Skip to main content
Log in

Webinar and survey on quality management principles within the Australian and New Zealand ACPSEM Workforce

  • ACPSEM Report
  • Published:
Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript


Healthcare relies upon the accurate and safe delivery of patient care. This is only achievable when systems are developed to ensure high quality, robust outcomes, for instance quality management systems. The concept of quality management can take on a different meaning depending on the context in which it is found. To add complication, the amount of education required for quality management will vary depending on one’s exposure to the implementation of quality systems. In part to address these issues, the Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine (ACPSEM) Queensland Branch held a quality management webinar for members and non-members across Australia and New Zealand. The purpose of the webinar was to educate and facilitate discussion regarding the application of quality management principles for the ACPSEM profession. In conjunction, a pre- and post-webinar survey was conducted to gain an insight into existing knowledge and attitudes within the professions governed by the ACPSEM and students undertaking related studies. This paper authored by the webinar speakers reintroduces the quality management principles that were discussed in webinar, exemplifies the importance of quality management skills within the ACPSEM professions and presents the results of the surveys, promoting the need for more educational resources on quality management tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Huq MS, Fraass BA, Dunscombe PB, Gibbons JP Jr, Ibbott GS, Mundt AJ, Mutic S, Palta JR, Rath F, Thomadsen BR et al (2016) The report of task group 100 of the AAPM: application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management. Med Phys 43(7):4209–4262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Clements JB, Baird CT, de Boer SF, Fairobent LA, Fisher T, Goodwin JH, Gress DA, Johnson JL, Kolsky KL, Mageras GS et al (2018) AAPM medical physics practice guideline 10. a.: scope of practice for clinical medical physics. J Appl Clin Med Phys 19(6):11–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jackson S (2001) Successfully implementing total quality management tools within healthcare: what are the key actions? Int J Health Care Qual Assur

  4. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency: code for radiation protection in medical exposure. Radiation Protection Series C-5 (2019)

  5. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists: standards of practice for clinical radiology v11.2 (2020)

  6. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists: radiation oncology practice standards part B: guidelines v2 (2018)

  7. Kron T, Fox C, Ebert MA, Thwaites D (2022) Quality management in radiotherapy treatment delivery. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 66(2):279–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Smith S, Wallis A, King O, Moretti D, Vial P, Shafiq J, Barton MB, Xing A, Delaney GP (2020) Quality management in radiation therapy: a 15 year review of incident reporting in two integrated cancer centres. Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol 14:15–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sreedher G, Ho ML, Smith M, Udayasankar UK, Risacher S, Rapalino O, Greer MLC, Doria AS, Gee MS (2021) Magnetic resonance imaging quality control, quality assurance and quality improvement. Pediatr Radiol 51(5):698–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Loveless V, Morgan SH (2021) Quality assurance and quality control of Tc-99m radiopharmaceuticals. Basic sciences of nuclear medicine. Springer, New York, pp 119–129

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Crowe S, Aland T, Fog L, Greig L, Hamlett L, Lydon J, Waterhouse D, Doromal D, Sawers A, Round H (2021) Report of the ACPSEM radiation oncology medical physics workforce modelling project task group. Phys Eng Sci Med 44(4):1013–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Smith IR, Rivers JT, Mengersen KL, Cameron J (2011) Performance monitoring in interventional cardiology: application of statistical process control to a single-site database. Eurointervention 6(8):955–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Xiao Q, Bai L, Li G, Zhang X, Li Z, Duan L, Peng R, Zhong R, Wang Q, Wang X et al (2022) A robust approach to establish tolerance limits for the gamma passing rate-based patient-specific quality assurance using the heuristic control charts. Med Phys 49(2):1312–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Binny D, Lancaster CM, Kairn T, Trapp JV, Crowe SB (2019) Radiotherapy quality assurance using statistical process control. World congress on medical physics and biomedical engineering 2018. Springer, New York, pp 437–442

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Moore SJ, Herst PM, Louwe RJ (2018) Review of the patient positioning reproducibility in head-and-neck radiotherapy using statistical process control. Radiother Oncol 127(2):183–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Meyers SM, Balderson MJ, Létourneau D (2019) Evaluation of Elekta Agility multi-leaf collimator performance using statistical process control tools. J Appl Clin Med Phys 20(7):100–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lowther NJ, Hamilton DA, Kim H, Evans JM, Marsh SH, Louwe RJ (2019) Monitoring anatomical changes of individual patients using statistical process control during head-and-neck radiotherapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 9:21–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Delis H, Christaki K, Healy B, Loreti G, Poli G, Toroi P, Meghzifene A (2017) Moving beyond quality control in diagnostic radiology and the role of the clinically qualified medical physicist. Physica Med 41:104–108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Clark CH, Gagliardi G, Heijmen B, Malicki J, Thorwarth D, Verellen D, Muren LP (2019) Adapting training for medical physicists to match future trends in radiation oncology. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 11:71–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fiorino C, Jeraj R, Clark CH, Garibaldi C, Georg D, Muren L, van Elmpt W, Bortfeld T, Jornet N (2020) Grand challenges for medical physics in radiation oncology. Radiother Oncol 153:7–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tino R, Yeo A, Leary M, Brandt M, Kron T (2019) A systematic review on 3D-printed imaging and dosimetry phantoms in radiation therapy. Technol Cancer Res Treat 18:1533033819870208

