AAPM medical physics practice guideline 3.b.: 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: (1) Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. (2) Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Radiation From Kidney-Ureter-Bladder Radiographs Is Not Trivial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate effective dose of kidney-ureter-bladder (KUB) radiographs in a contemporary population of patients with urolithiasis. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed to identify patients visiting a urology clinic for urolithiasis where a KUB was obtained and whom had a recent computed tomography (CT). Effective dose for KUBs was estimated using a Monte Carlo based simulation program and for CT utilizing the reported dose-length-product. Age, gender, body mass index, and abdominal diameter were analyzed for association with effective dose. KUBs performed at outside facilities in referred patient were compared to those obtained locally when available. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were identified meeting criteria. The majority (92.6%) of KUBs contained multiple radiographs. Mean effective dose was 2.15 mSv ± 1.67 mSv. Only 26% of examinations effective dose was under 1 mSv. Body mass index, abdominal thickness, and image count were all associated with an increase in dose (P < .01 each). Similar to local KUBs, 88% of outside examinations contained multiple images. CONCLUSION: KUB examinations in this contemporary setting are associated with a 2-fold higher effective dose then is often referenced. Increased effective dose is associated with increased patient size and number of images acquired. Nearly 1 in 5 patient's KUB effective dose was similar to a low-dose CT. KUBs role should be re-examined given its limited sensitivity, specificity, associated radiation, and other available imaging options.