A Nationwide Clinical Medical Physics Training Program — The First Two Years

  • Brian D WichmanEmail author
  • C Smith
  • T Ricci-Ott
  • J Winston
  • B Goshorn
Conference paper
Part of the IFMBE Proceedings book series (IFMBE, volume 14)


In the United States, there are currently more radiation oncology based medical physics positions than qualified physicists. This presents a problem for a large cancer network with 80 physicist positions. To assist in alleviating the problem, a Medical Physicist Development Program (MPDP) was instituted in 2004 to recruit, hire, and provide structured clinical training to “junior” physicists over a two year mentor-ship period. The intent is for these physicists to attain ABR certification and remain in the network, assuming positions of greater responsibility. Preferred candidates for the MPDP are MS or PhD graduates of medical physics programs, though other exceptional candidates with advanced physics degrees are considered. Each program participant works under the direct supervision of a senior, board certified physicist mentor. The MPDP is lead by a committee of senior physicists, located in practices across the network, with primary committee responsibilities that include: candidate reviews for the program, report on the progress of participants, and program steering and development. The MPDP committee works to provide a broad based clinical experience for program participants to prepare them for board examinations. This includes providing clinical training on modalities that are not present in the participants’ home clinics. Since the program’s inception, the committee generated board preparation materials and implemented an annual mock oral examination. To date there have been 20 participants in the program, representing 16 practices in 13 US metropolitan areas. Of the 20, 16 are currently active in the program, one has matriculated through the program, and four have left to pursue positions elsewhere. Participants have attempted part I of the ABR examination six times, with five passing. Two participants have attempted and passed part II of the ABR examination. One participant attempted part III (oral exam) of the ABR examination, and did not pass. Future plans for the MPDP center on developing a curriculum based upon academic residencies in order to meet anticipated changes in ABR examination requirements.


Physicist training mentorship residency ABR 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Barnes GT, Johnson TK (1999) Medical physics programs should focus on education and research and leave clinical training to residencies. Med Phys 26:2051–2053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gibbons JP, Mutic S (1999) Comment on ‘Medical physics programs should focus on education and research and leave clinical training to residencies’ [Med Phys 26;2051–2053]. Med Phys 27:1204–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Switzer D, Detorie N, Hendee WR (2003) All medical physicists entering the field should have a specific course on research and practice ethics in their educational background. Med Phys 30:3049–3051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Podgorsak EB, Rogers DW, Hendee WR (2004) Physicists are better educated for a career in medical physics if they graduate from a specialized medical physics program rather than from a traditional physics graduate program. Med Phys 31:955–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amols H (2005) AAPM president’s column. AAPM Newsletter 30(5):1–2Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith C, Wichman B, Winston J, Yang H (2004) Implementation and management of a junior physicists program in a large scale multicenter network. Poster presentation at annual meeting of American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Pittsburgh, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    AAPM Report No 44 (1993) Academic program for master of science degree in medical physics. AAPM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    AAPM Report No. 79 (2002) Academic program recommendations for graduate degrees in medical physics. AAPM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oliver L, Fitchew R, Drew J (2001) Requirements for radiation oncology physics in Australia and New Zealand. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 24:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eudaldo T, et al (2004) Guidelines for education and training of medical physicists in radiotherapy: Recommendations from an ESTRO/EFOMP working group. Radioth Oncol 70:125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    AAPM Report No. 36 (1990) Essentials and guidelines for hospital based medical physics residency programs. AAPM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan FM (1992) Residency training for medical physicists. Rad Oncol Biol Phys 24:853–855Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ABR at http://www.theabr.orgGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ritenour ER (2006) AAPM president’s column. AAPM Newsletter 31(1):1–2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian D Wichman
    • 1
    Email author
  • C Smith
    • 2
  • T Ricci-Ott
    • 3
  • J Winston
    • 4
  • B Goshorn
    • 5
  1. 1.Kansas City Cancer CenterOverland ParkUSA
  2. 2.US OncologyHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Texas Cancer Center — Medical CityDallasUSA
  4. 4.Radiological Physics, Inc.El PasoUSA
  5. 5.Rocky Mountain Cancer CentersDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations