and real-time guidance procedures will place the burden on the medical physicist to define and use new tools to properly evaluate these systems, but the clinical applications must be understood so that these tools are use correctly. Finally, new rules, clinical requirements, and regulations will mean that the medical physicist must actively work to keep her/his sites compliant and must work closely with physicians to ensure best performance of these systems. Informatics Display 1.0 to 2.0: Medical displays are an integral part of medical imaging operation. The DICOM and AAPM (TG18) efforts have led to clear definitions of performance requirements of monochrome medical displays that can be followed by medical physicists to ensure proper performance. However, effective implementation of that oversight has been challenging due to the number and extend of medical displays in use at a facility. The advent of color display and mobile displays has added additional challenges to the task of the medical physicist. This informatics display lecture first addresses the current display guidelines (the 1.0 paradigm) and further outlines the initiatives and prospects for color and mobile displays (the 2.0 paradigm). Informatics Management 1.0 to 2.0: Imaging informatics is part of every radiology practice today. Imaging informatics covers everything from the ordering of a study, through the data acquisition and processing, display and archiving, reporting of findings and the billing for the services performed. The standardization of the processes used to manage the information and methodologies to integrate these standards is being developed and advanced continuously. These developments are done in an open forum and imaging organizations and professionals all have a part in the process. In the Informatics Management presentation, the flow of information and the integration of the standards used in the processes will be reviewed. The role of radiologists and physicists in the process will be discussed. Current methods (the 1.0 paradigm) and evolving methods (the 2.0 paradigm) for validation of informatics systems function will also be discussed. Learning Objectives: Identify requirements for improving quality assurance and compliance tools for advanced and hybrid MRI systems. Identify the need for new quality assurance metrics and testing procedures for advanced systems. Identify new hardware systems and new procedures needed to evaluate MRI systems. Understand the components of current medical physics expectation for medical displays. Understand the role and prospect fo medical physics for color and mobile display devices. Understand different areas of imaging informatics and the methodology for developing informatics standards. Understand the current status of informatics standards and the role of physicists and radiologists in the process, and the current technology for validating the function of these systems.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-T-635: Process Mapping of Eye Plaque Brachytherapy

Purpose: To apply a risk-based assessment and analysis technique (AAPM TG 100) to eye plaque brachytherapy treatment of ocular melanoma. Methods: The role and responsibility of personnel involved in the eye plaque brachytherapy is defined for retinal specialist, radiation oncologist, nurse and medical physicist. The entire procedure was examined carefully. First, major processes were identified and then details for each major process were followed. Results: Seventy-one total potential modes were identified. Eight major processes (corresponding detailed number of modes) are patient consultation (2 modes), pretreatment tumor localization (11), treatment planning (13), seed ordering and calibration (10), eye plaque assembly (10), implantation (11), removal (11), and deconstruction (3), respectively. Half of the total modes (36 modes) are related to physicist while physicist is not involved in processes such as during the actual procedure of suturing and removing the plaque. Conclusion: Not only can failure modes arise from physicist-related procedures such as treatment planning and source activity calibration, but it can also exist in more clinical procedures by other medical staff. The improvement of the accurate communication for non-physicist-related clinical procedures could potentially be an approach to prevent human errors. More rigorous physics double check would reduce the error for physicist-related procedures. Eventually, based on this detailed process map, failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) will identify top tiers of modes by ranking all possible modes with risk priority number (RPN). For those high risk modes, fault tree analysis (FTA) will provide possible preventive action plans.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2015

