AAPM Newsletter January/February 1999 Vol. 24 No. 1

Newsletter AMERICAN ASSOCIATION

OF

PHYSICISTS

IN

VOLUM E 24 NO. 1

MEDICINE JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1999

AAPM President’s Column The Mission Continues

By Geoffrey Ibbott Lexington, KY I am delighted to have this first opportunity to address you as President of AAPM. I am honored by the confidence you have placed in me, and am eager to face the challenges ahead. I feel fortunate to have had the support and guidance of those who have held this position before me, but hope I won’t wear out their generosity and thoughtfulness during the next year. Outgoing Chairman of the Board Steve Thomas is to be congratulated for his very successful tenure and for having conducted the board meetings with diplomacy and leadership. I look forw a rd to working with this year’s executive committee: Chairman of the Board Larry R o t h e n b e rg , President-elect Ken Hogstro m , Tre a s u re r Melissa Martin, Secretary Jim Galvin, and Executive Director Sal Trofi.

I n hi s f ir st a dd re ss a s P resident, Steve Thomas referred to the mission faced by th e AA P M .

Th e Association’s mission statement was developed in response to a recommendation by the strategic planning committee established by Past President Guy Simmons. It was adopt-

(1 ) T he S ta te o f t h e Profession (2 ) O ur P r ese n ce an d Influence on State and National Policymaking (3) Association Operations

•The State of the Profession Scientific Publications Chief among the important roles of our Association is publication of scientific contribued by the Board and is published on the AAPM web page and in the Directory. The mission of the Association is to ad v an c e th e pra ct ic e of physics in medicine and biology by encouraging innovative re s e a rch and development, disseminating scientific and technical information, fostering the education and professional development of medical physicists, and promoting the highest quality medical services for patients. These are on goi ng go als fo r t he Association, and ones that will function as guiding principles again this year.

Steve Thomas and Larry Rothenberg both used their first column to describe the important issues they believed were faced by the AAPM. I have followed their lead and classify the issues as:

1

INSIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS President’s Column………………p. 1 ACR Intersociety Mtg....................p. 4 ABMS Member Board...................p. 6 Certification ABR Certification...........................p. 7 ABMP Organization......................p. 8 Executive Director’s Col...............p. 9 Ionizing Radiation Measurement.................................p.11 Letter to Editor...............................p. 11

AAPM NEWSLETTER

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1999

tions. Under the leadership of Science Council chair R a v i N a t h and co-chair R o n a l d Price, the AAPM has generated a number of useful and valuable scientific reports addressin g imp ort ant issues of s t a n d a rdization and quality assurance. One of the highlights of the last year has been the development of a new calibration protocol for therapeutic radiation beams. This protocol should soon be published and is the result of considerable effort by task group 51, the Radiation Therapy Committee, NIST and the ADCLs.

Certification P a s t - p r esi den t Larry Rothenberg reported recently that an application for sponsorship of the ABR has been submitted by the ACMP. This application, supported by the AAPM and the ABMP, is proposed as a step in the process of resolving the duplication of certification mechanisms for medical physicists. At the time of this writing, the other sponsors of the ABR are reviewing the application. The outcome of this review will be reported as soon as it is known.

Supply of and Demand for Medical Physicists In recent years, a number of indicators have suggested a surplus of medical physicists and a shortage of new positions. During the last year, the apparent surplus of medical physicists seems to have disappeared. The AAPM Placement Bulletin, capably managed by Bob Rice, has nearly doubled in size in comparison to several recent years, and anecdotal reports indicate that fewer

a pp li c ati on s a re bei ng received by those advertising vacant positions. Exactly why this has happened is not clear, but it is probably a combination of factors including a reduction in the number of graduates from training programs, the creation of new jobs in response to MQSA requirements, or perhaps the w i d e s p read introduction of clinical programs such as IMRT or prostate seed implants. The supply and demand situation is being monitored closely by the Committee on Training of Medical Physicists, under the d i rection of outgoing chair Russ Ritenour and incoming chair Bhudatt Paliwal.

Continuing Education Thanks to the efforts of a number of people including Education Council chair Don F re y , RDCE Subcommittee chair Chuck Kelsey, and H e ad qu a r te rs s t a f f, n e w opportunities for obtaining continuing education credits are available to medical physicists. More of our annual meeting program is eligible for CAMPEP credits, as are many local and chapter meetings. Chapter presidents and meeting planners should take advantage of the availability of Association officers as speakers. As travel budgets s hri nk t he se edu ca ti ona l opportunities become increasingly important.

• Our Presence and Influence on State and National Policymaking The importance of our scientific publications was men-

2

tioned earlier. However, the AAPM recently has needed to explain to several regulatory groups that some task group reports (such as the report of TG-40) are intended as guidelines or goals, and were not written with the expectation that they would be adopted as regulations. The AAPM needs another category of publications; we need to be able to publish standards of practice.

Doing so would enable regulatory and advisory organizatio ns to refer directly to specific published standards, rather than incorporate the text of our task group reports into regulations, sometimes w i th uni n t en ded c on s equences. I will continue an effort begun last year to develop a mechanism for the AAPM to publish and pro m u l g a t e such standards.

Last year, the AAPM presented a highly successful symposium at the annual meeting of the Conference of Radiation C o n t rol Program Dire c t o r s ( CR C PD ). T hank s to ou r liaisons Frances Harshaw, Dick Lane, Chuck Kelsey, Melissa Martin, and Keith Strauss, and the efforts of recent past presidents, our relationship with the CRCPD is strong and collegial. Our liaisons are preparing another symposium to be held at the CRCPD meeting this year, and we already have held discussions over the topic for the symposium for the year 2,000.

The relationship with state radiation control programs is an important one for medical p hy s ic i st s and a hea l th y liaison with the CRCPD must be nurtured.

This is not to say that we can

AAPM NEWSLETTER

ignore the activities of other g o v e rnment agencies. The AAPM has commented recently on the NRC’s pro p o s e d changes to Part 35. In addition, we have submitted extensive comments to the Health Care Fi na n ci ng Ad m in is tra ti on (HCFA) regarding the changes to the practice expense RVUs. Thanks to comments from the AAPM and other organizations, the threatened reduction in technical reimbursement of 24% was averted, although the reductions in pro f e s s i o n a l reimburs ement end ed up being larger than anticipated.

We will continue to monitor these developments and comment as appropriate.

T h rough the Pro f e s s i o n a l Council, chaired by M i k e Gillin, the AAPM also has commented several times on HCFA’s proposal to implement a new reimbursement scheme called “Ambulatory Patient Classifications” (APCs). This is a prospective-payment program similar to DRGs, but it applies to outpatients. As proposed, it appears to be very damaging for radiation oncology reimbursement.

T h rough the Pro f e s s i o n a l Council, the AAPM continues to maintain a strong and productive relationship with the JCAHO. Recently, a document containing advice for medical physicists on interpreting the JCAHO standards was published on the AAPM web page. The council continues to collect reports of experiences of individual physicists during survey visits by the JCA HO. Let ters from the A s so c i a ti on to th e NRC , HCFA, and other regulatory agencies are posted on the

AAPM web page.

Coordination with Other Organizations T h ro ug h th e Tr i l a t e r a l Committee, the AAPM will continue to coordinate its professional activities with the A CM P and th e ACR Co mm is si on o n M edi c al Physics. I look forward to a p rod uc tive y ear w ork in g wit h AC MP c hair J i m Smathers and past chair Alex Turner, and with ACR-CMP chair Don Tolbert.

• Association Operations Thanks to the strong leadership exhibited by past presidents and careful management of the association’s finances by Treasurer Melissa Martin, we are in excellent financial condition. Our 1999 budget, the largest ever, is over $3.8 million. The budget is essentially break-even, but continues our recent practice of developing realistic budgets and avoiding fiscal over-conservatism leading to large unbudgeted cash flows. Good fiscal management has built our reserves more quickly than planned, to $3.2 million, rapidly approaching our goal of one year’s expenses in reserve.

Of course, a significant contribution to our healthy bottom line for 1998 was a very successful annual meeting.

Credit is due to the Annual Mee t i ng Co o r d i n a t i o n Committee, chaired by Ken Vanek, as well as the Local A rra ng em en ts Co mm itt e e c h a i red by Jim Marbach.

Thanks go also to re t i r i n g Program Committee chair Bob Gould for two terms of out-

3

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1999

standing service. We look forward to another excellent program in 1999 in Nashville, un der t he g u id an c e o f Scientific Program Dire c t o r Eric Klein, Education Program Director Paul Feller, Local Arrangements chair Ronald Price, C o n t i n u i n g Education Committee chair Tony Seibert and incoming P rogram Committee chair Dave Pickens.

One of the pillars of the Association is its journal. In the last Newsletter, you read that the Journal Business M ana gem en t Com mi t tee, under the direction of past chair John Boone and incoming chair Chris Marshall, together with journal editor Colin Orton, has announced that the journal will go on-line in 1999. This move will entail some expense (included in the 1999 budget) and will help keep the journal at the forefront of scientific publications.

Our Headquarters off i c e continues to provide the Association with valuable and e fficient service. Executive Director Sal Trofi has mentioned recently the employees added most recently to the staff, but in this column I’d like to highlight the excellent work done by Sean Benedict, our new data manager who has replaced Janie Steplowski.

As you know, one of the primary responsibilities of the President-elect is to fill vacancies on the AAPM’s committees. Sean was instrumental in ve r if yi ng app oi nt me nts, detecting my errors, and eliminating inconsistencies. This year, in response to the notice mailed in the Spring, 95 members were appointed to com-

AAPM NEWSLETTER

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1999

mittees. Of these, 55 members were appointed to their first choice. Many who contacted me to express interest in committee work were apparently younger members of t he Association, and I was especially pleased to be able to appoint these young and enthusiastic people. Only a couple of members could not be accommodated to one of their choices, either because they listed only task groups (of which the members are determined by the parent committee,) or because they didn’t meet the Association’s requirements for full membership. I hope that members who fell into either of these categories will request appointments again in 1999. My thanks go to the members who volunteered for committee appointments; these volunteers do the most im p ort ant wo rk of t he Association!

Communications The use of the Internet to conduct medical physics business is increasing rapidly.

Many AAPM members and other medical physicists are making increasing use of the MedPhys listserver, and I would like to add my thanks to Raj Mitra and Carter Schroy for their effort to maintain this important means of communication. Please understand that the Executive Committee members subscribe to the list and monitor the discussions, but r a r ely res pond pub lic ly because of the need to develop consensus positions.

■

Report on the 1998 ACR Intersociety Commission Meeting

by Stephen Thomas Cincinnati, OH and Lawrence Rothenberg New York, NY The Intersociety Commission is an operational commission of the American College of Radiology, with its mission to foster and encourage communication an d int erc h a n g e among national radiological societies. The objective of the 1998 conference held in Avon, Colorado and chaired by Kay Vydareny, M.D. was “to identify the skills, competencies and attitudes which will be needed by diagnostic radiologists in tomorrow’s marketplace and to discuss how residencies can be structured to ensure that these qualities are acquired.”

The conference, attended by representatives from 43 organizations associated with the field of radiology, was organized around a “Wants and Needs” format. The theme question of ‘Whether today’s residents are ready for tomorrow’s practice?’ was set against the projected requirements of academic departments, large and small private practices, clinicians and patients. Not surprisingly, the participants were in general agreement that current residency programs were p roducing competent, well qualified diagnostic radiologists who have the skills and knowledge to excel in the profession. However, a number of training issues were identified

4

which needed to be addressed as the discipline moves forward into the next century.

Research Within the realm of academic radiology, overviews were provided by representatives f rom the Resident Review C omm i ttee (R RC) , th e A ss ocia ti on o f P r o g r a m D i re cto r s in R a di ol ogy (APDR), the American Board of Radiology (ABR), and academic departments. A primary weakness identified by academic department chairs in their new faculty recruits was the lack of ability to do research.

Research continues to be recognized as essential to the long-term survival of the specialty. However it was pointed out that in a survey of 120 academic programs around the country, only 65 have NIH funding. Only 15% of the gran ts in vol vin g ima ging research from the NIH have a radiologist as the principal investigator. Parenthetically, a high percentage of these PIs may be medical physicists or basic imaging scientists, which does emphasize the positive functional role of research scie ntis ts w it hi n ra di ol og y departments. One suggestion p ut f orw a rd w a s t ha t re s e a rc h/a ca de mic tra ck s should be developed in some programs. In addition, residencies should formulate mission statements to be given to resident applicants detailing their philosophy about education, including research.

