Supporting families with complex early parenting needs through a virtual residential parenting service: An investigation of outcomes, facilitators and barriers.

AIM: To investigate clients' perspectives about outcomes of a telehealth residential unit (RU) program for families experiencing complex early parenting issues, and to explore facilitators and barriers to positive client outcomes. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with mothers (n = 18) admitted to a telehealth RU program. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Mothers reported short-term improvements in their child's presenting issues (e.g. feeding to sleep, night-time waking, co-sleeping), increased confidence and increased partner involvement. According to participants, program outcomes were facilitated by a positive parent-clinician relationship, the accessibility of clinicians and being able to take part in the program from their own home. Barriers included difficulties with technical equipment and connecting with the clinician overnight, and challenges with implementing strategies in the longer term. CONCLUSION: This nurse-led telehealth program was viewed positively by parents and the study identified a number of areas for improvement. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Telehealth early parenting programs provide an important way for parents to receive support with early child sleep, settling and feeding issues. Clinicians working in this area should focus on the development of positive parent-nurse relationships, enhancing communication and availability for parents during overnight periods and supporting parents to develop early parenting skills that will be applicable across the early childhood period. IMPACT: The study is the first to address client experiences of a telehealth RU program. Facilitators and barriers identified will inform service improvements to the program going forward, and similar telehealth programs for families; to ensure benefits and service outcomes are maximised for parents for such a crucial service. REPORTING METHOD: The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines for qualitative research were followed.

The role of the clinical pharmacist in the respiratory or sleep multidisciplinary team.

The role of the pharmacist has evolved significantly, not least over the last 20 years. It delivers a skilled profession with a vital role in medicines optimisation and the management of patients with a respiratory or sleep disorder. While pharmacists are capable of acting as independent practitioners delivering direct patient care, this article explores their contribution to multidisciplinary teams within asthma, COPD, cystic fibrosis, tuberculosis, interstitial lung disease and sleep medicine. Having identified patient cohorts needing specialist medicines support, notably those with poor medicines adherence or specific medicines-related needs (for example during adolescence, or women who are pregnant or breastfeeding), these pharmacists work within primary, secondary and specialist tertiary care. The aim of this review is to share and inspire innovative models of working to include more pharmacists in respiratory and sleep medicine.

Multi-institution consensus paper for acquisition of portable chest radiographs through glass barriers.

BACKGROUND: To conserve personal protective equipment (PPE) and reduce exposure to potentially infected COVID-19 patients, several Californian facilities independently implemented a method of acquiring portable chest radiographs through glass barriers that was originally developed by the University of Washington. METHODS: This work quantifies the transmission of radiation through a glass barrier using six radiographic systems at five facilities. Patient entrance air kerma (EAK) and effective dose were estimated both with and without the glass barrier. Beam penetrability and resulting exposure index (EI) and deviation index (DI) were measured and used to adjust the tube current-time product (mAs) for glass barriers. Because of beam hardening, the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was measured with image quality phantoms to ensure diagnostic integrity. Finally, scatter surveys were performed to assess staff radiation exposure both inside and outside the exam room. RESULTS: The glass barriers attenuated a mean of 61% of the normal X-ray beams. When the mAs was increased to match EI values, there was no discernible degradation of image quality as determined by the CNR. This was corroborated with subjective assessments of image quality by chest radiologists. The glass-hardened beams acted as a filter for low energy X-rays, and some facilities observed slight changes in patient effective doses. There was scattering from both the phantoms and the glass barriers within the room. CONCLUSIONS: Glass barriers require an approximate 2.5 times increase in beam intensity, with all other technique factors held constant. Further refinements are necessary for increased source-to-image distance and beam quality in order to adequately match EI values. This does not result in a significant increase in the radiation dose delivered to the patient. The use of lead aprons, mobile shields, and increased distance from scattering sources should be employed where practicable in order to keep staff radiation doses as low as reasonably achievable.

AAPM medical physics practice guideline 7.a.: Supervision of medical physicist assistants.

The 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 8,000 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. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances. Approved by AAPM's Executive Committee May 28, 2019.

AAPM medical physics practice guideline 10.a.: Scope of practice for clinical medical physics.

The 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 (MPPG) 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 radiation requires specific training, skills, and techniques as described in each document. As the review of the previous version of AAPM Professional Policy (PP)-17 (Scope of Practice) progressed, the writing group focused on one of the main goals: to have this document accepted by regulatory and accrediting bodies. After much discussion, it was decided that this goal would be better served through a MPPG. To further advance this goal, the text was updated to reflect the rationale and processes by which the activities in the scope of practice were identified and categorized. Lastly, the AAPM Professional Council believes that this document has benefitted from public comment which is part of the MPPG process but not the AAPM Professional Policy approval process. The following terms are used in the AAPM's MPPGs: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

AAPM/SNMMI Joint Task Force: report on the current state of nuclear medicine physics training.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) recognized the need for a review of the current state of nuclear  medicine physics training and the need to explore pathways for improving nuclear medicine physics training opportunities. For these reasons, the two organizations formed a joint AAPM/SNMMI Ad Hoc Task Force on Nuclear Medicine Physics  Training. The mission of this task force was to assemble a representative group of stakeholders to:• Estimate the demand for board-certified nuclear medicine physicists in the next 5-10 years,• Identify the critical issues related to supplying an adequate number of physicists who have received the appropriate level of training in nuclear medicine physics, and• Identify approaches that may be considered to facilitate the training of nuclear medicine physicists.As a result, a task force was appointed and chaired by an active member of both organizations that included representation from the AAPM, SNMMI, the American Board of Radiology (ABR), the American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine (ABSNM), and the Commission for the Accreditation of Medical Physics Educational Programs (CAMPEP). The Task Force first met at the AAPM Annual Meeting in Charlotte in July 2012 and has met regularly face-to-face, online, and by conference calls. This manuscript reports the findings of the Task Force, as well as recommendations to achieve the stated mission.

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 3.a: Levels of supervision for medical physicists in clinical training.

The 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 8,000 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.Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Comparison of a suspended radiation protection system versus standard lead apron for radiation exposure of a simulated interventionalist.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the radiation protective characteristics of a system designed to enhance operator protection while eliminating weight to the body and allowing freedom of motion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiation doses to a mock interventionalist were measured with calibrated dosimeters in a clinical interventional suite. A standard lead apron (SLA; Pb equivalent, 0.5 mm) was compared with a suspended radiation protection system (ZeroGravity; Zgrav) that shields from the top of the head to the calves (except the right arm and left forearm) with a complex overhead motion system that eliminates weight on the operator and allows freedom of motion. Zgrav included a suspended lead apron with increased lead equivalency, greater length, proximal left arm and shoulder coverage, and a wraparound face shield of 0.5 mm Pb equivalency. A 26-cm-thick Lucite stack (ie, mock patient) created scatter during 10 controlled angiography sequences of 120 exposures each. Parameters included a field of view of 40 cm, table height of 94 cm, 124 cm from the tube to image intensifier, 50 cm from the image center to operator, 66 kVp, and 466-470 mA. RESULTS: Under identical conditions, average doses (SLA vs Zgrav) were 264 versus 3.4 (ratio, 78) to left axilla (P < .001), 456 versus 10.2 (ratio, 45) to left eye (P < .001), 379.4 versus 6.6 (ratio, 57) to right eye (P < .005), and 18.8 versus 1.2 (ratio, 16) to gonad (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Relative to a conventional lead apron, the Zgrav system provided a 16-78-fold decrease in radiation exposure for a mock interventionalist in a simulated clinical setting.