MO-DE-304-00: Workforce Assessment Committee Update

The Abt study of medical physicist work values for radiation oncology physics services, Round IV is completed. It supersedes the Abt III study of 2008. The 2015 Abt study measured qualified medical physicist (QMP) work associated with routine radiation oncology procedures as well as some special procedures. As before, a work model was created to allow the medical physicist to defend QMP work based on both routine and special procedures service mix. The work model can be used to develop a cost justification report for setting charges for radiation oncology physics services. The Abt study Round IV was designed to empower the medical physicist to negotiate a service or employment contract with providers based on measured national QMP workforce and staffing data. For a variety of reasons, the diagnostic imaging contingent of AAPM has had a more difficult time trying estimate workforce requirements than their therapy counterparts. Over the past several years, the Diagnostic Work and Workforce Study Subcommittee (DWWSS) has collected survey data from AAPM members, but the data have been very difficult to interpret. The DWWSS has reached out to include more AAPM volunteers to create a more full and accurate representation of actual clinical practice models on the subcommittee. Though much work remains, through hours of discussion and brainstorming, the DWWSS has somewhat of a clear path forward. This talk will provide attendees with an update on the efforts of the subcommittee. Learning Objectives: Understand the new information documented in the Abt studies. Understand how to use the Abt studies to justify medical physicist staffing. Learn relevant historical information on imaging physicist workforce. Understand the process of the DWWSS in 2014. Understand the intended path forward for the DWWSS.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

MO-DE-304-02: Diagnostic Workforce Subcommittee Status and Direction

The Abt study of medical physicist work values for radiation oncology physics services, Round IV is completed. It supersedes the Abt III study of 2008. The 2015 Abt study measured qualified medical physicist (QMP) work associated with routine radiation oncology procedures as well as some special procedures. As before, a work model was created to allow the medical physicist to defend QMP work based on both routine and special procedures service mix. The work model can be used to develop a cost justification report for setting charges for radiation oncology physics services. The Abt study Round IV was designed to empower the medical physicist to negotiate a service or employment contract with providers based on measured national QMP workforce and staffing data. For a variety of reasons, the diagnostic imaging contingent of AAPM has had a more difficult time trying estimate workforce requirements than their therapy counterparts. Over the past several years, the Diagnostic Work and Workforce Study Subcommittee (DWWSS) has collected survey data from AAPM members, but the data have been very difficult to interpret. The DWWSS has reached out to include more AAPM volunteers to create a more full and accurate representation of actual clinical practice models on the subcommittee. Though much work remains, through hours of discussion and brainstorming, the DWWSS has somewhat of a clear path forward. This talk will provide attendees with an update on the efforts of the subcommittee. Learning Objectives: Understand the new information documented in the Abt studies. Understand how to use the Abt studies to justify medical physicist staffing. Learn relevant historical information on imaging physicist workforce. Understand the process of the DWWSS in 2014. Understand the intended path forward for the DWWSS.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2018

Women in Science: Fermilab computing analyst Margherita Vittone-Wiersma

With February 11 marking the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, female physicists, engineers and computer scientists from CERN and Fermilab share their experiences of building careers in science. Margherita Vittone-Wiersma came to Fermilab as a physicist in February 1985. Together with a group of researchers from Italy's Institute of Nuclear Physics, she began a new experiment called E687. But she soon learned that she preferred working on data acquisition and the many methods to store and access the huge amount of data coming out of science experiments. What was once mere megabytes of data is now terabytes of information - and experimental physicists need to be able to retrieve stored data and monitor data coming from the detectors in real-time. "It's been an incredible change in scale of the amount of data that is handled by computers and has to be analyzed by the physicists," she says. Margherita migrated from physics to her new role in computing through lots of hands-on learning and classes in different programming languages and software development offered at Fermilab. She officially joined the lab's computing division in 1989. "It's a great experience to work with the physicists," she says. Together physicists and computing experts iterate over tools "to make sure that everything is working the way they expect. It's very rewarding." Credits: Video production - Fermilab Creative Services Music Copyright: Universal Production Music Astral Light Chevalier Idea originally conceived by Tanya Levshina, Fermilab and Maria Dimou, CERN.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2014

