Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 118.169.186.65 on 10/04/15 from IP address 118.169.186.65. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved
409
Perspective :
1
.
Radiologic Physics Instruction for Diagnostic A Survey of Residency Programs Committee
on Training
of Radiologists,1
American
Association
A survey concerning physics instruction in radiology residency training programs was conducted by the Committee on Training of Radiologists of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). A previous survey of radiolo-
gists’ their
overall physics
ducted
impression
of the quality
instruction
during
by this committee
[i].
and inclusiveness
their
residencies
The present
was
survey
was
of con-
survey
was
mailed
to the
that the survey
in charge sponded.
of physics
programs
with
be forwarded
instruction.
a coven
Ninety-nine
who is programs me-
background
of instructors,
the areas program and
use
of instructional materials. Respondents were invited to submit written comments and suggestions also.
Fifty-three
percent
of the
programs
were
university
based,
44% hospital based, and 3% clinic based. The mean number of residents in each year of residency was four, with a staff consisting of i 7 radiologists, three physicists, and three
scientists/professional
staff.
listed their physics instruction tic, with only 5% specializing ing 22% listed both.
Seventy-three
program in nuclear
specialty medicine.
percent as diagnosThe remain-
Curriculum
Information of 41 classroom
The typical program i .3 hr (usually 82% requiring graduate year,
i 2:00
noon
mandatory 70%
(didactic)
consisted
hours
were reported.
of 1-2 meetings
or 4:00
p.m.
attendance
for the second
pen week for
on a Monday)
during year,
65%
year, and 27% for the fourth year. Classroom
with
the first postfor the third
hours dropped
to a mean of i 8 during the fifth postgraduate year. Mean number of laboratory hours varied more than didactic hours during training, with a high of i 2 hr in nuclear medicine physics
Results The full text of the survey and tabulation of responses is available from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Committee on Training of Radiologists. The results
Information
An average
curriculum,
in Medicine
me-
to the person
The survey consisted of 20 questions covering of general program information (e.g., demographics, specialties),
letter
Program
“other”
thought
to be necessary to compare residents’ impressions of their physics instruction with the curricula of existing programs. Toward that end, a list of 250 radiology training programs was obtained from the American College of Radiology. The questing
of Physicists
Radiologists:
are summarized
here.
and 6 hr in diagnostic radiologic physics both occurring in second postgraduate year. Homework problems were signed in 45% and regular tests were given in 48% of responding programs. Residents’ overall performance in course was graded in 27% of the programs.
the asthe the
November 26, 1990; accepted after revision March 4, 1991. The members of the committee are Wei-Kom Chu, Karen P. Doppke, Lance V. Hefner, Pavel V. Houdek, David S. Marsden (chair), Richard L. Morin, William
Received I
Pavlicek,
E. Russell
Executive Officer, AJR 157:409-410,
Ritenour, Alan H. Schoenfeld, Raymond K. Wu, F. Marc Edwards (consultant), and Lincoln American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 335 E. 45th St., New York, NY 10017.
August 1991 0361-803X/91/1572-0409
© American Roentgen Ray Society
B. Hubbard
(ex-officio).
Address
reprint
requests
to
4i 0
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 118.169.186.65 on 10/04/15 from IP address 118.169.186.65. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved
A special
physics
review
course
was
COMMITTEE
ON
given
before
in-house
TRAINING
lecture
the American Board of Radiology examinations in 66% of the programs. Lasting i .5 hr, 1 day per week, the typical review course began June-August and ended August-September. Residents in 94% of the programs attended off-site review courses.
Physics
Course
RADIOLOGISTS
hours
in the program.
was reported hours.
to occupy
This survey performance
For example,
computer
4% of the time devoted
is not intended of training
to serve
programs.
August
science
to classroom
as an evaluation
Rather,
1991
of the
it provides
some
objective information concerning existing programs that can be compared with statements of need that have been made [iJ.