AAPM NEWSLETTER

Critical Thinking and Non-Intrepretive Skills One of the major themes centered on the need to develop critical thinking and noninterpretive skills during the residency. Some of the areas i den ti fie d a s im p ort ant include: ethics, humanism, interpersonal skills, business acuity, medical/legal understanding, risk assessment, business administrative capabilities, through-put efficiency, s t a n d a rd s / a c c reditation, and a p p r o pri aten ess cr it e ria.

Critical thinking in these noninterpretive issues should be taught in lectures, problem based or case study modules, and follow-up conferences. It was recognized that these topics are important to the education of a radiologist/physician and that proficiency in these areas would make the resident a better radiologist, one who has the skills re q u i red for either private practice or academic medicine. The interpersonal qualities needed to be a successful academic radiologist were not considered to be significantly diff e rent fro m those required of a successful private practitioner.

There was general consensus that the non-interpretive issues must be included on ABR examinations if they are to be considered useful or important by the residents.

However, there was lack of a g reement on ho w thes e attributes would be successfully tested. Standardized questions could be developed by t he ACR /AP DR wo r ki ng g roup. It was universally a g re e d / recognized that the faculty must serve as ro l e models and mentors for the

residents on these issues and that appr opriate behavior mo di fi ca ti on m igh t b e required of senior faculty at many institu ti ons. It was viewed as the responsibility of the department chair to stress the need for appro p r i a t e senior faculty attitudes. The viewpoint was expressed that individuals should be physicians first and radiologists second. The non-interpre t i v e skills reflect the physician aspects, whereas the interpretive skills relate to the radiology specialist.

A number of additional skills w e re singled out as being essential training components for inclusion within residency programs. However, not surprisingly, the importance of continuing to develop a strong base in general radiology was stressed. Physicians from the private practice sector emphasized the need for residents to be able to recognize ‘normal’ in all it’s variations. (Private practices have a large percentage of normal cases in comparison to large academic university hospitals.) Other aspects for discussion included the need for residents to be taught how to dictate effectively, stressing the attribute of brevity while at the same time providing pertinent differential diagnoses. The importance of communication as outlined in th e ACR S ta n dar d o n Communication should be utilized by the residency programs. To work effectively in a private practice group, the resident must have the ability to “multi-task” and to read a large number of films accurately and efficiently within a busy outpatient setting. Moonlighting

5

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1999

should not be an officially endorsed part of the radiology training program although, under certain settings where the resident is supervised and feedback given, moonlighting was considered to present a legitimate educational experience.

Finally, the importance of communication with clinicians and patients was emphasized.

The resident must be taught to be an effective consultant and to interact efficaciously with referring physicians. More involvement is required in the delivery of patient care and the understanding of radiology from the patient’s perspective.

Vario us training modul es might be developed toward this end. The resident should be encouraged to engage in m o re direct communication with patients.

In summary, th e 1998 Intersociety Summer Conference presented a “callforward” to reality. There was a re-dedication to establish principles and an emphasis on some emerging realities and perspectives . Although areas for improvement and redirection as outlined above were identified, there was a general feeling that competent and well-qualified diagnostic radiologists are produced from today’s residencies.

Well focused objectives were established to enable adjustments as required for tomorrow’s practice.

■

AAPM NEWSLETTER

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1999

ABMS Member Board Certification

by Guy Simmons ABR Physics Trustee Lexington, KY It is well known that the American Board of Radiology ( AB R) sp ons or ed by t he AAPM, is a Member Board of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). Essentially all of the principal medical specialty boards in the United States are ABMS Member Boards. It is also well known that mos t ABMS M ember B o a rd s certify physicians exclusively. As part of the ongoing debate about competing boards for medical physicists, the value of physicists being certified by an ABMS Member Board has been raised as an issue. The purpose of this article is to present factual information regarding ABMS Member Board Certification.