MO-B-19A-01: MOC: A How-To Guide

Medical physicists who were certified in 2002 or later, as well as those who become certified in the future, are enrolled in Maintenance of Certification. Many physicists with life-time certificates have voluntarily enrolled in MOC, as have physicists who volunteer their time to participate in the ABR exam development and administration processes. MOC consists of four components: Part 1, Professional standing; Part 2, Lifelong learning and self-assessment; Part 3, Cognitive expertise; and Part 4, Practice quality improvement. These four components together evaluate six competencies: Medical knowledge, patient care and procedural skills, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, practice-based learning and improvement, and systems-based practice. Parts 1, 2, and 3 of MOC are fairly straightforward, although many participants have questions about the process for attesting to professional standing, the opportunities for obtaining self-assessed continuing education, and the timing of the cognitive exam. MOC participants also have questions about Part 4, Practice Quality Improvement. PQI projects are powerful tools for improving the quality and safety of the environments in which we practice medical physics. In the current version of MOC known as “Continuous Certification” a medical physicist must have completed a PQI project within the previous three years, at the time of the ABR's annual look-back each March. For the first “full” annual look-back in March 2016, diplomates will be given an additional year, so that a PQI project completed in 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015 will fulfill this requirement. Each component of MOC will be addressed, and the specifics of interest to medical physicists will be discussed. Learning Objectives: Understand the four components and six competencies evaluated by MOC. Become familiar with the annual requirements of Continuous Certification. Learn about opportunities for Practice Quality Improvement projects. Understand refinements occurring in the MOC program.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2014

MO-D-16A-01: International Day of Medical Physics

International Organization for Medical Physics (IOMP) which represents medical physicists in more than 80 countries decided to celebrate 7th November, birth date of the Polish and naturalized-French physicist Marie Sklodowska-Curie, as International Day of Medical Physics (IDMP). The main purpose of the initiative is to raise the visibility and awareness of medical physicist in the global community, to introduce ourselves to the general public, and bring a message to the community that a group of health professionals, the medical physicists are there to help the patients and other health professionals. First celebration was done in 2013 and now IDMP will be celebrated every year. The theme of IDMP will be different each year. The theme for 2013 was ‘Radiation exposure from medical procedures, ask the Medical Physicist’. The inaugural event was celebrated in 23 countries and the amount of attention gained was remarkable. Main IDMP events were held in Poland, birthplace of Marie Curie, and France, workplace of Marie Curie. This year IOMP celebrates the 2nd IDMP and theme will be ‘Looking into the body-Advancement in Imaging through Medical Physics’ to draw attention to the profound contributions Medical Physics has made to the use of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation for the imaging of human body. A number of countries have informed about events that they are going to organize on IDMP. This gives wide attention to medical physics globally. AAPM is a major and important member of IOMP. It is hoped that AAPM will join in organizing activities. Learning Objectives: To learn about International Day of Medical Physics To become familiar with how first IDMP was celebrated in 2013 and learning achieved To understand on future plans for IDMPs.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2014

TU-E-BRD-01: President’s Symposium: The Necessity of Innovation in Medical Physics

This abstract will not blow you away, but speed-painting presenter Erik Wahl will certainly make a truly unique AAPM symposium that you will not want to miss. Along with clinical director John Bayouth and scientific leader Jeff Siewerdsen, this session will highlight innovation. To avoid being button pushers and irrelevant investigators of yesterday’s science, we must innovate. This is particularly challenging in the changing landscape of declining research funding and healthcare reimbursement. But all hope is not lost, Medical Physics is a field born out of innovation. As scientists we quickly translated the man-made and natural phenomena of radiation into a tool that could diagnose broken bones, locate foreign objects imbedded within the body, and treat a spectrum of diseases. As hyperbolae surrounding the curative powers of radiation overcame society, physicists continued their systematic pursuit of a fundamental understanding of radiation and applied their knowledge to enable the diagnostic and therapeutic power of this new tool. Health economics and the decline in research funding have put the Medical Physicist in a precarious position: how do we optimally participate in medical research and advanced patient care in the face of many competing needs? Today's diagnostic imaging and therapeutic approaches are tremendously sophisticated. Researchers and commercial vendors are producing technologies at a remarkable rate; to enable their safe and effective implementation Medical Physicists must work from a fundamental understanding of these technologies. This requires all of us, clinically practicing Medical Physicists, Researchers and Educators alike, to combine our training in scientific methods with innovation. Innovation is the key to our past, a necessity for our contemporary challenges, and critical for the future of Medical Physics. The keynote speakers for the 2014 AAPM Presidential Symposium session will address the way we approach these vitally important technologies for diagnosis and therapy into opportunities to innovate. The speed-painting artist and lecturer Erik Wahl will finish the symposium with a fast-paced and entertaining presentation on embracing the future by creating disruptive innovation strategies. Learning Objectives: Identify connection between Medical Physics and Innovation. Understand how Innovation enables Clinical Medical Physicists to implement novel technologies. Learn how innovative Medical Physics solutions can address significant and relevant challenges in science. Become inspired to pursue a new scientific understanding, positive change in clinical practice, and benefit to patients.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2014

