Jordan, David W.

AbstractQualified medical physicists (QMPs) are in a unique position to influence the creation and application of key performance indicators (KPIs) across diverse practices in health care. Developing KPIs requires the involvement of stakeholders in the area of interest. Fundamentally, KPIs should provide actionable information for the stakeholders using or viewing them. During development, it is important to strongly consider the underlying data collection for the KPI, making it automatic whenever possible. Once the KPI has been validated, it is important to setup a review cycle and be prepared to adjust the underlying data or action levels if the KPI is not performing as intended. Examples of specific KPIs for QMPs of common scopes of practice are provided to act as models to aid in implementation. KPIs are a useful tool for QMPs, regardless of the scope of practice or practice environment, to enhance the safety and quality of care being delivered.

The past decade has seen the increasing integration of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging into radiation therapy (RT). This growth can be contributed to multiple factors, including hardware and software advances that have allowed the acquisition of high‐resolution volumetric data of RT patients in their treatment position (also known as MR simulation) and the development of methods to image and quantify tissue function and response to therapy. More recently, the advent of MR‐guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) ‐ achieved through the integration of MR imaging systems and linear accelerators ‐ has further accelerated this trend. As MR imaging in RT techniques and technologies, such as MRgRT, gain regulatory approval worldwide, these systems will begin to propagate beyond tertiary care academic medical centers and into more community‐based health systems and hospitals, creating new opportunities to provide advanced treatment options to a broader patient population. Accompanying these opportunities are unique challenges related to their adaptation, adoption, and use including modification of hardware and software to meet the unique and distinct demands of MR imaging in RT, the need for standardization of imaging techniques and protocols, education of the broader RT community (particularly in regards to MR safety) as well as the need to continue and support research, and development in this space. In response to this, an ad hoc committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) was formed to identify the unmet needs, roadblocks, and opportunities within this space. The purpose of this document is to report on the major findings and recommendations identified. Importantly, the provided recommendations represent the consensus opinions of the committee’s membership, which were submitted in the committee's report to the AAPM Board of Directors. In addition, AAPM ad hoc committee reports differ from AAPM task group reports in that ad hoc committee reports are neither reviewed nor ultimately approved by the committee’s parent groups, including at the council and executive committee level. Thus, the recommendations given in this summary should not be construed as being endorsed by or official recommendations from the AAPM.

PurposeA Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography quality assurance program is necessary to ensure that patients receive optimal imaging and care. We summarize the AAPM Task Group (TG) 126 report on acceptance and quality assurance (QA) testing of PET/CT systems.MethodsTG 126 was charged with developing PET/CT acceptance testing and QA procedures. The TG aimed to develop procedures that would allow for standardized evaluation of existing short‐axis cylindrical‐bore PET/CT systems in the spirit of NEMA NU 2 standards without requiring specialized phantoms or proprietary software tools.ResultsWe outline eight performance evaluations using common phantoms and freely available software whereby the clinical physicist monitors each PET/CT system by comparing periodic Follow‐Up Measurements to Baseline Measurements acquired during acceptance testing. For each of the eight evaluations, we also summarize the expected testing time and materials necessary and the recommended pass/fail criteria.ConclusionOur report provides a guideline for periodic evaluations of most clinical PET/CT systems that simplifies procedures and requirements outlined by other agencies and will facilitate performance comparisons across vendors, models, and institutions.

Derived from 2 yr of deliberations and community engagement, Medical Physics 3.0 ( MP 3.0) is an effort commissioned by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine ( AAPM ) to devise a framework of strategies by which medical physicists can maintain and improve their integral roles in, and contributions to, health care and its innovation under conditions of rapid change and uncertainty. Toward that goal, MP 3.0 advocates a broadened and refreshed model of sustainable excellence by which medical physicists can and should contribute to health care. The overarching conviction of MP 3.0 is that every healthcare facility can benefit from medical physics and every patient's care can be improved by a medical physicist. This large and expansive challenge necessitates a range of strategies specific to each area of medical physics: clinical practice, research, product development, and education. The present paper offers a summary of the Phase 1 deliberations of the MP 3.0 initiative pertaining to strategic directions of the discipline primarily but not exclusively oriented toward the clinical practice of medical physics in the United States.