Citations

Abstract Clinical medical physics is a profession that intersects with various groups as part of a broader healthcare team, including dosimetrists, radiation therapists, radiologic and MRI technologists, IT specialists, and physicians. Success in this field requires academic and technical excellence as well as comprehensive skills for working effectively within an interdisciplinary healthcare team. When hiring medical physics residents, the selection of well‐rounded and highly qualified candidates can be facilitated through a holistic review process that ensures consideration of traditional metrics such as academic performance while also accounting for the importance of various experiences, personal attributes, and intrinsic motivations that impact clinical performance and patient care. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) emphasizes an overall consideration of Experiences, Attributes, Competencies, and Metrics (EACM) as important for the search process. As part of the healthcare community, medical physics shares the same commitment to high‐quality patient care. By adopting the AAMC's EACM framework, medical physics residency programs can strengthen the fairness, rigor, and overall effectiveness of their application review processes—ultimately benefiting applicants, the medical physics community, and the patients we serve. This Society of Directors of Academic Medical Physics Programs (SDAMPP) task report aims to provide information and resources for applying holistic review to the applicant selection process for medical physics residency programs. Our objective is to enable program directors to reevaluate their selection methods in the context of institutional and program missions and goals and to improve the quality and specificity of recruitment by integrating holistic review concepts into their residency recruitment processes. This initiative can inspire change in recruitment practices, aid programs in hiring well‐rounded and well‐qualified residents, and support the professional growth of our trainees in healthcare. This report provides an overview of holistic reviews and its core principles. We review the current literature and provide evidence from successful implementations of holistic review in other medical fields to illustrate how it can benefit our field. Furthermore, we outline actionable recommendations to facilitate transitioning to a holistic review framework and address potential barriers with practical solutions. A supplemental workbook is provided to guide residency programs in developing their own holistic application review and interview processes. With this report, we aim to provide practical implementation guidelines that will allow residency program directors to implement a selection methodology that comprehensively assesses the full qualifications of individual candidates and ultimately fosters the development of versatile and competent clinical medical physicists who are best equipped to advance the field, meet patient needs, and improve patient care.

Abstract Purpose To develop and implement an in‑house treatment‑management platform to improve communication, data accessibility, and task tracking across a radiation oncology department. Methods We developed Capsule, a custom software platform that centralizes patient data from the ARIA oncology information system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, United States), and integrates it with data from Outlook (Microsoft, Redmond, United States), spreadsheets, and manual inputs. Built using C#, SQL, and the .NET framework, it features a graphical interface in XAML with twelve modular tools to support workflows across a large multi‐modality department. A formal validation, feedback, and maintenance cycle was established. Its impact on workflow efficiency was evaluated using average CarePath task duration before and after implementation, supplemented by user interviews and surveys. Results The Department Schedule, Treatment Planning and On‐Treatment Whiteboard, Spreadsheet, and various workload tracking modules emerged as the most frequently used among dosimetrists surveyed.The Whiteboard module consolidates planning metadata for streamlined workflows. Workload and scheduling modules help distribute tasks fairly. The Department Schedule module centralizes daily role and contact information. The Spreadsheet module allows dosimetrists to identify a reference for unique plans and provides secure access to large exportable tabulated patient data and clinical trends. Other modules support proton down‐time replanning and special procedure physics assignment. One year after Capsule's implementation, most tasks in the external beam radiation therapy workflow experienced a reduction in average duration. Discussion Capsule streamlines workflows by integrating multiple tools into a single platform, supporting urgent scenarios, and improving task hand‐off. Its modular design allows customization to local workflows, but implementation must be guided by institutional oversight and formal quality management to ensure data security and compliance. Conclusion Capsule can provide a solution for improved workflow efficiency, communication, and interdisciplinary coordination. By democratizing access to routine and retrospective data, it supports treatment planning, scheduling, and quality improvement. Ongoing updates are essential as clinical practices evolve.

