Results of the 2004 CAMPEP Questionnaire


By Brenda Clark, on behalf of the CAMPEP Board

In March 2004, the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs circulated a questionnaire eliciting input from the general medical physics community on CAMPEP accreditation processes for graduate and residency programs. The accreditation of continuing education programs was not addressed in this questionnaire.

By June 10, 2004, we had received 160 responses from individuals working at approximately 125 different institutions, 60 from individuals in institutions offering graduate programs and 49 from individuals in institutions offering residency programs. Of the responses from individuals working in institutions with established programs, approximately 35% were accredited by CAMPEP. This level of response and the overwhelmingly positive input indicates a strong level of support for CAMPEP activities, which is encouraging.

The appendix gives the numerical response to the 8 questions asked in the survey, from which it can be seen that, in general, the perception among the respondents is that CAMPEP accreditation is seen as a positive and worthwhile endeavour. Many of the respondents took the trouble to add comments, and, although space does not permit publication of individual comments, a summary is given here.

The comments can be grouped into several issues, and in many cases similar ideas were expressed by several respondents. The main issues raised were the perceived relevance of accreditation, the flexibility of CAMPEP accreditation, and CAMPEP's application process.

Perceived Relevance

This group of comments contained responses indicating that many members of the community are unaware of the relevance and value of accreditation. It was also stated that, as accreditation is not yet recognized by board certification bodies or licensing agencies, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to obtain institutional support for accreditation activities.

Accreditation should be seen as a public recognition that an educational program has met national standards and also as a tool to ensure that education programs enable their students to be competent practitioners. To date, accreditation has been widely embraced in the medical field, and most of us work in facilities that are accredited by the appropriate body. However, accreditation is not yet seen as relevant in some other educational areas, illustrated by the fact that few universities or university programs are accredited.

These comments have clearly identified the need to raise awareness within the community, and the members of the CAMPEP board have agreed on several courses of action. Among these, the Web site will be revised to be more informative, program graduates will be sought to write articles for publication describing personal experiences with accredited programs, data on relative performance of graduates in certification examinations will be sought, and a symposium on accreditation is planned for next year's annual meeting.

Flexibility of CAMPEP Accreditation

This group of comments highlighted the perception that achieving accreditation relies on conforming to a predetermined set of criteria with little flexibility. There were also several questions concerning the requirement that graduate programs have a minimum of 8 students.

The board's response to this issue is threefold. First, the accreditation application guidelines posted on the Web site describe a typical program and do not represent a rigid requirement. The program review committee members are flexible on various aspects of program structure and content. The aim is to achieve a certain standard for the students in the program, and there is recognition that there could be many different approaches which achieve the same result. The 2 program review committees have been asked to review the wording of the guidelines to emphasise this flexibility.

Second, CAMPEP's Graduate Education Program Review Committee (GEPRC) was asked to review the requirement relating to program size. The response from the GEPRC is that, although the guidelines recommend that a minimum of 8 students are enrolled in the program, in practice accreditation has not been denied on the basis of low student numbers alone. There is no such limitation in the requirement for residency training programs.

Third, it should be pointed out that CAMPEP has accredited programs having a focus and greater strength in either imaging or therapy. While it is recognized that medical physicists require a basic knowledge in both areas, it is not always feasible for a center to offer students comparable depth in both topics.

The Application Process

Feedback on this topic reflected the concern around the documentation, resources, and administrative support required for accreditation application. CAMPEP has recently moved to a template-based application, which should serve to standardize the application format (but not the programs!). Not only will this assist the program directors making the application, but will also greatly streamline the review process. Efforts will also be made to emphasize the value of the self-study required by the application and to recommend that this document be kept up to date. This practice will facilitate regular program review and greatly reduce the effort required to apply for reaccreditation.

Summary

Since it's formation in 1995, CAMPEP has grown and developed with the needs of the community to the level where now we estimate that more than half of all medical physics graduate students attend an accredited program. Accreditation of residency training is also on an upward trend. The strength and value of CAMPEP accreditation is best evaluated by the response of our clients, the students. This response in recent years clearly has been in support of accreditation, with those programs achieving and maintaining accreditation clearly being favored by the student applicants. The input from this questionnaire will be used by the CAMPEP board and committee members to maximize relevance of our activities and to ensure continuing credibility of our processes. Above all, the objective is to accredit programs in which the student can expect to have a comprehensive quality educational experience in medical physics, with the emphasis on quality.

Appendix

Key: Strongly Disagree = 1; Strongly Agree = 5

1. If I had an opening for a staff physicist, all other things being equal, I would hire a physicist who had completed a CAMPEP-accredited residency program.
2. If I had an opening for a resident in radiation oncology physics, all other things being equal, I would hire a physics graduate from a CAMPEP-accredited program.
3. CAMPEP accreditation provides a meaningful confirmation that the educational program functions at an acceptable standard.
4. The CAMPEP requirements for accreditation are reasonable.
5. The CAMPEP requirements and guidelines for accreditation are clear.
6. The teaching resources required to run a CAMPEP-accredited program are reasonable.
7. The effort required to apply for CAMPEP accreditation is justified.
8. CAMPEP offers support and encouragement to institutions considering applying for accreditation.