Literature DB >> 11458568

Requirements for radiation oncology physics in Australia and New Zealand.

L Oliver1, R Fitchew, J Drew.   

Abstract

This Position Paper reviews the role, standards of practice, education, training and staffing requirements for radiation oncology physics. The role and standard of practice for an expert in radiation oncology physics, as defined by the ACPSEM, are consistent with the IAEA recommendations. International standards of safe practice recommend that this physics expert be authorised by a Regulatory Authority (in consultation with the professional organization). In order to accommodate the international and AHTAC recommendations or any requirements that may be set by a Regulatory Authority, the ACPSEM has defined the criteria for a physicist-in-training, a base level physicist, an advanced level physicist and an expert radiation oncology physicist. The ACPSEM shall compile separate registers for these different radiation oncology physicist categories. What constitutes a satisfactory means of establishing the number of physicists and support physics staff that is required in radiation oncology continues to be debated. The new ACPSEM workforce formula (Formula 2000) yields similar numbers to other international professional body recommendations. The ACPSEM recommends that Australian and New Zealand radiation oncology centres should aim to employ 223 and 46 radiation oncology physics staff respectively. At least 75% of this workforce should be physicists (168 in Australia and 35 in New Zealand). An additional 41 registrar physicist positions (34 in Australia and 7 in New Zealand) should be specifically created for training purposes. These registrar positions cater for the present physicist shortfall, the future expansion of radiation oncology and the expected attrition of radiation oncology physicists in the workforce. Registrar physicists shall undertake suitable tertiary education in medical physics with an organised in-house training program. The rapid advances in the theory and methodology of the new technologies for radiation oncology also require a stringent approach to maintaining a satisfactory standard of practice in radiation oncology physics. Appropriate on-going education of radiation oncology physicists as well as the educating of registrar physicists is essential. Institutional management and the ACPSEM must both play a key role in providing a means for satisfactory staff tuition on the safe and expert use of existing and new radiotherapy equipment.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11458568     DOI: 10.1007/BF03178281

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Australas Phys Eng Sci Med        ISSN: 0158-9938            Impact factor:   1.430


  4 in total

1.  Report of the ACPSEM radiation oncology medical physics workforce modelling project task group.

Authors:  Scott Crowe; Trent Aland; Lotte Fog; Lynne Greig; Lynsey Hamlett; Jenny Lydon; David Waterhouse; Darren Doromal; Adam Sawers; Howell Round
Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2021-11-15

2.  Should ACPSEM develop its own position papers or just adopt those of the AAPM?

Authors:  Tomas Kron; Peter Metcalfe; Clive Baldock
Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2020-09

3.  Medical physics staffing for radiation oncology: a decade of experience in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Jerry J Battista; Brenda G Clark; Michael S Patterson; Luc Beaulieu; Michael B Sharpe; L John Schreiner; Miller S MacPherson; Jacob Van Dyk
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  Regional cancer centre demonstrates voluntary conformity with the national Radiation Oncology Practice Standards.

Authors:  Stephen Manley; Andrew Last; Kenneth Fu; Stuart Greenham; Andrew Kovendy; Thomas P Shakespeare
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2015-04-08
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.