Certification of medical ph y si cis ts by a n A B MS Member Board is important because it constitutes formal recognition of Medical Physics as a medical profession and establishes medical physicists as medical specialists. All certificates awarded by ABMS Member Boards are, by definit io n, M ed ic al Sp e cia l ty Certificates. The ABMS publishes annually “THE ABMS DIRECTORY OF BOARD CERTIFIED MEDICAL SPECIALISTS.” Diplomates in Radiological Physics and its sub-fields are listed in that publication. No distinction is made between physics diplomates and the physicians except for the title of the certificate. That is to say

that Certificates in Physics are General Certificates issued by t h e Am er ic a n Boa rd o f Radiology and are parallel to General Certificates issued to Diagnostic Radiologists and Ra d iat io n O nc ol og is ts .

Therefore Medical Physics as a profession is parallel to the physician specialties within the ABMS/ABR structure and is recognized accordingly.

There is no mechanism by which a self-designated, independent board can achieve the status described in the p r e c e di n g p a r a gr a ph . In September, 1994 the ABMS Assembly adopted the following policy statement: “While th e A me r ic a n B oa r d o f Medical Specialties acknowledges the continuing authority of the American Board of Medical Genetics and the American Board of Radiology to certify non-physicians, hereafter the ABMS will not authorize the Member Boards of the ABMS to certify nonphysicians.” The ABMS, in reaffirming its commitment to Medical Physicist certification, recognized the unique relationship that exists between physicians and physical scient i s ts in R a di o l og y a n d Radiation Oncology. At the same time they saw no parallel in other medical specialties except for Medical Genetics.

By this action the ABMS placed Medical Physics in a position that other non-physici an p rofess io nals would dearly love to attain, but never will because of the ABMS policy - a policy that

6

works to the distinct advantage of medical physicists.

The competing board debate has also brought to light the importance of peer contro l within a certifying board. The ABR physicist certification program is a peer-board process in every sense of the word. The program is under the complete control of medical physicists just as physicians control the Diagnostic Radiology and Radiation Oncology certification programs within the ABR. They are separate and distinct at every level. All decisions regarding physicist certification, including the scope and format of written and oral exams, categories, issues such as recertification and time-limited certificates, etc. are made by physicists. That is not to say we do not solicit the opinions of physicians occasionally, just as they seek physicist input regarding their policy decisions.

The ability to work as partners with our physician colleagues is an asset, not a liability, to our board certification program.

■

AAPM NEWSLETTER

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1999

Insights Into Procedures of ABR Certification Exam for Radiological Physicists

by William Hendee Milwaukee, WI A few weeks ago I was asked by Larry Rothenberg, who was then president of AAPM, to write a newsletter article explaining some of the operational procedures for the physics certification process of t he A m eri c an Boa rd o f Radiology (ABR). I have prepared the article as a series of questions and answers in an effort to answer this request.

Q: How are the physics trustees selected for the ABR? A: The AAPM is one of eight sponsoring organizations of the ABR. The ABR has 24 trustees, and three of them are medical physicists. When a physics trustee p osition beco mes vacant, the AAPM is asked to nominate three candidates. The request for nominees may include identification of an area of expertise such as therapy, nuclear or diagnostic physics.

The ABR t hen considers whether the nominees have the qualifications to the meet the needs of the ABR. The ABR can reject nominees who do not have the necessary qualifications. If one or more nominees is rejected, the AAPM would be asked for additional nominees.

If the new nominees do not have the necessary qualifications, the ABR can select its own nominees. This procedure is the same for all sponsoring organizations. No physics nominee from the AAPM has ever been rejected. At a trustees meeting, the ABR then votes on the nominees to choose one to

fill the vacancy. The ABR is currently following this procedure for the physics trustee position to be vacated by Ed Chaney next June. The three nominees selected by the AAPM are Krish Banerjee, Geoff Ibbott and Tom Payne. The ABR will vote in February to select one of these nominees. Recently, the term of office of all new trustees was reduced from six to four years.

Hence, the term of office of the new trustee will be four years, once renewable. Like all ABR trustees, the new trustee will serve without portfolio; that is, he will be dedicated to work on behalf of the ABR, the certification process, and the welfare of applicants for certification, without specific obligations to the sponsoring organization that nominated him.

Q: Who is on the written examination committee for physicists, and how does the committee work?

