Virtual interviewing in the MedPhys match: Experiences of applicants and programs.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this survey study is to compare the experiences of programs and applicants in the MedPhys Match (MPM) in the 2020-21 match cycle with experiences reported from previous match cycles. The 2020-21 match cycle was unique in that recruitment and interviewing were almost exclusively virtual during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A survey was sent to all applicants and programs registered for the 2020-21 MPM. Survey questions asked about the pre-interview screening, interview, ranking, and post-match stages of the residency match process. Survey data were analyzed using graphical methods and spreadsheet tools. RESULTS: Advantages and disadvantages to the virtual interviewing experience were reported by applicants and program directors (PDs). The advantages included reduced cost and greater scheduling flexibility with fewer scheduling conflicts, allowing applicants to consider more programs. These advantages greatly outweighed the disadvantages such as the inability to meet faculty/staff and current residents in person and gauge the feel of the program. PDs recognized the advantages of minimal costs and time savings for applicants. Programs reported it was difficult to convey workplace culture and the physical environment and to gauge personality and interpersonal skills of the applicants. CONCLUSION: The virtual interviewing environment for residency recruitment in medical physics is strongly preferred by applicants over required in-person interviews. The advantages identified by applicants outweigh the disadvantages, allowing applicants to feel confident in their ranking decisions and overall satisfied with their match results. PDs acknowledge the greater equity of access to interviews for applicants in the virtual environment, however, they are overall less satisfied with their ability to showcase their program's strengths and to assess the personality of applicants. Caution is urged when considering a hybrid interview model to ensure fair assessments that do not depend on whether an applicant chooses to accept an optional in-person interview or site visit.

A First Look at Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion of Canadian Medical Physicists: Results From the 2021 COMP EDI Climate Survey.

PURPOSE: In 2021, the Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists (COMP) conducted its first equity, diversity, and inclusion Climate Survey. The membership's experiences of inclusion, belonging, professional opportunities, discrimination, microaggressions, racism, and harassment in their professional lives are presented. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The ethics-reviewed survey was distributed in English and French to full members of COMP. Participants responded to questions covering demographics and professional climate. Simple descriptive statistics were used to measure frequency of responses. Data pertaining to impressions on the climate within the profession were compared using nonparametric statistical tests. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 649 eligible members; 243 (37%) responded, and 214 (33%) provided full response sets. From the full response sets, findings showed that in general, age, highest academic degree, and racial and ethnic distribution trends of medical physicists were comparable with previously collected data and/or the Canadian population. The experiences of respondents relating to harassment in the workplace and perception of climate are reported and provide a useful benchmark for future assessments of interventions or training programs. In the workplace, fewer women (58%) reported having professional opportunities compared with men (70%). The survey also found that 17% of respondents (most of whom were women) directly or indirectly experienced sexual harassment in the workplace within the past 5 years. Finding that 23% of survey respondents identified as having a disability is a valuable reminder that accommodations in the workplace are necessary for more than 1 in every 5 medical physicists working in clinics. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided insight into the diversity and experiences of medical physicists in Canada. The majority of respondents had positive perceptions about their professional environment. However, equity-lacking groups were identified, such as women, underrepresented minorities, Indigenous peoples, and people with visible and invisible disabilities.

2021 AAPM Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Climate Survey Executive Summary.

PURPOSE: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) shares the results, conclusions, and recommendations from the initial Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Climate Survey conducted in 2021. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The climate survey targeted medical physicists who are full members of the AAPM and included demographic inquiries and questions intended to assess the working environmental climate in terms of a sense of belonging and inclusion, experiences of discrimination and harassment, and obstacles to participation within the AAPM. The survey invitation was sent to 5,500 members. Responses were collected from 1385 members (response rate of 25%) between January and February 2021. RESULTS: Overall, the medical physics workplace climate was positive. However, some demographic and professional subgroups reported lower levels of agreement with positive characteristics of their workplace climates. Compared with men, women ranked lower 7 of 8 categories that characterized the workplace climate. Other subgroups that also ranked the workplace climate descriptors lower included individuals not originally from the United States and Canada (3/8). Most respondents strongly agreed/agreed that the climate within the AAPM was welcoming. However, 17% of respondents reported personally experiencing or witnessing microaggressions within the AAPM. Overall, medical physicists reported low levels of agreement that opportunities within the AAPM were available to them, from 34% to 60% among 8 categories, including opportunities to volunteer, join committees, and compete for leadership positions within the AAPM. Several subgroups reported even lower levels of agreement that these opportunities are available. Asian and Asian American respondents (3/8) and physicists with origins in countries outside the United States and Canada (7/8) reported fewer opportunities to participate in the AAPM. Medical physicists reported their experiences of discrimination and sexual harassment in their workplaces and within the AAPM. For those who reported personal experiences of sexual harassment, only 24% (15/63) felt comfortable reporting when it occurred within their workplaces, and 35% (9/26) felt comfortable reporting when it occurred within the AAPM. CONCLUSIONS: The report concludes with several recommendations for action.