Instructors
Results
The primary physics instructor was certified in either diagnostic or radiologic physics by the American Board of Radiology. The mean number of physics instructors included two Ph.D. physicists, one M.S. physicist, one radiologic technologist, and two M.D.s with 8-i 5 years experience for each instructor. The relative extent of involvement of each category of instructor was not surveyed.
recently
of the previous
Materials
Handouts were the most frequently used materials (72%) with specific mention of the Radiological Physics Examination (RAPHEX), produced by the Radiological and Medical Physics Society of New York, in 68% of the responses. High on the list of materials that were never used were live video (92% never used it), audiovisual series (Society of Nuclear Medicine, 76% never used it; Radiological Society of North America, 59% never used it), and videotape (47% never used it).
survey
[1] of radiologists
who had
their residencies indicated the perception more practical instruction, particularly in the
completed
of a need
for
areas of dosimetry Although
these
of patients
categories
survey, the comments to echo those
and evaluation
of equipment.
not specified
in the present
were
from physics
program
directors
seem
of the radiologists.
Radiologists in the previous survey also expressed a great deal of interest in increasing the amount of time devoted to “teaching
Instructional
AJR:157,
with
images”
or at least
correlating
physics
princi-
pIes with images. The fact that audiovisual materials were not generally used by the programs surveyed may indicate a need forfurther development in this area on at least more promotion of existing materials. The radiologists’ survey also indicated a need for more coverage of computers. The current survey
indicates that the subject of computers currently takes up approximately 4% of didactic hours. Although percentage of class time is not an indication of the quality of instruction, it is interesting
to
note
that
neither
computers
nor
display
stations were mentioned as teaching materials although they may have figured into the 4-6 hr of laboratories/demonstraComments
and Suggestions
of Respondents
tions.
Respondents were invited to submit written statements as suggestions for improvements of physics instruction or under the heading General Comments. A total of 48 statements were received, the full text of which is available from the AAPM Committee on Training of Radiologists. Most of the suggestions for improvement concerned the need for regular attendance (seven responses); the need to teach basic primciples that directly affect image quality, such as spending less time on radiobiology (six responses); and the need for high quality,
standardized
teaching
materials
(nine
responses).
These suggestions reflect the perceptions of the person charge of physics instruction, who is usually a physicist.
in
Evaluation
case, the results
of this survey
tion encompasses
a significant
residency
instructors
As with responding ulation
avenues any survey, the results are a reflection of the population and not necessarily of the parent pop-
of residency
programs,
rate and the breakdown university-, appropriate of knowing
the 40%
of the respondents’
response
programs
into
hospital-, and clinic-based programs suggests an representation. Also, the committee has no way whether the survey response represents a thor-
ough evaluation estimate
although
of details
from the respondent.
of the program For example,
or a momentary the year-by-year
breakdown of classroom hours during residency may not have been accurate horizontally (i.e., as a breakdown of hours spent for each postgraduate year), but the committee feels that the vertical
areas
breakdown
is a reasonable
of hours
representation
spent
in different
subject
of the distribution
and
programs. residents
indicate time
teaching
materials
that physics
commitment
instrucduring
The level of satisfaction varies
for improvement
widely,
are recognized
but
ra-
of both
a number
of
by both groups.
It
is hoped that the results of this survey, when correlated with the perceptions of radiologists about their training collected in the
previous
mation
to training
survey,
may
provide
useful,
conjectural
infor-
programs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The committee thanks the American College providing the mailing list used in this study.
of Radiology
for
REFERENCE
1 . Committee
on Training of Radiologists, American Association of Physicists Radiologic physics instruction for diagnostic radiologists: results of an opinion survey (perspective). AJR 1989:152:393-397 in Medicine.
of
of various
more promotion of existing materials such as The Physics of Diagnostic Radiology: Syllabus and Study Guide, produced jointly by the American College of Radiology (ACR) Physics Commission and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, and the ACR Physics Film Teaching Files. In any
diology Conclusions
of the efficacy
was not within the scope of this survey. A common theme in the surveys of radiologists and residency programs was a desire for more standardized teaching materials. Again, this may indicate a need for development of materials that should be met by various organizations, or it may indicate a need for
409
Perspective :
1
.