WE-A-12A-01: Medical Physics 1.0 to 2.0, Session 2: Radiography, Mammography and Fluoroscopy

Medical Physics 2.0 is a bold vision for an existential transition of clinical imaging physics in face of the new realities of value-based and evidencebased medicine, comparative effectiveness, and meaningful use. It speaks to how clinical imaging physics can expand beyond traditional insular models of inspection and acceptance testing, oriented toward compliance, towards team-based models of operational engagement, prospective definition and assurance of effective use, and retrospective evaluation of clinical performance. Organized into four sessions of the AAPM, this particular session focuses on three specific modalities as outlined below. Radiography 2.0: The development of electronic capture in recent years has changed the landscape and spurred reinvestment by healthcare providers. The radiography presentation will explore how the diagnostic medical physicist must adapt to these changes to support radiographic imaging, and how she/he can add value in radiography practice over the next 5-10 years. Topics of discussion include new metrology of evaluation, new models of clinical engagement, and effective integration of new technologies. Mammography 2.0: Mammography has been an interesting testing ground on the effectiveness of close involvement of medical physicists with equipment in the past twenty years. The outcomes have clearly shown major improvements in image quality and significant reduction in the average glandular dose. However, the medical physicist's role in mammography has been largely focused to annual surveys and with limited input on operational issues with image artifacts, optimal mammographic acquisition mode and problems with image quality. This mammography presentation will address why and how medical physicists must be prepared to address the new models of practice that include new metrics of performance and the integration of new technologies (DBT, syncretized mammograms, contrast mammography, breast CT) into clinical practice. Fluoroscopy 2.0: Physics support of fluoroscopy should be operationally as opposed to compliance focused. Testing protocols must address new hardware, acquisition methods, and image processing. Future available tools are discussed. Proper configuration of acquisition parameters (focal spot size, voltage and added filter, tube current, pulse width, pulse rate, scatter removal) as a function of patient size from the neonate to bariatric patient is key to providing diagnostic image quality at properly managed radiation doses. Learning Objectives: Appreciate the limitations of the currently available tools and techniques in clinical medical physics in radiography, mammography, and fluoroscopy, and ways to improve upon current deficiencies. Appreciate the changing environment of imaging practice and the need for the medical physicist to be an expert consultant and educator in a capacity that extends beyond the annual survey of equipment. Understand the status of the rapidly changing environment in breast imaging from planar imaging to tomosynthesis and possibly to breast CT. Identify appropriate configuration of acquisition parameters as a function of patient size to manage radiation dose and ensure diagnostic image quality.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2014