Automated planning stage tracking and analysis through an integrated whiteboard system.

PURPOSE: One of the common challenges in delivering complex healthcare procedures such as radiation oncology is the organization and sharing of information in ways that facilitate workflow and prevent treatment delays. Within the major vendors of Oncology Information Systems (OIS) is a lack of tools and displays to assist in task timing and workflow processes. To address this issue, we developed an electronic whiteboard integrated with a local OIS to track, record, and evaluate time frames associated with clinical radiation oncology treatment planning processes. METHODS: We developed software using an R environment hosted on a local web-server at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA) in 2017. The planning process was divided into stages, and time-stamped moves between planning stages were recorded automatically via Mosaiq (Elekta, Sweden) Quality Check Lists (QCLs). Whiteboard logs were merged with Mosaiq-extracted diagnostic factors and evaluated for significance. Interventional changes to task time expectations were evaluated for 6 months in 2021 and compared with 6 month periods in 2018 and 2019. RESULTS: Whiteboard/Mosaiq data from the SCCA show that treatment intent, number of prescriptions, and nodal involvement were main factors influencing overall time to plan completion. Contouring and Planning times were improved by 2.6 days (p<10-14) and 2.5 days (p<10-11), respectively. Overall time to plan completion was reduced by 33% (5.1 days; p<10-11). CONCLUSIONS: This report establishes the utility of real-time task tracking tools in a radiotherapy planning process. The whiteboard results provide data-driven evidence to add justification for practice change implementations.

The MedPhys match survey: Search criteria and advice for programs and applicants.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to gauge the experiences of applicants and program directors (PDs) in the Medical Physics (MedPhys) Match (MPM) and to determine the most important characteristics and factors that influence decision-making for applicants and programs when screening, interviewing, and ranking in the MPM. Opinions were also solicited from applicants and PDs on the status of medical physics residencies and the selection process, such as the availability of residency positions and satisfaction with the match process. METHODS: A survey was sent to all applicants registered for the 2015-2018 MPM and to all PDs registered for the 2015-2017 MPM. Survey questions asked about the pre-interview screening, interview, and ranking stages of the residency match process. Survey data were analyzed using graphical methods and spreadsheet tools. RESULTS: An increasing percentage of applicants are female and/or hold a PhD as their highest degree. The over all number of interview invitations per applicant has increased, leading some applicants to decline interviews with the top reasons being cost of travel and scheduling conflicts. The top considerations for applicants in ranking programs were residency program/institution reputation, program structure/organization, and facilities/equipment available. The primary considerations identified by PDs for ranking applicants included impressions from the interview, personality fit, and clinical potential. While two-thirds of applicants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that a residency position was difficult to obtain, roughly one-third of PDs agree that the current residency placement rate is a problem. CONCLUSION: Four years of survey data on the experiences of applicants and PDs participating in the MPM is useful to future participants navigating the residency match system. It is hoped that the data will be helpful to inform improvements and to enhance understanding of the residency match system and how it shapes our profession.

Radiation oncology resident training in patient safety and quality improvement: a national survey of residency program directors.

BACKGROUND: Physicians and physicists are expected to contribute to patient safety and quality improvement (QI) in Radiation Oncology (RO), but prior studies suggest that training for this may be inadequate. RO and medical physics (MP) program directors (PDs) were surveyed to better understand the current patient safety/QI training in their residency programs. METHODS: PDs were surveyed via email in January 2017. Survey questions inquired about current training, curriculum elements, and barriers to development and/or improvement of safety and QI training. RESULTS: Eighty-nine RO PDs and 84 MP PDs were surveyed, and 21 RO PDs (28%) and 31 MP PDs (37%) responded. Both RO and MP PDs had favorable opinions of current safety and QI training, and used a range of resources for program development, especially safety and QI publications. Various curriculum elements were reported. Curriculum elements used by RO and MP PDs were similar, except RO were more likely than MP PDs to implement morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference (72% vs. 45%, p < 0.05). RO and MP PDs similarly cited various barriers, but RO PDs were more likely to cite lack of experience than MP PDs (40% vs. 16%, p < 0.05). PDs responded similarly independent of whether they reported using a departmental incident learning system (ILS) or not. CONCLUSIONS: PDs view patient safety/QI as an important part of resident education. Most PDs agreed that residents are adequately exposed to patient safety/QI and prepared to meet the patient safety/QI expectations of clinical practice. This conflicts with other independent studies that indicate a majority of residents feel their patient safety/QI training is inadequate and lacks formal exposure to QI tools.

A patient safety education program in a medical physics residency.

