The role of medical physicists and their value to Radiology Departments can be under-appreciated because often their work products are filled with numbers, calculations, tables, and plots that can easily be dismissed by simply looking for a “pass” or “fail” result.
“There is much valuable content and insight in physics reports,” says Ehsan Samei, the chief Imaging Physicist at Duke, “however, it is the reality of current workloads that many stakeholders do not have time to adequately comprehend these reports.” Duke’s diagnostic medical imaging group seeks to address this by bringing together all factions of their clinical imaging team including department leadership, radiologists, administrators, technologists, and technical staff around a common mission.
In the Duke approach, an annual State of The Modality meeting that is coordinated by imaging physicists brings all stakeholders together to address equipment statuses, quality improvement implementations, and targeted goals for the future. The meeting is held monthly, focuses on a single modality, and rotates through modalities during the year. The topics include the baseline performance of the equipment including active and potential issues, accreditation needs, and quality control trends. The second focus is protocol optimization informed by system performance. That topic is followed by operational monitoring and educational needs and plans.
“The SOM is an excellent mechanism to bring all department stakeholders together; review baseline, prospective, and retrospective data; learn from other clinical colleagues; and illustrate the value-add of medical physicists,” says Joshua Wilson a Duke medical physicist. “As physicists, by understanding how the equipment is being used for patient care, we can better target our measurements and make our evaluations more clinically relevant,” says Wilson. “The tools, phantoms, and geometries we use, although important, are already artificial compared to patients,” says Wilson. “If the way we test the system does not represent clinical use, then the results and summary assessments we issue may not be useful in clinical practice.”
In a large academic hospital with numerous vendors, models, and software represented, maintaining a thorough, current knowledge base is hard. “As medical physicists, we can help our colleagues by evaluating new technologies, discussing a vendor’s marketing material in laymen’s terms, and providing on-going education about equipment usage that ultimately benefits patients,” says Wilson. (Photo consent obtained through Duke University)
Radiation therapy is often a key part of treatment for many childhood cancers. Expecting children to remain still during the therapy, however, can be a challenge.
The role of medical physicists and their value to Radiology Departments can be under-appreciated because often their work products are filled with numbers, calculations, tables, and plots that can easily be dismissed by simply looking for a “pass” or “fail” result.
One might think of medical physics as a field of calculations and measurements and machines, but for one medical physicist, he sees his work making a real difference in the lives of patients.
In an age of increasingly complex equipment and sophisticated quality assurance programs, it’s imperative that clinical physicists never lose sight of patients’ wishes.
Today, cancer patients all too often undergo cancer treatment with only a radiation oncologist, and perhaps a nurse, directly responsible for their care.
Uniformity tests are among the most important quality assurance evaluations for nuclear medicine gamma cameras, so they are performed daily—prior to patient imaging—to ensure that systems are functioning properly.
Epilepsy is typically managed via medication, but many patients also receive implanted nerve stimulators to help control their symptoms.
There are many factors that should be weighed into purchasing decisions for new medical imaging equipment, first and foremost the needs of the patient.
Clinical medical physicists are responsible for determining whether or not imaging systems are operating properly, and the method they use to do this is transitioning from Medical Physics 1.0, which provide “siloed” glimpses of system performance, to a more comprehensive version known as Medical Physics 3.0.
Proper medical imaging requires a careful balance between the quality and the safety of the exam. A poor quality exam is a disservice to the care of the patient while an exam with more radiation dose than necessary can undermine its safety.