Radiologic Physics Instruction for Diagnostic A Survey of Residency Programs Committee
on Training
of Radiologists,1
American
Association
A survey concerning physics instruction in radiology residency training programs was conducted by the Committee on Training of Radiologists of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). A previous survey of radiolo-
gists’ their
overall physics
ducted
impression
of the quality
instruction
during
by this committee
[i].
and inclusiveness
their
residencies
The present
was
survey
was
of con-
survey
was
mailed
to the
that the survey
in charge sponded.
of physics
programs
with
be forwarded
instruction.
a coven
Ninety-nine
who is programs me-
background
of instructors,
the areas program and
use
of instructional materials. Respondents were invited to submit written comments and suggestions also.
Fifty-three
percent
of the
programs
were
university
based,
44% hospital based, and 3% clinic based. The mean number of residents in each year of residency was four, with a staff consisting of i 7 radiologists, three physicists, and three
scientists/professional
staff.
listed their physics instruction tic, with only 5% specializing ing 22% listed both.
Seventy-three
program in nuclear
specialty medicine.
percent as diagnosThe remain-
Curriculum
Information of 41 classroom
The typical program i .3 hr (usually 82% requiring graduate year,
i 2:00
noon
mandatory 70%
(didactic)
consisted
hours
were reported.
of 1-2 meetings
or 4:00
p.m.
attendance
for the second
pen week for
on a Monday)
during year,
65%
year, and 27% for the fourth year. Classroom
with
the first postfor the third
hours dropped
to a mean of i 8 during the fifth postgraduate year. Mean number of laboratory hours varied more than didactic hours during training, with a high of i 2 hr in nuclear medicine physics
Results The full text of the survey and tabulation of responses is available from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Committee on Training of Radiologists. The results
Information
An average
curriculum,
in Medicine
me-
to the person
The survey consisted of 20 questions covering of general program information (e.g., demographics, specialties),
letter
Program
“other”
thought
to be necessary to compare residents’ impressions of their physics instruction with the curricula of existing programs. Toward that end, a list of 250 radiology training programs was obtained from the American College of Radiology. The questing
of Physicists
Radiologists:
are summarized
here.
and 6 hr in diagnostic radiologic physics both occurring in second postgraduate year. Homework problems were signed in 45% and regular tests were given in 48% of responding programs. Residents’ overall performance in course was graded in 27% of the programs.
the asthe the
November 26, 1990; accepted after revision March 4, 1991. The members of the committee are Wei-Kom Chu, Karen P. Doppke, Lance V. Hefner, Pavel V. Houdek, David S. Marsden (chair), Richard L. Morin, William
Received I
Pavlicek,
E. Russell
Executive Officer, AJR 157:409-410,
Ritenour, Alan H. Schoenfeld, Raymond K. Wu, F. Marc Edwards (consultant), and Lincoln American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 335 E. 45th St., New York, NY 10017.
August 1991 0361-803X/91/1572-0409
© American Roentgen Ray Society
B. Hubbard
(ex-officio).
Address
reprint
requests
to
4i 0
Downloaded from www.ajronline.org by 118.169.186.65 on 10/04/15 from IP address 118.169.186.65. Copyright ARRS. For personal use only; all rights reserved
A special
physics
review
course
was
COMMITTEE
ON
given
before
in-house
TRAINING
lecture
the American Board of Radiology examinations in 66% of the programs. Lasting i .5 hr, 1 day per week, the typical review course began June-August and ended August-September. Residents in 94% of the programs attended off-site review courses.
Physics
Course
RADIOLOGISTS
hours
in the program.
was reported hours.
to occupy
This survey performance
For example,
computer
4% of the time devoted
is not intended of training
to serve
programs.
August
science
to classroom
as an evaluation
Rather,
1991
of the
it provides
some
objective information concerning existing programs that can be compared with statements of need that have been made [iJ.
