AAPM medical physics practice guideline 10.a.: Scope of practice for clinical medical physics.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline (MPPG) represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiation requires specific training, skills, and techniques as described in each document. As the review of the previous version of AAPM Professional Policy (PP)-17 (Scope of Practice) progressed, the writing group focused on one of the main goals: to have this document accepted by regulatory and accrediting bodies. After much discussion, it was decided that this goal would be better served through a MPPG. To further advance this goal, the text was updated to reflect the rationale and processes by which the activities in the scope of practice were identified and categorized. Lastly, the AAPM Professional Council believes that this document has benefitted from public comment which is part of the MPPG process but not the AAPM Professional Policy approval process. The following terms are used in the AAPM's MPPGs: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances

Practical application of AAPM Report 270 in display quality assurance: A report of Task Group 270

Published in January 2019, AAPM Report 270 provides an update to the recommendations of the AAPM\u27s TG18 report. Report 270 provides new definitions of display types, updated testing patterns, and revised performance standards for the modern, flat-panel displays used as part of medical image acquisition and review. The focus of the AAPM report is on consistent image quality and appearance, and how to establish a quality assurance program to achieve those two goals. This work highlights some of the key takeaways of AAPM Report 270 and makes comparisons with existing recommendations from other references. It also provides guidance for establishing a display quality assurance program for different-sized institutions. Finally, it describes future challenges for display quality assurance and what work remains

Quality care and safety know no borders

The public, governmental agencies, and payers expect medical professional organisations to develop practice guidelines and technical standards. The American College of Radiology proactively addresses these topics as well as other quality and safety interests including appropriateness criteria and accreditation. The College is also actively involved in development of a national radiology data base to collect data regarding quality and safety metrics in multiple areas. In addition, the College has developed RADPEER™, a simple, cost-effective process that allows peer review to be performed during the routine interpretation of current images. This paper discusses the efforts of the ACR in all of these areas

A systematic review of viewing conditions and monitor specifications in mammography

Objectives The purpose of this systematic review was to establish the current status of recommended monitor specifications and viewing conditions in mammography for image acquisition and reporting rooms. A literature search was completed between August 2018 and March 2019 using ScienceDirect, PubMed, Web of Science and MEDLINE databases. An additional manual search was performed to identify relevant guidelines to support the review. Only articles and guidelines written in English were included. Key findings Results were selected according to the following criteria; articles detailing (i) monitor specification and, (ii) viewing conditions in mammography acquisition and reporting rooms. Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Six papers described monitor specifications, five described viewing conditions and ten guideline documents were identified from the UK, Europe and the US. Common outcomes were that monitors with 3 or 5 MP resolution seemed to be preferred and at the same time higher illumination levels (>15 lux) were found to decrease the luminance of the monitors and negatively impact the assessment of image quality. Contrary to this, the majority of guideline documents recommended illumination levels above 20 Lux. Finally, there is a lack of guidance for viewing conditions in acquisition rooms. Conclusion This review did not reveal any strong evidence for the proposed room illumination levels in acquisition rooms. In reference to monitors specifications, there is preference for using higher resolution displays (3 and 5 MP) but again, the evidence is not strong. Moreover, variance exists in the guidelines and that promotes inconsistency in mammography departments. Implications for practice This review highlights the lack of standardised guidelines and the need for further research on the viewing conditions and monitor specifications for the acquisition rooms in mammography

Suositus kuvankatselunäytöille ja niiden laadunvalvontaan

Kansainvälisiin suosituksiin perustuva opas kuvankatselumonitorien suositelluista ominaisuuksista ja niiden laadunvalvonnasta

Executive summary of AAPM Report Task Group 113: Guidance for the physics aspects of clinical trials

The charge of AAPM Task Group 113 is to provide guidance for the physics aspects of clinical trials to minimize variability in planning and dose delivery for external beam trials involving photons and electrons. Several studies have demonstrated the importance of protocol compliance on patient outcome. Minimizing variability for treatments at different centers improves the quality and efficiency of clinical trials. Attention is focused on areas where variability can be minimized through standardization of protocols and processes through all aspects of clinical trials. Recommendations are presented for clinical trial designers, physicists supporting clinical trials at their individual clinics, quality assurance centers, and manufacturers.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146453/1/acm212384_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146453/2/acm212384.pd

Ultraäänilaitteiden näyttöjen teknisen suorituskyvyn arviointi sekä laadunvalvonta