WE-PIS-Exhibit Hall-01: Tools for TG-142 Linac Imaging QA II

Partners in Solutions is an exciting new program in which AAPM partners with our vendors to present practical “hands-on” information about the equipment and software systems that we use in our clinics. The therapy topic this year is solutions for TG-142 recommendations for linear accelerator imaging QA. Note that the sessions are being held in a special purpose room built on the Exhibit Hall Floor, to encourage further interaction with the vendors. Using DoseLab to Perform TG-142 Imaging QA The goals of this session will be to present a clinical overview of acquiring images for TG-142 Imaging QA, as well as analyzing and evaluating results using DoseLab software. DoseLab supports planar imaging QA analysis using almost any QA phantom provided by numerous vendors. General advantages and disadvantages of selecting each of these phantoms will be briefly summarized. Best practices for selecting image acquisition parameters will be presented. A demonstration of using DoseLab software to perform a series of TG-142 tests will be performed. We will disuss why DoseLab uses its own set of imaging QA formulas, and why imaging QA measurement values of the same nominal properties will vary between TG- 142 software packages. Because TG-142 does not specify baseline and tolerance values for imaging QA, the presentation will recommend performing the manufacturer's acceptance test procedure to validate the equipment is functioning correctly. Afterwards, results can be obtained using the clinic's selected set of phantoms, image acquisition parameters, and TG-142 software to set proper baseline values. This presentation will highlight the reasons why comparing imaging QA results can be trickier than comparing linear accelerator treatment results and what physicists should keep in mind when comparing imaging QA results for different machines. Physicists are often unsure of the next step when there is an issue discovered during Imaging QA. Therefore, a few common examples of imaging issues and recommended solutions will be discussed. TG-142 Imaging QA Simplified: Lessons From Diagnostic Physics Collaboration There are many commercial options for the performance of imaging quality assurance tests for the linear accelerator imaging systems as required by the AAPM TG-142 report. Imaging quality assurance testing is largely performed by the diagnostic physicist so routine performance of these tests by the practicing oncology physicist can be complicated and confusing given all of the commercially available options. This presentation focuses on the performance of imaging quality assurance testing for linear accelerators using methods similar to that of diagnostic physicists. This presentation will address the ability to perform the required testing without complicated software and explores solutions for the performance of these tests in an efficient manner while still maintaining the ability to ascertain image quality changes that may ultimately affect clinical decisions.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2014

TH-B-12A-01: TG124 “A Guide for Establishing a Credentialing and Privileging Program for Users of Fluoroscopic Equipment in Healthcare Organizations”

Fluoroscopy credentialing and privileging programs are being instituted because of recorded patient injuries and the widespread growth in fluoroscopy use by operators whose medical education did not include formal fluoroscopy training. This lack of training is recognized as a patient safety deficiency, and medical physicists and health physicists are finding themselves responsible for helping to establish fluoroscopy credentialing programs. While physicians are very knowledgeable about clinical credentials review and the privileging process, medical physicists and health physicists are not as familiar with the process and associated requirements. To assist the qualified medical physicist (QMP) and the radiation safety officer (RSO) with these new responsibilities, TG 124 provides an overview of the credentialing process, guidance for policy development and incorporating trained fluoroscopy users into a facility's established process, as well as recommendations for developing and maintaining a risk-based fluoroscopy safety training program. This lecture will review the major topics addressed in TG124 and relate them to practical situations. Learning Objectives: Understand the difference between credentialing and privileging. Understand the responsibilities, interaction and coordination among key individuals and committees. Understand options for integrating the QMP and/or RSO and Radiation Safety Committee into the credentialing and privileging process. Understand issues related to implementing the fluoroscopy safety training recommendations and with verifying and documenting successful completion.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2014

TH-C-18C-01: MRI Safety

Clinical diagnostic medical physicists may be responsible for implementing and maintaining a comprehensive MR safety program. Accrediting bodies including the ACR, IAC, Radsite and The Joint Commission each include aspects of MR Safety into their imaging accreditation programs; MIPPA regulations further raise the significance of non-compliance. In addition, The Joint Commission recently announced New and Revised Diagnostic Imaging Standards for accredited health care organizations which include aspects of MR Safety. Hospitals and clinics look to the physicist to understand guidelines, regulations and accreditation requirements related to MR safety. The clinical medical physicist plays a significant role in a clinical practice by understanding the physical basis for the risks and acting as a facilitator to successfully implement a safety program that provides well-planned siting, allows for the safe scanning of certain implanted devices, and helps radiologists manage specific patient exams. The MRI scanning of specific devices will be discussed including cardiac pacemakers and neurostimulators such as deep brain stimulators. Furthermore for sites involved in MR guided interventional procedures, the MR physicist plays an essential role to establish safe practices. Creating a framework for a safe MRI practice includes the review of actual safety incidents or close calls to determine methods for prevention in the future. Learning Objectives: Understand the requirements and recommendations related to MR safety from accrediting bodies and federal regulations. Understand the Medical Physicist's roles to ensure MR Safety. Identify best practices for dealing with implanted devices, including pacemakers and deep brain stimulators. Review aspects of MR safety involved in an MR guided interventional environment. Understand the important MR safety aspects in actual safety incidents or near misses.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

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: 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.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2015

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: 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.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2015

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: 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.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2015

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: 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.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2015

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: 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.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