A: This committee is composed of 14 individuals. They are Bob Barish, Peter Biggs, Susan Brownie, Mark Madsen, Steve Graham, Jon Trueblood, Tony Seibert, Rick Morin, Bob Dixon, Krish Banerjee, Lincoln Hubbard, Guy Simmons, Ed Chaney and Bill Hendee. Gary Barnes was on the committee and continues to serve as a consultant. The committee works as subcommittees and solicits questions from other physicists in compiling the Part 1 examination and the Part 2 examinations in diagnostic, nuclear and therapy physics.

The committee meets for several days each spring to discuss

7

each question in detail and to assemble the final written examination from both new and used questions. Statistics on candidate performance on used questions are reviewed, and often the questions are modified to improve their relevance. There is no specific term for membership on the written examination committee, but the time commitment is substantial and the membership changes frequently as a result. For example, Rick Morin has been respons ib le for assembling the Part 2 examination in diagnostic physics for several years, and he has asked to be replaced after the next examination. Tony Seibert will step up to take Rick’s place, and Russ Ritenour will be add ed to the commit tee.

Appointments to the committee are the responsibility of the physics trustees; they are not voted on or ratified by the ABR. Q: How are oral examiners chosen for the physics certification examination?

A: To be an oral examiner, a physicist must have the PhD or

AAPM NEWSLETTER

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1999

equivalent terminal degre e , and have been certified by the ABR for at least five years. Oral examiners are chosen by the physics trustees from a list of eligible candidates. Oral examination panels are constructed to include several experienced examiners, and are chaired by a physicist with substantial e xami natio n e xper ien c e.

Statistics on examiners are reviewed during and after the examination to identify those whose grades are too high or too low. Examiners are not paid, and must examine in Louisville for three or four days in May or June. Each year several qualified physicists reject the opportunity to examine because of schedule conflicts or because they cannot commit the time required to examine.

I w ou ld be p leas ed t o answer additional questions about the ABR process for certifying physicists in a future newsletter column. Just send your questions to me. â–

Organization and Functioning of the ABMP

by Faiz Khan Minneapolis, MN L a w rence Rothenberg, then president of the AAPM, asked me to write a short article for the AAPM Newsletter explaining the organization and functioning of the ABMP.

Board Structure The American Board of Medical Physics is an independent board for certification of medical physicists. It is incorporated in Massachusetts and sponsored by the American College of Medical Physics (ACMP) and the American Academy of Health Physics (AAHP). The Board consists of eight members, six appointed by the ACMP and two by the A A H P. Ea ch me mb e r is appointed for three years and can be reappointed for a second three year term. These appointments are made directly by the sponsoring organizations whenever a vacancy occurs on the Board. The essential qualification of the board member is certification

by ABMP, the ABR or the Canadian College of Physicists in Medicine (CCPM). The 1998 b o a rd members are: Faiz Khan, Jimmy Fenn, Lawrence Reinstein, Benjamin Archer, Pei-Jan Paul Lin, Kenneth Hogstrom, Kenneth Miller and Richard Vetter. Test Consultant is James Hecht and Executive Director is N. Suntharalingam.

Responsibilities of the Board include overseeing the exam process, appointing examination panels, determining eligibil-

8

ity criteria for candidates, setting minimum standards of competence and establishing new subspecialties for certification.

Examination Panels There are six Examination Panels (appointed by the Board) which are responsible for preparing written and oral examinations. The 1998 Chairs of the six panels are: General Med ical Physics, Howar d Amols; Radiation Oncology Physics, Lawrence Reinstein; Diagnostic Imaging Physics, Edward Nic ko lo f f ; Hyperthermia Physics, Bhudatt Pa liw a l; M edi c al H eal th Physics, Jean St. Germain and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Physics, Wlad Sobol. Written e xam i nat io n in Gen e ral Medical Physics (Part I) and each Subspecialty (Part II) is p re p a red by the re s p e c t i v e Written Exam Committees.

Members of these committees are selected by Panel Chairs each year from physicists who are well known for their professional expertise and are willing to volunteer their services to the Board. For the 1998 written exams, 44 medical physicists submitted questions to the Panels.

Psychometric analysis and statistics for the written exams are prepared by James Hecht (Credentialing Services, Inc.).

Exam Committees, usually four to five physicists from the subspecialty, meet each year to select and edit new questions submitted by item writers as well as to review and select old questions based on perfor-

AAPM NEWSLETTER

mance in the previous exams.

