Samuel Nii Adu Tagoe

PURPOSE: The Global Medical Physics Training and Development Program (GMPTDP) is a novel initiative that provides United States (US)-based graduate students in medical physics with structured, immersive clinical training in Ghana. METHODS: The five-week program begins with a cultural and clinical orientation in the US, followed by 4 weeks of clinical rotations across leading Ghanaian medical institutions. During rotations, students gain experience with teletherapy (LINACs and cobalt-60), brachytherapy, treatment planning, imaging, and more. Trainees participate in clinical activities, conduct collaborative projects, and engage in community outreach and cultural immersion. The program culminates in a symposium highlighting student experiences and future directions with speakers including physicists, oncologists, engineers, and policymakers. RESULTS: The pilot year of the program was successfully completed by three students from May 28 2024-July 2 2024. This article outlines the development, structure, and implementation of GMPTDP as a replicable model for global health training in medical physics, emphasizing sustainable partnerships between high-income and low- and middle-income countries. Educational objectives include demonstrating effective cross-border training models, fostering collaborative research, and expanding global clinical experience in the field of medical physics. CONCLUSIONS: A model for a global medical physics training program was developed and successfully implemented.

Dear Editor, The vast expanse of medical physics, as a discipline, traverses far beyond the mere application of radiation in healthcare. Yet, there seems to be an inadvertent narrowing of its scope in both academic curricula and public perception. By sequestering the role of medical physics to predominantly radiation-based applications, we risk overlooking its comprehensive potential in revolutionizing patient care and clinical solutions. Medical physics involves the application of the concepts and methods of physics to medicine. Its footprint can be observed wherever physics aids in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. This understanding, reinforced by numerous scientists and authors, is also delineated in general literature, from encyclopedias to dictionaries. Consequently, the realm of medical physics extends across every nook and cranny of healthcare facilities. From assessments, such as temperature and pressure-related vitals, to diagnostic procedures involving medical imaging, and treatments encompassing cardiac defibrillators and artificial heart valves, medical physics plays an instrumental role. However, the current academic trend is concerning. A majority of graduate programs in medical physics seem to be anchored predominantly on diagnostic imaging, radiation therapy, and nuclear medicine physics. These subjects, while crucial, focus primarily on radiation's clinical, research, and industrial applications. This skewed emphasis has led to a scenario where the term “medical physics” evokes immediate associations with “diagnostic imaging physics, radiotherapy physics, and nuclear medicine physics.” This tunnel vision not only shapes public perception but also manifests itself in the job market. Hospitals tend to list radiologically-related roles when appointing medical physicists, perpetuating this limited scope. Through your esteemed journal, we wish to shed light on the need for a broader understanding and application of medical physics, extending beyond the radiation-centric narrative that currently prevails. We believe that diversifying the roles and responsibilities of medical physicists will significantly contribute to the advancement of healthcare and scientific communities. Thank you for considering our perspective. We look forward to your action in addressing this urgent matter for the betterment of healthcare and the scientific community at large. Yours sincerely, Corresponding author. Mr. Alhassan Mohammed Baidoo: Conception of research idea, writing of initial draft, review and approval of finished work. Stephanie Brako Boateng: Conception of research idea and writing of initial draft. Ruth Beulah Awotwe: Conception of research idea and rewriting of initial draft. Samuel Nii Adu Tagoe: Review and correction of written work. Philip Odonkor: Rewriting of initial draft. Anna Mamoud: Rewriting of initial draft. The authors have nothing to report. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Purpose: Our purpose was to assess physics quality assurance (QA) practices in less resourced radiation therapy (RT) centers to improve quality of care. Methods and Materials: A preliminary study was conducted in 2020 of 13 select RT centers in 6 countries, and in 2021, our team conducted onsite visits to all the RT centers in Ghana, one of the countries from the initial survey. The RT centers included 1 private and 2 public institutions (denoted as Public-1 and Public-2). Follow-up surveys were sent to 17 medical physicists from the site visit. Questions centered on the topics of equipment, institutional practice, physics quality assurance, management, and safety practices. Qualitative and descriptive methods were used for data analysis. Questions regarding operational challenges (machine downtime, patient-related issues, power outages, and staffing) were asked on a 5-point Likert scale. Results: The preliminary survey from 2020 had a 92% response rate. One key result showed that for RT centers in lower gross national income per capita countries there was a direct correlation between QA needs and the gross national income per capita of the country. The needs identified included film/array detectors, independent dose calculation software, calibration of ion chambers, diodes, thermoluminiscence diodes (TLDs), phantoms for verification, Treatment Planning System (TPS) test phantoms, imaging test phantoms and film dosimeters, education, and training. For the post survey after the site visit in 2021, we received a 100% response rate. The private and the Public-1 institutions each have computed tomography simulators located in their RT center. The average daily patient external beam workload for each clinic on a linear accelerator was: private = 25, Public-1 = 55, Public-2 = 40. The Co-60 workload was: Public-1 = 45, Public-2 = 25 (there was no Co-60 at the private hospital). Public-1 and -2 lacked the equipment necessary to conform to best practices in Task Group reports (TG) 142 and 198. Public-2 reported significant operational challenges. Notably, Public-1 and -2 have peer review chart rounds, which are attended by clinical oncologists, medical physicists, physicians, and physics trainees. All 17 physicists who responded to the post site visit survey indicated they had a system of documenting, tracking, and trending patient-related safety incidents, but only 1 physicist reported using International Atomic Energy Agency Safety in Radiation Oncology. Conclusions: The preliminary study showed a direct correlation between QA needs and the development index of a country, and the follow-up survey examines operational and physics QA practices in the RT clinics in Ghana, one of the initial countries surveyed. This will form the basis of a planned continent-wide survey in Africa intended to spotlight QA practices in low- and middle-income countries, the challenges faced, and lessons learned to help understand the gaps and needs to support local physics QA and management programs. Audits during the site visit show education and training remain the most important needs in operating successful QA programs.