Explore the vast range of titles available.

The historic and ongoing evolution of the practice, technology, terminology, and implementation of programs related to quality in the medical radiological professions has given rise to the interchangeable use of the terms Quality Management (QM), Quality Assurance (QA), and Quality Control (QC) in the vernacular. This White Paper aims to provide clarification of QM, QA, and QC in medical physics context and guidance on how to use these terms appropriately in American College of Radiology (ACR) Practice Parameters and Technical Standards, generalizable to other guidance initiatives. The clarification of these nuanced terms in the radiology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine environments will not only boost the comprehensibility and usability of the Medical Physics Technical Standards and Practice Parameters, but also provide clarity and a foundation for ACR's clinical, physician‐led Practice Parameters, which also use these important terms for monitoring equipment performance for safety and quality. Further, this will support the ongoing development of the professional practice of clinical medical physics by providing a common framework that distinguishes the various types of responsibilities borne by medical physicists and others in the medical radiological environment. Examples are provided of how QM, QA, and QC may be applied in the context of ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline (MPPG) represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiation requires specific training, skills, and techniques as described in each document. As the review of the previous version of AAPM Professional Policy (PP)‐17 (Scope of Practice) progressed, the writing group focused on one of the main goals: to have this document accepted by regulatory and accrediting bodies. After much discussion, it was decided that this goal would be better served through a MPPG. To further advance this goal, the text was updated to reflect the rationale and processes by which the activities in the scope of practice were identified and categorized. Lastly, the AAPM Professional Council believes that this document has benefitted from public comment which is part of the MPPG process but not the AAPM Professional Policy approval process. The following terms are used in the AAPM's MPPGs: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: •Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. •Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

INTRODUCTION The American College of Radiology (ACR) computed tomography (CT) Dose Index Registry (DIR) has been extraordinarily successful, with dose indices collected for over 102 million CT examinations to date. 1,2 The CT DIR has provided an ongoing source of normative clinical data which has been the gold standard for national and international benchmarking. 3 The largest existing normative dataset for fluoroscopically guided procedures is the Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology (RAD‐IR) study, with a data collection period covering the mid‐ to late 1990’s. 4–6 The RAD‐IR study included 2142 clinical interventional fluoroscopy procedures, performed at one of seven sites using a single fluoroscope make and model. Much has changed since the late 1990's, including the scope and number of fluoroscopically guided procedures performed; fluoroscope technology, including the introduction of flat panel image receptors and variable added filtration; informatics, including widespread implementation and availability of the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Radiation Dose Structured Report (RDSR); and regulation, including mandatory reporting of reference air kerma (Ka,r) in the United States starting in 2006. [...]fluoroscopy is used in a very wide range of medical procedures, ranging from diagnostic procedures such as barium swallow, barium enema, and cystography to complex image‐guided interventions such as aortic aneurysm repair and hepatic embolization. Fluoroscopy DIR team roles These are not official administrative roles or user profiles in the DIR, however, identifying the right personnel to play the following roles is key to a successful implementation of the Fluoroscopy DIR. Physician champion The physician champion is the coordinator and director of the implementation process, and is essential to securing and maintaining institutional support for implementation of the ACR Fluoroscopy DIR. Sites in states with requirements for fluoroscopy radiation protocol committees or similar committees may find their physician champion on one of these committees.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) recognized the need for a review of the current state of nuclear medicine physics training and the need to explore pathways for improving nuclear medicine physics training opportunities. For these reasons, the two organizations formed a joint AAPM/SNMMI Ad Hoc Task Force on Nuclear Medicine Physics Training. The mission of this task force was to assemble a representative group of stakeholders to: Estimate the demand for board‐certified nuclear medicine physicists in the next 5–10 years, Identify the critical issues related to supplying an adequate number of physicists who have received the appropriate level of training in nuclear medicine physics, and Identify approaches that may be considered to facilitate the training of nuclear medicine physicists. As a result, a task force was appointed and chaired by an active member of both organizations that included representation from the AAPM, SNMMI, the American Board of Radiology (ABR), the American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine (ABSNM), and the Commission for the Accreditation of Medical Physics Educational Programs (CAMPEP). The Task Force first met at the AAPM Annual Meeting in Charlotte in July 2012 and has met regularly face‐to‐face, online, and by conference calls. This manuscript reports the findings of the Task Force, as well as recommendations to achieve the stated mission. PACS number: 01.40.G‐

Although Pinterest has become a popular platform for distributing influential information that shapes users' behaviors, the role of recipes pinned on Pinterest in these behaviors is not well understood. This study aims to explore the patterns of food ingredients and the nutritional content of recipes posted on Pinterest and to examine the factors associated with recipes that engage more users. Data were collected from Pinterest between June 28 and July 12, 2020 (207 recipes and 2818 comments). All samples were collected via 2 new user accounts with no search history. A codebook was developed with a raw agreement rate of 0.97 across all variables. Content analysis and natural language processing sentiment analysis techniques were employed. Recipes using seafood or vegetables as the main ingredient had, on average, fewer calories and less sodium, sugar, and cholesterol than meat- or poultry-based recipes. For recipes using meat as the main ingredient, more than half of the energy was obtained from fat (277/490, 56.6%). Although the most followed pinners tended to post recipes containing more poultry or seafood and less meat, recipes with higher fat content or providing more calories per serving were more popular, having more shared photos or videos and comments. The natural language processing-based sentiment analysis suggested that Pinterest users weighted taste more heavily than complexity (225/2818, 8.0%) and health (84/2828, 2.9%). Although popular pinners tended to post recipes with more seafood or poultry or vegetables and less meat, recipes with higher fat and sugar content were more user-engaging, with more photo or video shares and comments. Data on Pinterest behaviors can inform the development and implementation of nutrition health interventions to promote healthy recipe sharing on social media platforms.