Cut-off passing scores for the written exams are re c o mmended by Dr. Hecht after psychometric analysis and approved by the respective Panel Chairs in consultation with the Board Chairman.

Review of Candidates Medical physicists apply directly to the ABMP for certification in their chosen subspecialty. The applications, together with their academic

and professional credentials, are reviewed by the Executive Director and the appropriate Panel Chairs for acceptance to the exam.

Oral Examination Oral exams are conducted by the Oral Exam Panels. Each candidate is examined for two hours by a panel consisting of at least three examiners. In 1998 there were 22 examiners to examine 94 candidates in all subspecialties over a period

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1999

of four days.

The oral examiners are selected each year by Panel Chairs in consultation with the Board Chairman. The selection and invitation to examine are based on essential qualifications of board certification (ABMP, ABR or CCPM), expertise in the given subspecialty, professional reputation and a desire to serve.

■

Executive Director’s Column

By Sal Trofi College Park, MD Medical Physics Journal T he AA PM B oard of Directors, at their December 1998 meeting, approved the Journal Business Management Committee’s proposal to publi sh th e M ed ic a l P h ys i c s Journal in an electronic format as well as the traditional paper format. AAPM Members will have free access to Medical Physics Online after completing a Member User Agreement (MUA). The AAPM staff and American Institute of Physics (AIP) personnel are working out the procedures to make the MUA available to each member. After the MUA is submitted, a User ID and Password will be assigned.

Members should receive this notice at about the time that you read this article.

AAPM Placement Bulletin Members may have noticed that the AAPM Placement

Bulletins have been thicker than usual. There were 377 listings in 1998 vs. 238 listings in 1997. This represents a 58% increase in job offerings.

A n e ven mor e s tri ki ng increase has been achieved since 1995 when the job listings were 196 vs. the current 377 listings. This represents an increase of 92%.

Membership in AAPM continues to grow. Last year the overall growth was slightly more than 1%. This is a good result when the experiences of a number of other organizat i ons a re co ns id e re d .

Membership organizations are g ene ral l y e xper ie nci ng declines in membership.

Society of Physics Students (SPS) AAPM recently agreed to participate in an AIP program to expose physics students to the benefits of the ten AIP member societies. SPS has about 6,000 members with chapters in over 600 colleges and universities.

9

SPS members are both undergraduate and graduate student s.

A s a ben ef it of membership in SPS, students can choose a free membership in one of the ten AIP member societies. The member society determines the class of membership and the services that will be provided.

AAPM classifies SPS members as “Affiliate Members” and provides them with brochures about medical physics, the AAPM Newsletter, and reduced rates for AAPM meetings and summer school. To date 45 students have selected membership in AAPM.

Future Annual Meetings T he

A APM

Boa rd

of

AAPM NEWSLETTER

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1999

Directors approved two sites for future meetings: San Diego for 2003 and Seattle for 2005.

The following is a list of future locations and dates for the AAPM Annual Meetings.

July 25-29, 1999 Nashville, TN July 23-28, 2000 Chicago, IL July 22-26, 2001 Salt Lake City, UT July 14-18, 2002 Montreal, Quebec Canada August 10-14, 2003 San Diego, CA July 25-29, 2004 Pittsburgh, PA July 24-28, 2005 Seattle, WA Our Annual meeting is grow-

ing in both attendance and exhibit space, which makes it necessary to secure sites as much as six years in advance.

AAPM Books and Reports After a long period of negotiation between the AAPM Publications Committee and Medical Physics Publishing (MPP), an agreement has been reached. MPP will administer, produce, distribute, and promote AAPM’s current and future books and reports. Our current inventory of books and reports will be transferred from Springer-Verlag in New York to MPP in Madison, Wisconsin.

This transfer should be complete by late January 1999.

From this point on, orders for books and reports should be directed to:

Medical Physics

10

Publishing 4513 Vernon Blvd Madison, WI 53705-4964 Phone: 800-442-5778 or 608-262-4021 Fax: 608-265-2121 E-mail: mpp@medicalphysics.org A APM mem ber s wi ll continue to receive a member discount on all AAPM books.