Education in patient safety and quality of care is a requirement for radiation oncology residency programs according to accrediting agencies. However, recent surveys indicate that most programs lack a formal program to support this learning. The aim of this report was to address this gap and share experiences with a structured educational program on quality and safety designed specifically for medical physics therapy residencies. Five key topic areas were identified, drawn from published recommendations on safety and quality. A didactic component was developed, which includes an extensive reading list supported by a series of lectures. This was coupled with practice-based learning which includes one project, for example, failure modes and effect analysis exercise, and also continued participation in the departmental incident learning system including a root-cause analysis exercise. Performance was evaluated through quizzes, presentations, and reports. Over the period of 2014-2016, five medical physics residents successfully completed the program. Evaluations indicated that the residents had a positive experience. In addition to educating physics residents this program may be adapted for medical physics graduate programs or certificate programs, radiation oncology residencies, or as a self-directed educational project for practicing physicists. Future directions might include a system that coordinates between medical training centers such as a resident exchange program.

Ethical violations and discriminatory behavior in the MedPhys Match.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this survey study is to investigate behaviors in conflict with the ethical standards of the Medical Physics Residency (MedPhys) Match (MPM) process as stated in the MPM rules (a) and with the nondiscrimination regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (b), in addition to other behaviors that may in other ways erode the fairness of the system. METHODS: A survey was sent to all applicants and program directors registered for the 2015 and 2016 MPM. Survey questions asked about application, interview, and postinterview experiences, match results, and overall satisfaction with the process. RESULTS: Thirteen percent of 2015 respondents and 20% of 2016 respondents were asked by at least one program how highly they planned to rank them or which program they would rank first. Thirty-seven percent of 2015 and 40% of 2016 program directors indicated that candidates communicated to the program their rank intent, with 22.0% in 2015 and 12.5% in 2016 being told that their program would be ranked first. Twenty-three percent of 2015 respondents indicated being asked by at least one program during the interview about children or plans to have children; including 19% of males and 33% of females. In 2016, these values were 28% overall, 22% male, and 36% female. Fifty-seven percent of 2015 respondents who were asked this question indicated being uncomfortable or very uncomfortable answering, including 27.3% of males and 88.9% of females. In 2016, 42.9% of all respondents indicated being uncomfortable or very uncomfortable answering, including 10.0% of males and 80.0% of females. CONCLUSIONS: In the first two years of the MPM, there were widespread instances of ethical violations and discriminatory questioning during the interview process. Educating both interviewers and candidates on the MPM rules and general EEOC guidelines should decrease these instances and increase the fairness of the residency selection process.

Electron beam energy QA - a note on measurement tolerances.

Monthly QA is recommended to verify the constancy of high-energy electron beams generated for clinical use by linear accelerators. The tolerances are defined as 2%/2 mm in beam penetration according to AAPM task group report 142. The practical implementation is typically achieved by measuring the ratio of readings at two different depths, preferably near the depth of maximum dose and at the depth corresponding to half the dose maximum. Based on beam commissioning data, we show that the relationship between the ranges of energy ratios for different electron energies is highly nonlinear. We provide a formalism that translates measurement deviations in the reference ratios into change in beam penetration for electron energies for six Elekta (6-18 MeV) and eight Varian (6-22 MeV) electron beams. Experimental checks were conducted for each Elekta energy to compare calculated values with measurements, and it was shown that they are in agreement. For example, for a 6 MeV beam a deviation in the measured ionization ratio of ± 15% might still be acceptable (i.e., be within ± 2 mm), whereas for an 18 MeV beam the corresponding tolerance might be ± 6%. These values strongly depend on the initial ratio chosen. In summary, the relationship between differences of the ionization ratio and the corresponding beam energy are derived. The findings can be translated into acceptable tolerance values for monthly QA of electron beam energies.

Challenges and opportunities in patient-specific, motion-managed and PET/CT-guided radiation therapy of lung cancer: review and perspective.

The increasing interest in combined positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) to guide lung cancer radiation therapy planning has been well documented. Motion management strategies during treatment simulation PET/CT imaging and treatment delivery have been proposed to improve the precision and accuracy of radiotherapy. In light of these research advances, why has translation of motion-managed PET/CT to clinical radiotherapy been slow and infrequent? Solutions to this problem are as complex as they are numerous, driven by large inter-patient variability in tumor motion trajectories across a highly heterogeneous population. Such variation dictates a comprehensive and patient-specific incorporation of motion management strategies into PET/CT-guided radiotherapy rather than a one-size-fits-all tactic. This review summarizes challenges and opportunities for clinical translation of advances in PET/CT-guided radiotherapy, as well as in respiratory motion-managed radiotherapy of lung cancer. These two concepts are then integrated into proposed patient-specific workflows that span classification schemes, PET/CT image formation, treatment planning, and adaptive image-guided radiotherapy delivery techniques.