Instructors
Results
The primary physics instructor was certified in either diagnostic or radiologic physics by the American Board of Radiology. The mean number of physics instructors included two Ph.D. physicists, one M.S. physicist, one radiologic technologist, and two M.D.s with 8-i 5 years experience for each instructor. The relative extent of involvement of each category of instructor was not surveyed.
recently
of the previous
Materials
Handouts were the most frequently used materials (72%) with specific mention of the Radiological Physics Examination (RAPHEX), produced by the Radiological and Medical Physics Society of New York, in 68% of the responses. High on the list of materials that were never used were live video (92% never used it), audiovisual series (Society of Nuclear Medicine, 76% never used it; Radiological Society of North America, 59% never used it), and videotape (47% never used it).
survey
[1] of radiologists
who had
their residencies indicated the perception more practical instruction, particularly in the
completed
of a need
for
areas of dosimetry Although
these
of patients
categories
survey, the comments to echo those
and evaluation
of equipment.
not specified
in the present
were
from physics
program
directors
seem
of the radiologists.
Radiologists in the previous survey also expressed a great deal of interest in increasing the amount of time devoted to “teaching
Instructional
AJR:157,
with
images”
or at least
correlating
physics
princi-
pIes with images. The fact that audiovisual materials were not generally used by the programs surveyed may indicate a need forfurther development in this area on at least more promotion of existing materials. The radiologists’ survey also indicated a need for more coverage of computers. The current survey
indicates that the subject of computers currently takes up approximately 4% of didactic hours. Although percentage of class time is not an indication of the quality of instruction, it is interesting
to
note
that
neither
computers
nor
display
stations were mentioned as teaching materials although they may have figured into the 4-6 hr of laboratories/demonstraComments
and Suggestions
of Respondents
tions.
Respondents were invited to submit written statements as suggestions for improvements of physics instruction or under the heading General Comments. A total of 48 statements were received, the full text of which is available from the AAPM Committee on Training of Radiologists. Most of the suggestions for improvement concerned the need for regular attendance (seven responses); the need to teach basic primciples that directly affect image quality, such as spending less time on radiobiology (six responses); and the need for high quality,
standardized
teaching
materials
(nine
responses).
These suggestions reflect the perceptions of the person charge of physics instruction, who is usually a physicist.
in
Evaluation
case, the results
of this survey
tion encompasses
a significant
residency
instructors
As with responding ulation
avenues any survey, the results are a reflection of the population and not necessarily of the parent pop-
of residency
programs,
rate and the breakdown university-, appropriate of knowing
the 40%
of the respondents’
response
programs
into
hospital-, and clinic-based programs suggests an representation. Also, the committee has no way whether the survey response represents a thor-
ough evaluation estimate
although
of details
from the respondent.
of the program For example,
or a momentary the year-by-year
breakdown of classroom hours during residency may not have been accurate horizontally (i.e., as a breakdown of hours spent for each postgraduate year), but the committee feels that the vertical
areas
breakdown
is a reasonable
of hours
representation
spent
in different
subject
of the distribution
and
programs. residents
indicate time
teaching
materials
that physics
commitment
instrucduring
The level of satisfaction varies
for improvement
widely,
are recognized
but
ra-
of both
a number
of
by both groups.
It
is hoped that the results of this survey, when correlated with the perceptions of radiologists about their training collected in the
previous
mation
to training
survey,
may
provide
useful,
conjectural
infor-
programs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The committee thanks the American College providing the mailing list used in this study.
of Radiology
for
REFERENCE
1 . Committee
on Training of Radiologists, American Association of Physicists Radiologic physics instruction for diagnostic radiologists: results of an opinion survey (perspective). AJR 1989:152:393-397 in Medicine.
of
of various
more promotion of existing materials such as The Physics of Diagnostic Radiology: Syllabus and Study Guide, produced jointly by the American College of Radiology (ACR) Physics Commission and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, and the ACR Physics Film Teaching Files. In any
diology Conclusions
of the efficacy
was not within the scope of this survey. A common theme in the surveys of radiologists and residency programs was a desire for more standardized teaching materials. Again, this may indicate a need for development of materials that should be met by various organizations, or it may indicate a need for
