Search

Purpose: Women remain underrepresented in medical physics in the United States, and determinants of persisting disparities remain unclear. Here, we performed a detailed investigation of American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) membership trajectories to evaluate trends in Full membership with respect to gender, age, and highest degree., Methods and Materials: Membership data, including gender, date of birth, highest degree, membership type, and years of active membership for 1993 to 2023 were obtained from AAPM. Group 1 included Full members who joined AAPM in 1993 or later. A subset of group 1 including only members who joined and left AAPM since 1993 (former members, group 1 F ) was used to calculate age at membership cessation and duration. Results were compared by gender and highest degree. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was also used to evaluate membership "survival" by age and highest degree., Results: Complete data were available for 6647 current and former Full members (group 1), including 2211 former members (group 1 F ). On average, women became Full members at a significantly younger age than men (34.6 vs 37.5 years of age, P < .001) and ended their memberships (if applicable) at a significantly younger age than men (46.1 vs 50.1 years of age, P < .001). The Kaplan-Meier "survival" analysis showed that for a given age, women were at a significantly greater risk of membership cessation than men, and women with master's degrees had the lowest membership survival of any gender/degree subgroup. When analyzing by membership duration, there was no difference in survival by gender alone. Still, women with PhDs were found to have the greatest membership survival among gender/degree subgroups., Conclusions: Both gender and degree type influenced AAPM membership trajectories. Although we have offered a discussion of possible explanations, qualitative data collected from both continuing and departing AAPM members will be critical in the ongoing journey toward gender parity in the profession of medical physics., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In light of concerns regarding the quality of radiation treatment delivery, we surveyed the practice of quality assurance peer review chart rounds at American academic institutions., Methods and Materials: An anonymous web-based survey was sent to the chief resident of each institution across the United States., Results: The response rate was 80% (57/71). The median amount of time spent per patient was 2.7 minutes (range, 0.6-14.4). The mean attendance by senior physicians and residents was 73% and 93%, respectively. A physicist was consistently present at peer review rounds in 66% of departments. There was a close association between attendance by senior physicians and departmental organization: in departments with protected time policies, good attendance was 81% vs. 31% without protected time (p = 0.001), and in departments that documented attendance, attending presence was 69% vs. 29% in departments without documentation (p < 0.05). More than 80% of institutions peer review all external beam therapy courses; however, rates were much lower for other modalities (radiosurgery 58%, brachytherapy 40%-47%). Patient history, chart documentation, and dose prescription were always peer reviewed in >75% of institutions, whereas dosimetric details (beams, wedges), isodose coverage, intensity-modulated radiation therapy constraints, and dose-volume histograms were always peer reviewed in 63%, 59%, 42%, and 50% of cases, respectively. Chart rounds led to both minor (defined as a small multileaf collimator change/repeated port film) and major (change to dose prescription or replan with dosimetry) treatment changes. Whereas at the majority of institutions changes were rare (<10% of cases), 39% and 11% of institutions reported that minor and major changes, respectively, were made to more than 10% of cases., Conclusion: The implementation of peer review chart rounds seems inconsistent across American academic institutions. Brachytherapy and radiosurgical procedures are rarely reviewed. Attendance by senior physicians is variable, but it improves when scheduling clashes are avoided. The potential effect of a more thorough quality assurance peer review on patient outcomes is not known., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)