Search

PurposeThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsAdvantages 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.ConclusionThe 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

PurposeThe quality of medical physics education is heterogenous across training programs, despite its importance in radiation oncology (RO) residency training. We present the results of a pilot series of free high-yield physics educational videos covering 4 topics chosen from the American Society for Radiation Oncology core curriculum.Methods and materialsScripting and storyboarding of videos were iterative processes performed by 2 ROs and 6 medical physicists, with animations created by a university broadcasting specialist. Current RO residents and those who had graduated after 2018 were recruited through social media and e-mail with an aim of 60 participants. Two validated surveys were adapted for use and were completed after each video as well as a final overall assessment. Content was released sequentially after completion of the survey instruments for each prior video. All videos were created and released within 1 year of project initiation with a duration of 9 to 11 minutes.ResultsThere were 169 enrollees for the pilot from across the world, 211% of the targeted cohort size. Of these, 154 met eligibility criteria and received the first video. One hundred eight enrollees initiated the series and 85 completed the pilot, resulting in a 78% completion rate. Participants reported improved understanding and confidence applying the knowledge learned in the videos (median score 4 out of 5). All participants reported that the use of graphic animation improved understanding across all videos. Ninety-three percent agreed with a need for additional resources geared specifically toward RO residents and 100% would recommend these videos to other residents. Use metrics revealed the average watch time was 7 minutes (range, 6:17-7:15).ConclusionsThe high-yield educational physics video pilot series was successful in developing videos that were effective in teaching RO physics concepts.

PurposeThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsAn 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.ConclusionFour 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

PurposeTo provide insight into the types of questions asked to medical physicists by patients during one-on-one physicist-patient consults at one institution.Materials and methodsMedical physicists trained in patient communication techniques met with patients to provide an overview of the treatment planning and delivery processes, discuss the patient's treatment plan, and answer any technical questions. From August 2016 to December 2019, 152 physicist-patient consults were conducted. In the initial months of the study (August 2016-December 2017), following each physicist-patient consult, all patient questions were documented by the physicists. For the remaining time period (January 2018-December 2019), any newly encountered questions were periodically added to the list. The questions were compiled into a comprehensive list and organized into categories.ResultsThere were a total of 88 unique patient questions. These questions fit into four topical categories. Fifty-four questions (61.4%) were in the "Treatment Planning and Delivery Questions" category, 15 questions (17.1%) were in the "General Radiation Questions or Concerns" category, 13 questions (14.8%) were in the "Safety and Quality Assurance Questions" category, and 6 questions (6.8%) were in the "Medical Questions" category. Overall, patients were primarily concerned about how radiation works, the treatment planning and delivery processes, and what is being done to keep them safe throughout their treatment.ConclusionPhysicist-patient consults provided an opportunity to address the technical aspects of radiation therapy with patients in greater detail. The fact that patient questions could be conveniently grouped into only four topical categories indicates that it may be straightforward for other medical physicists to prepare for effectively addressing technical questions during physicist-patient consults.

PurposeTo provide insight into the types of questions asked to medical physicists by patients during one-on-one physicist-patient consults at one institution.Materials and methodsMedical physicists trained in patient communication techniques met with patients to provide an overview of the treatment planning and delivery processes, discuss the patient's treatment plan, and answer any technical questions. From August 2016 to December 2019, 152 physicist-patient consults were conducted. In the initial months of the study (August 2016-December 2017), following each physicist-patient consult, all patient questions were documented by the physicists. For the remaining time period (January 2018-December 2019), any newly encountered questions were periodically added to the list. The questions were compiled into a comprehensive list and organized into categories.ResultsThere were a total of 88 unique patient questions. These questions fit into four topical categories. Fifty-four questions (61.4%) were in the "Treatment Planning and Delivery Questions" category, 15 questions (17.1%) were in the "General Radiation Questions or Concerns" category, 13 questions (14.8%) were in the "Safety and Quality Assurance Questions" category, and 6 questions (6.8%) were in the "Medical Questions" category. Overall, patients were primarily concerned about how radiation works, the treatment planning and delivery processes, and what is being done to keep them safe throughout their treatment.ConclusionPhysicist-patient consults provided an opportunity to address the technical aspects of radiation therapy with patients in greater detail. The fact that patient questions could be conveniently grouped into only four topical categories indicates that it may be straightforward for other medical physicists to prepare for effectively addressing technical questions during physicist-patient consults.