MPLA case: How do you lead as a lead physicist?

This work of fiction is part of a case study series developed by the Medical Physics Leadership Academy (MPLA). It is intended to facilitate the discussion of the managerial and leadership challenges faced by a clinical medical physicist. In this case, a physicist David used to work in a clinic where he thrived and felt like a leader, despite not having the title. After a job change, he is now officially the "Lead Physicist" at a hospital newly affiliated with a large academic healthcare system. He believes he will be equally successful. Yet he struggles to bring about changes and get buy-in from coworkers. In the end, he feels like giving up and considers changing his job. This case is in the scenario of Problem Diagnosis.i The intended use of this case, through group discussion or self-study, is to encourage readers to perform a comprehensive analysis that identifies the root cause of the problem. This case study falls under the scope of and is supported by the MPLA, a committee in the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM).

Diffusion of innovation in radiation oncology in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an instrument for quantifying innovation and assess the diffusion of innovation in radiation oncology (RO) in the United States. METHODS: Primary data were collected for using total population convenience sampling. Innovation Score and Innovation Utilization Score were determined using 20 indicators. 240 medical physicists (MPs) practicing in RO in the United States completed a custom Internet-based survey. RESULTS: Centers with no academic affiliation are trailing behind in innovation in total (MD = 1.65, 95% C I[0.38,2.917], p = 0.011, d = 0.351), in patient treatment (MD = 0.39, 95% CI [0.021,0.76], p = 0.038, d = 0.282), and workflow innovation (MD = 7.09, 95% CI [0.78,13.39], p = 0.028, d = 0.330). Centers with no academic affiliation are trailing behind in innovation utilization in total (MD = 0.46, 95% CI [0.05,0.86], p = 0.028, d = 0.188). Rural center are trailing behind in patient positioning in innovation (MD = 0.31, 95% CI [0.011,0.612], p = 0.042, d = 0.293) and innovation utilization (MD = 16.22, 95% CI [0.73,31.72], p = 0.04, d = 0.608). Rural centers are trailing behind in innovative treatments (MD = 0.62, 95% CI [0.23,1.00], p = 0.002, d = 0.457). Motivation (rs = 0.224, p = 0.002) and appreciation (rs = 0.215, p = 0.003) were statistically significant personal factors influencing innovation utilization. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide range of innovation across RO centers in the United States. RO centers in the United States are not practicing as innovative as reasonably achievable. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This work quantified how innovative RO in the United States is and results provide guidance on how to improve it in the future.