Abstract Purpose To describe the creation and clinical deployment of an integrated stand‐alone hybrid automated chart review platform that is comprised of a database, oncology information system (OIS) interfaces, and a user interface (UI). Methods A consensus checklist was developed to homogenize the practices of clinical physics staff and physics residents for all plan types. Critical review of the single checklist's items led to the creation of a new concept, the “plan attribute,” which permits specialization of the final checklist based on the characteristics of a particular plan. Only relevant and applicable tests are automatically populated to form a plan checklist based on plan attributes. Each populated checklist in this hybrid automation platform includes elements of full automation, steps or functions that use automation to augment a human input or effort, as well as steps completed by humans. Logging and categorizing of deficiencies found during the chart check was also implemented. Results Chart check data was analyzed for an over 4‐year time span starting from the clinical deployment of the tool in October 2020. This analysis included a total of 427 073 tests spread among 7882 initial chart checks. The recorded deficiencies at three triage levels showed 7116 minor errors, 679 major errors, and 71 plan rejections. The plan rejection level is the highest chart deficiency, which required the plan to be rejected and sent back for serious remediation and/or new plan generation. Conclusion This report describes the successful development and implementation of a hybrid‐automated chart checking program. The software leverages modern database and software design to improve the per case performance and experience of a multi‐user group. Chart check database permits high‐level review and improvement in all aspects of plan check and user performance.

Objectives: This practice parameter was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR), and American Radium Society (ARS). Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) uses various imaging modalities to maximize the accuracy and precision of radiation treatment delivery. Methods: This practice parameter was developed according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website (https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters–Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS. Results: This practice parameter for IGRT addresses qualifications and responsibilities of personnel, clinical IGRT implementation, documentation, quality control and improvement, safety, and patient education. Since the publication of the ACR–ASTRO Practice Parameter in 2019, there is now more clarity as to what criteria and parameters need to be documented in the medical record, a better appreciation of the large amount of imaging data, how to interpret such data, as well as the complex interactions of multiple systems in the implementation of IGRT. Conclusions: This practice parameter assists practitioners in the clinical use of IGRT. IGRT should complement and be used in combination with other quality assurance processes. IGRT is a rapidly evolving field, and practitioners should have a thorough understanding of its strengths and potential limitations.

AbstractBackgroundConventional approaches for emergent or expedited palliative radiotherapy (RT) involve the application of cumbersome vendor‐provided solutions and/or multiple patient appointments to complete the RT workflow within a compressed timeframe.PurposeThis report delineates the clinical development of an in‐house, semi‐automated Cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT)‐based simulation‐free platform for expedited palliative RT on conventional linacs, intended to supplant existing techniques employed at this institution.MethodsThe internal software, termed SimFree Wizard (SFW), was engineered utilizing a C#‐based application programming interface integrated within the treatment planning system (TPS). Generated scripts were compiled as stand‐alone executables, with a graphical user interface (GUI) customized via an integrated development environment. The platform was conceived as a framework for accelerated CBCT‐based RT, bypassing the requirement for standard simulation imaging. SFW employs full automation where feasible to minimize user intervention, supplemented by graphical instructions for tasks requiring manual execution. During development, relevant temporal metrics from 10 end‐to‐end tests for palliative spine RT were quantified. User feedback was solicited via a simple questionnaire assessing the overall platform usability. Automated in‐house secondary verification software was developed for validation of the TPS‐calculated monitor units (MUs).ResultsThe mean duration for workflow execution was 41:42 ± 3:18 [mm:ss] (range ∼37–46 min). SFW satisfactorily generated simple, multi‐field CBCT‐based 3D treatment plans within seconds following delineation of the desired treatment area. User feedback indicated enhanced usability compared to previously employed solutions. Validation of the secondary verification software demonstrated accurate results for palliative spine RT and other simple cases wherein the dose calculation point resides in a predominantly homogenous medium.ConclusionA novel in‐house solution for expedited CBCT‐based RT was successfully developed, facilitating completion of the entire workflow within approximately 1‐hour or less for simple palliative/emergent scenarios. Overall, this application is expected to improve the quality and safety of palliative RT while greatly reducing workflow duration, thereby improving access to palliative care.

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.

