This report is a description of the current professional practice of diagnostic and imaging medical physics from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine’s (AAPM) Diagnostic Work and Workforce Study Subcommittee (DWWSS), and is not intended to be a revision to the AAPM Scope of Practice. Following publication of this report, AAPM intends to conduct a survey to more fully describe the current state of practice. Prior to a successful survey, however, this report aims to accomplish a critical primary objective, which is to create a common language and perspective among diagnostic and nuclear medical physicists by presenting a new taxonomy to describe their duties and services. A future survey of diagnostic and nuclear medical physicists will be created using concepts and terminology presented in this report. In the interim, the authors believe this report will assist diagnostic medical physicists and those who procure diagnostic medical physics services by providing updated consensus time estimates and effort considerations for some diagnostic medical physics services. Traditional ways to classify common diagnostic medical physics practice models (such as consultants, in-house or staff medical physicists, etc.) and practice settings (academic hospital, community hospital, free-standing center, etc.) no longer serve as an accurate means to characterize the work performed by diagnostic medical physicists in the modern healthcare environment. Furthermore, describing a service or offering as “comprehensive” may be intended to highlight the expertise of the individual providing the service, but may also imply that the service is unnecessary or excessively expensive. On the other hand, describing a service as “basic” may imply (favorably) that the cost is low, but also that the individual providing the service is less skilled or that the client is unwilling or unable to spend money or staff effort on anything that is not strictly required of them. Describing medical physics services as “basic” or “comprehensive,” or using similar terms, does not serve the purpose of this report. A new model for classification of diagnostic medical physics services is proposed: The Levels of Service (LoS) model. • Level 1 services are regulatory requirements, requirements of national accreditation programs, or standards of nationally recognized professional societies, and are required to be performed by or under the supervision of a medical physicist. Level 1 services are well-defined, and there is a relatively high degree of agreement among medical physicists on procedures, time, and effort required to perform them. The most visible examples of Level 1 services are Equipment Performance Evaluations (EPEs), commonly referred to as medical physics surveys or equipment testing. • Level 2 services are well-described and are frequently the responsibility of a medical physicist. Medical physicists add value when performing these services by applying their education, training, and expertise. This includes both non-mandatory services [e.g., designing a fluoroscopy safety program as described in the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Report 168] and mandatory services [e.g., serving as the Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) for a diagnostic imaging facility]. Level 2 services are carried out according to methods, procedures, or standards contained in published national or international guidance. Level 2 services are not performed exclusively by medical physicists. • Level 3 services are neither well-defined nor mandated by authorities outside the healthcare institution. Level 3 services are the least well-defined in terms of the amount of time or effort required. They may be broadly categorized as research or developmental services; they
[1]
S. Finklea.
NORM contamination and decommissioning recommendations of the E-4 committee of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors
,
1994
.
[2]
J. Sunshine,et al.
Diagnostic medical physicists and their clinical activities.
,
2004,
Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.
[3]
E. Kanal,et al.
ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013
,
2013,
Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.
[4]
Michael F McNitt-Gray,et al.
AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 1.a: CT Protocol Management and Review Practice Guideline
,
2013,
Journal of applied clinical medical physics.
[5]
Mahadevappa Mahesh,et al.
Radiation Dose Management for Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Medical Procedures
,
2012
.
[6]
W. Ney.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements: report to the ASRT.
,
1973,
Radiologic Technology.