Sutlief, Steven

Abstract Task Group (TG) 314 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) was charged to develop guidance for recovering from fault states in radiation therapy, specifically regarding the delivery of photon or electron beams using a linear accelerator (linac) including ancillary systems. The fault conditions addressed may involve software, hardware, or a combination of causes. The report provides detailed recommendations for the proactive steps to be taken before a fault, the actions to be taken at the time of a fault, and the safety steps before returning a linac to clinical service, as well as the activities that device manufacturers and standard organizations can do to prevent and resolve the faults. A user‐maintained log of prior faults; establishment of remote access by the vendor; and user training in emergency gantry, couch, and door motions are all useful proactive steps. At the moment of downtime and after ensuring the safety of the patient, the report stresses the importance of capturing fault information, prompt contact with the service engineer after the initial assessment, and considerations for communicating the estimated duration before the linac is returned to service. The medical physicist has a critical responsibility to assess the impact of the fault on patient care. Before resuming clinical use, the medical physicist must both determine the level of testing required to ensure safe operation of the linac and ensure any partially or totally delivered treatments have been correctly saved for accurate completion of the treatment fraction. The report stresses the roles of the radiation therapist, medical physicist, and service engineer to efficiently and safely address linac downtime. The appendices contain a description of the efforts of several organizations regarding linac safety: Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise—Radiation Oncology, International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Radiation Oncology Safety Stakeholder Initiative, and the AAPM Vendor Relations and Product Usability Subcommittee. Disclaimer: The recommendations of this TG should not be used to establish regulations. These recommendations are guidelines for Qualified Medical Physicists and others to use and appropriately interpret for their institution and clinical setting. Each institution may have site‐specific or state‐mandated needs and requirements which may modify their usage of these recommendations.

AbstractConcept inventories are multiple choice exams designed with the intention to test core concepts on specific subjects and evaluate common misconceptions. These tests serve as a useful tool in the classroom to assess value added by the instructor's educational methods and to better understand how students learn. They can provide educators with a method to evaluate their current teaching strategies and to make modifications that enhance student learning and ultimately elevate the quality of medical physics education. The use of concept inventories in introductory college physics courses revealed important gaps in conceptual understanding of physics by undergraduate students and motivated a shift of physics teaching towards more effective methods, such as active learning techniques. The goal of this review is to introduce medical physicists to concept inventories as educational evaluation tools and discuss potential applications to medical physics education by development through multi‐institutional collaboration.

AbstractWhile most Radiation Oncology clinics have adopted electronic charting in one form or another, no consensus document exists that provides guidelines for safe and effective use of the Radiation Oncology electronic medical records (RO‐EMR). Task Group 262 was formed to provide these guidelines as well as to provide recommendations to vendors for improving electronic charting functionality in future. Guidelines are provided in the following areas: Implementation and training for the RO‐EMR, acceptance testing and quality assurance (QA) of the RO‐EMR, use of the RO‐EMR as an information repository, use of the RO‐EMR as a workflow manager, electronic charting for brachytherapy and nonstandard treatments, and information technology (IT) considerations associated with the RO‐EMR. The report was based on a literature search by the task group, an extensive survey of task group members on their respective RO‐EMR practices, an AAPM membership survey on electronic charting, as well as group consensus.