ABSTRACTBackgroundPatients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who are hospitalised for acute severe flares represent a high‐risk orphan population.AimTo provide guidance for clinical trial design methodology in these patients.MethodsWe created a multi‐centre consortium to design and conduct a clinical trial for a novel therapeutic intervention (hyperbaric oxygen therapy) in patients with UC hospitalised for moderate–severe flares. During planning, we identified and addressed specific gaps for inclusion/exclusion criteria; disease activity measures; pragmatic trial design considerations within care pathways for hospitalised patients; standardisation of care delivery; primary and secondary outcomes; and sample size and statistical analysis approaches.ResultsThe Truelove‐Witt criteria should not be used in isolation. Endoscopy is critical for defining eligible populations. Patient‐reported outcomes should include rectal bleeding and stool frequency, with secondary measurement of urgency and nocturnal bowel movements. Trial design needs to be tailored to care pathways, with early intervention focused on replacing and/or optimising responsiveness to steroids and later interventions focused on testing novel rescue agents or strategies. The PRECIS‐2 framework offers a means of tailoring to local populations. We provide standardisation of baseline testing, venous thromboprophylaxis, steroid dosing, discharge criteria and post‐discharge follow‐up to avoid confounding by usual care variability. Statistical considerations are provided given the small clinical trial nature of this population.ConclusionWe provide an outline for framework decisions made for the hyperbaric oxygen trial in patients hospitalised for UC flares. Future research should focus on the remaining gaps identified.

AbstractBackgroundBolus materials have been used for decades in radiotherapy. Most frequently, these materials are utilized to bring dose closer to the skin surface to cover superficial targets optimally. While cavity filling, such as nasal cavities, is desirable, traditional commercial bolus is lacking, requiring other solutions. Recently, investigators have worked on utilizing 3D printing technology, including commercially available solutions, which can overcome some challenges with traditional bolus.PurposeTo utilize failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) to successfully implement a comprehensive 3D printed bolus solution to replace commercial bolus in our clinic using a series of open‐source (or free) software products.Methods3D printed molds for bespoke bolus were created by exporting the DICOM structures of the bolus designed in the treatment planning system and manipulated to create a multipart mold for 3D printing. A silicone (Ecoflex 00–30) mixture is poured into the mold and cured to form the bolus. Molds for sheet bolus of five thicknesses were also created. A comprehensive FMEA was performed to guide workflow adjustments and QA steps.ResultsThe process map identified 39 and 30 distinct steps for the bespoke and flat sheet bolus workflows, respectively. The corresponding FMEA highlighted 119 and 86 failure modes, with 69 shared between the processes. Misunderstanding of plan intent was a potential cause for most of the highest‐scoring failure modes, indicating that physics and dosimetry involvement early in the process is paramount.ConclusionFMEA informed the design and implementation of QA steps to guarantee a safe and high‐quality comprehensive implementation of silicone bolus from 3D printed molds. This approach allows for greater adaptability not afforded by traditional bolus, as well as potential dissemination to other clinics due to the open‐source nature of the workflow.

AbstractBackgroundSimulated error training is a method to practice error detection in situations where the occurrence of error is low. Such is the case for the physics plan and chart review where a physicist may check several plans before encountering a significant problem. By simulating potentially hazardous errors, physicists can become familiar with how they manifest and learn from mistakes made during a simulated plan review.PurposeThe purpose of this project was to develop a series of training datasets that allows medical physicists and trainees to practice plan and chart reviews in a way that is familiar and accessible, and to provide exposure to the various failure modes (FMs) encountered in clinical scenarios.MethodsA series of training datasets have been developed that include a variety of embedded errors based on the risk‐assessment performed by American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 275 for the physics plan and chart review. The training datasets comprise documentation, screen shots, and digital content derived from common treatment planning and radiation oncology information systems and are available via the Cloud‐based platform ProKnow.ResultsOverall, 20 datasets have been created incorporating various software systems (Mosaiq, ARIA, Eclipse, RayStation, Pinnacle) and delivery techniques. A total of 110 errors representing 50 different FMs were embedded with the 20 datasets. The project was piloted at the 2021 AAPM Annual Meeting in a workshop where participants had the opportunity to review cases and answer survey questions related to errors they detected and their perception of the project's efficacy. In general, attendees detected higher‐priority FMs at a higher rate, though no correlation was found between detection rate and the detectability of the FMs. Familiarity with a given system appeared to play a role in detecting errors, specifically when related to missing information at different locations within a given software system. Overall, 96% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the ProKnow portal and training datasets were effective as a training tool, and 75% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they planned to use the tool at their local institution.ConclusionsThe datasets and digital platform provide a standardized and accessible tool for training, performance assessment, and continuing education regarding the physics plan and chart review. Work is ongoing to expand the project to include more modalities, radiation oncology treatment planning and information systems, and FMs based on emerging techniques such as auto‐contouring and auto‐planning.

AbstractThe American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States.The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner.Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized.The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. While must is the term to be used in the guidelines, if an entity that adopts the guideline has shall as the preferred term, the AAPM considers that must and shall have the same meaning. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.