M PP w i ll a lwa ys ma ke available any AAPM title previously published. â–

AAPM NEWSLETTER

Second Report on National Needs in Ionizing Radiation Measurments

by Larry DeWerd AAPM Liaison to CIRMS Madison, WI The Science and Technology Committee of the Council on Ion izing Radiation Measurements and Standards (CIRMS) has issued its second report on national needs for ionizing radiation measurements. There is a steady growth in the need for ionizing radiation measurements and physical standards due to the continued increase in the applications of radionuclides and ionizing radiation. The effort to meet the needs of the user communities for new measurements and standards requires strong collaborative efforts on the part of medical, industrial, academic and government researchers.

This is the mission of CIRMS. The present study identified 25 measurement and standards needs in four general areas, which correspond to the four subcommittees of the Science and Technology Committee: Medical Applications, Public and Environmental Radiation P rotection, Occupational Radiation Protection, and Industrial Applications and Materials Effects.

The 25 needs are characterized by formal Measurement Program Descriptions (MPDs).

In general these are programs that require concerted and coordinated efforts between industry , government and the academic community. Each MPD describes a measurement-

related need, a possible solution, and the impact of that solution. Details are pro v i d e d regarding the technical nature of the solution, relationship to existing programs, technical opportunities, challenges and goals. Resources available and those needed to accomplish these programs are also indicated. A progress report is given for those programs that were identified in the first CIRMS Report on National Needs in Ion izing Radiation and Standards, published in 1995.

Each subcommittee has identified one MPD for which a roadmap is considered essential to meet a national goal. In the medical area, one of the most pressing needs is for national standards for air kerma strength for radioactive seeds used in prostate therapy. The environmental scientists see a need for reference methods development for characterizing chemical speciation of radionuclides in soils.

The industrial and materials effects group spells out a need for dosimetry standards for medical device sterilization. And the occupational and radiation protection community requires new standards and methods for electronic personnel dosimetry.

This 106 page report is available from CIRMS P.O. Box 1238, Duluth, GA 30136; phone/fax: (770) 622-0026; e-mail: cirms@aol.com. For additional information on the Council on Ionizing Radiation Measurements and Standards see www.cirms.org.

■

11

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1999

Letter to Editor

by Peter Biggs Boston, MA As chair of PUBCOM, I was sent a report earlier this year by a Dutch physicist, Stan Heukelom, that he wanted published under the auspices of the AAPM. They wanted to do this to bring the report to the attention of a wider audience. Since this report was published by the Netherlands Commission on Dosimetry, the committee felt that republication by the AAPM would be i n a p p ropriate and re c o mmended that they contact Medical Physics Publishing.

T hi s rep or t, e n tit led “ D e t e rmination and use of scatter correction factors of megavoltage beams,” is equivalent to an AAPM report and is a comprehensive study of the measurement and use of collimator and phantom scatter correction factors in megavoltage photon dosimetry. Given the renewed interest in these factors, this report is timely and should be of interest to all clinical therapy physicists. ■

Announcement Error correction: Call for Abstracts for an International Conference on Medical Imaging, Medical P hy s ic s an d Pre c i s i o n Radiation Therapy is to be on Oct ob e r 4- 6, 19 99 i n Guangzhou, China instead of November 4-6.

AAPM NEWSLETTER

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1999

AAPM NEWSLETTER MANAGING EDITOR Marsha Dixon

EDITOR-IN-RESIDENCE Robert Dixon Send information to: Marsha Dixon Broadcast News Public Relations 201 Knollwood Street Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27104 (336) 721-9171 Phone (336) 721-0833 Fax Email: rdixon@wfubmc.edu The AAPM newsletter is printed bi-monthly. Deadline to receive material for consideration is four to six weeks before mailing date. We welcome your entries, and encourage authors of articles to supply a photo. Please send material via e-mail, disks or mail. Faxes are encouraged as back-up, and are acceptable alone.

NEXT ISSUE March/April, 1999

DEADLINE

MAIL DATE

February 15,1998

March 15, 1999

Editorial Board Benjamin Archer Bruce Curran Don Frey John Kent Richard Morin Alfred Smith

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICISTS IN MEDICINE One Physics Ellipse College Park, Maryland 20740-3846 (301) 209-3350 Phone (301) 209-0862 Fax e-mail: aapm@aapm.org http://www.aapm.org

12