The purpose of this study was to investigate and evaluate the current technical performance of ultrasound imaging device displays in the Hospital District of South Ostrobothnia and in Pirkanmaa Hospital District. Ultrasound device monitors are used in diagnostics as the interpretation of the image is generally done simultaneously while the doctors perform the examination. There are certain recommendations about the technical performance of these kinds of diagnostic displays, but they are not generally applied to ultrasound devices. The performance of the displays was evaluated with tests and test patterns developed by a task group set by the American Association of Physicist in Medicine (AAPM). Only certain tests were chosen to be conducted as the protocol would otherwise become too heavy while the benefit from additional information would have been minimal. The focus of the study was on luminance measurements and the measurement of illuminance. The results show that the technical performance of most of the displays are not sufficient. The lifetime of the ultrasound machine surpasses the lifetime of the display, but nothing is currently done as there is no proper quality assurance protocol. The lack of proper quality assurance protocol is due to the fact that no legislation or regulations require it as non-ionizing radiation is used. This means that the quality of ultrasound imaging devices depends mainly on the physicists and maintenance engineers working in the hospitals. The singular most important technical performance parameter is the maximum luminance of the display. Although the luminance responses were evaluated against the Grayscale Standard Display Function (GSDF), it is questionable if GSDF compliance should be required from ultrasound device displays. Based on this research the measurement of the maximum luminance should be executed at least annually. The measurement procedure is easy, and it can be taught to any of the staff members and it can tell a lot about the condition of the display. It is also suggested that the hospitals should find out the cost of changing the display and thus probably prolonging the lifetime of the whole machine

Effects of Image Postprocessing in Digital Radiography to Detect Wooden, Soft Tissue Foreign Bodies

Purpose: To investigate the effects of image postprocessing functions (ie, edge enhancement, noise reduction, and sharpening) that are available on digital radiography systems, including computed radiography (CR) and direct digital radiography (DDR), for detection of wooden, soft tissue foreign bodies. Methods: Dorsoplantar and lateral porcine foot radiographs with 4 lengths of wooden foreign bodies (no foreign bodies, 2 mm, 5 mm, and 10 mm) placed 1 mm (superficial) and 1 cm (deep) below the skin were acquired by CR and DDR systems using 10 exposure factors. Images were postprocessed to produce 960 images, including original CR, original DDR, sharpened CR, sharpened DDR, edge-enhanced DDR, and noised-reduced DDR images. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were used for objective assessments of foreign body visibility on the images. Six Australian radiologic technologists were recruited to review selected images. Australia allows radiologic technologists to provide initial comments on plain radiographs with the supervision of a radiologist. Technologists rated the visibility of foreign bodies using a 4-point scale to determine diagnostic performances of different image receptor and postprocessing types. Means, standard deviations, analyses of variance, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated for statistical analyses. Results: Among the CR and DDR images with and without postprocessing, the edge-enhanced DDR images had the highest overall mean CNR value (3.39, P = .003) and sensitivity (35.13%). The sensitivity of the edge-enhanced DDR images for detecting the 10 mm foreign body was 43.33%. Discussion: Edge-enhanced DDR can be considered an additional tool for suspected wooden, soft tissue foreign body diagnoses in rural areas where digital radiography is the only available imaging modality. This would allow some patients in rural areas to avoid long-distance travel to access sonography or computed tomography to detect foreign bodies, which could minimize emotional, financial, and social costs. Conclusion: This study shows that the image postprocessing function of the DDR system can detect wooden, soft tissue foreign bodies. Edge enhancement, specifically, can improve wooden, soft tissue foreign body detection, especially for large foreign bodies (≥ 10 mm)

Clinical, Cultural, Computational, and Regulatory Considerations to Deploy AI in Radiology: Perspectives of RSNA and MICCAI Experts.

The Radiological Society of North of America (RSNA) and the Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention (MICCAI) Society have led a series of joint panels and seminars focused on the present impact and future directions of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology. These conversations have collected viewpoints from multidisciplinary experts in radiology, medical imaging, and machine learning on the current clinical penetration of AI technology in radiology and how it is impacted by trust, reproducibility, explainability, and accountability. The collective points-both practical and philosophical-define the cultural changes for radiologists and AI scientists working together and describe the challenges ahead for AI technologies to meet broad approval. This article presents the perspectives of experts from MICCAI and RSNA on the clinical, cultural, computational, and regulatory considerations-coupled with recommended reading materials-essential to adopt AI technology successfully in radiology and, more generally, in clinical practice. The report emphasizes the importance of collaboration to improve clinical deployment, highlights the need to integrate clinical and medical imaging data, and introduces strategies to ensure smooth and incentivized integration. Keywords: Adults and Pediatrics, Computer Applications-General (Informatics), Diagnosis, Prognosis © RSNA, 2024