  22. Rooney MK, Rosenberg DM, Braunstein S, Cunha A, Damato AL, Ehler E, Pawlicki T, Robar J, Tatebe K, Golden DW (2020) Three-dimensional printing in radiation oncology: a systematic review of the literature. J Appl Clin Med Phys 21(8):15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kairn T, Talkhani S, Charles P, Chua B, Lin C, Livingstone A, Maxwell S, Poroa T, Simpson-Page E, Spelleken E et al (2021) Determining tolerance levels for quality assurance of 3d printed bolus for modulated arc radiotherapy of the nose. Phys Eng Sci Med 44(4):1187–1199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Cardan RA, Covington EL, Popple RA (2021) Code wisely: risk assessment and mitigation for custom clinical software. J Appl Clin Med Phys 22(8):273–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ceross A, Bergmann J (2021) Evaluating the presence of software-as-a-medical-device in the Australian Therapeutic Goods Register. Prosthesis 3(3):221–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zellars R, Njeh C, Marquette S (2022) The need for dedicated time for medical physicists practice quality improvement efforts in radiation oncology department: a commentary. J Appl Clin Med Phys 23(3)

  27. Pudsey L, Haworth A, White P, Moutrie Z, Jonker B, Foote M, Poder J (2022) Current status of intra-cranial stereotactic radiotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery in Australia and New Zealand: key considerations from a workshop and surveys. Phys Eng Sci Med 45(1):251–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Robbins NB, Heiberger RM (2011) Plotting Likert and other rating scales. In: Proceedings of the 2011 joint statistical meeting, vol 1. American Statistical Association,

  29. Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant TE, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D, Burovski E, Peterson P, Weckesser W, Bright J, van der Walt SJ, Brett M, Wilson J, Millman KJ, Mayorov N, Nelson ARJ, Jones E, Kern R, Larson E, Carey CJ, Polat İ, Feng Y, Moore EW, VanderPlas J, Laxalde D, Perktold J, Cimrman R, Henriksen I, Quintero EA, Harris CR, Archibald AM, Ribeiro AH, Pedregosa F, van Mulbregt P, (2020) SciPy 1.0 contributors: SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods 17:261–272 .

  30. Chougule A, Joan M, Stephen M, Saini P (2021) Online webinars a new learning solution in the pandemic times: an evaluation of AFOMP initiative of monthly webinar series. Med Phys 9(1)

  31. Prisciandaro JI (2013) Review of online educational resources for medical physicists. J Appl Clin Med Phys 14(6):368–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wong JHD, Ng KH, Sarasanandarajah S (2019) Survey of postgraduate medical physics programmes in the asia-oceania region. Physica Med 66:21–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Meghzifene A (2017) Medical physics challenges for the implementation of quality assurance programmes in radiation oncology. Clin Oncol 29(2):116–119

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Mahesh M (2018) Essential role of a medical physicist in the radiology department. Radiographics: a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 38(6):1665–1671

  35. Siochi RA, Balter P, Bloch CD, Santanam L, Blodgett K, Curran BH, Engelsman M, Feng W, Mechalakos J, Pavord D et al (2021) Report of Task Group 201 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine: quality management of external beam therapy data transfer. Med Phys 48(6):e86–e114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Field M, Hardcastle N, Jameson M, Aherne N, Holloway L (2021) Machine learning applications in radiation oncology. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 19:13–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cui S, Tseng HH, Pakela J, Ten Haken RK, El Naqa I (2020) Introduction to machine and deep learning for medical physicists. Med Phys 47(5):e127–e147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. McCarthy N, Dahlan A, Cook TS, O’Hare N, Ryan ML, St John B, Lawlor A, Curran KM (2021) Enterprise imaging and big data: a review from a medical physics perspective. Physica Med 83:206–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sensakovic WF, Mahesh M (2019) Role of the medical physicist in the health care artificial intelligence revolution. J Am Coll Radiol 16(3):393–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Avanzo M, Trianni A, Botta F, Talamonti C, Stasi M, Iori M (2021) Artificial intelligence and the medical physicist: welcome to the machine. Appl Sci 11(4):1691

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Van Dyk J, Meghzifene A (2017) Radiation oncology quality and safety considerations in low-resource settings: a medical physics perspective. In: Seminars in radiation oncology, vol 27, pp 124–135. Elsevier

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily Simpson-Page.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Simpson-Page, E., Coogan, P., Kron, T. et al. Webinar and survey on quality management principles within the Australian and New Zealand ACPSEM Workforce. Phys Eng Sci Med 45, 679–685 (2022).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: