Task Group on Clinical Medical Physicist Certification Board

Second Face-to-Face Meeting in Munich – September 9, 2009
12:30 am –2:00 pm
ICM Session Room 22a
Participants – Open to public – see attached participant list (Attachment 1)
Minutes
1.Introduction.
a.The participants introduced themselves.
b.Raymond Wu reported that the Board Certification presentation in the “Education & Training in AFOMP Region Special Session” mentioned in the first meeting is located in the program CD included with the registration package.
c. The EXCOM asked Raymond to make a short presentation at the Council 1 meeting.
2. Perspectives of representatives from countries with and without existing certification body
a. AFOMP – Kiyo Inamura, President of AFOMP summarized the interest of AFOMP countries and expressed the agreement that the ABR model is a good one to study. Arun Chougule expressed the view of India. There is a need to have an international body to certify MP to focus on clinical experience. There may be a need to allow more than one level of certification. KY Cheung stated that limiting to advisory is easier but will not satisfy the needs of many AFOMP countries, particularly small ones.
b.Latin America – Maria-Ester Brandan summarized the Latin American interest, particularly Mexico. Ana Maria Marques presented the current process adopted in Brazil, and expressed the interest in being accredited, and that Brazil can assist other countries.
c.Middle East – MEFOMP was having its inauguration meeting. Ibrahim Duhaini expressed interest in being a voting member. He also requested to put in record the following “Lebanon has 181 hospitals for a population of about 4 mil. It has 679 imaging units, 23 nuclear medicine units and 13 Linacs. The Government Authority has difficulty in setting licensing standards. An International Certification Body will be able to help. Also MP’s trained either in US or Europe and there is tension among the two schools. The Body will be able to help to resolve this and unify both schools. There is no academic program in existence and the Body can help identify gaps in E & T and develop MP Programs. The overall goal of the Certification Body is to raise awareness and recognition of MP’s as a healthcare profession”
d.Africa – William Rae mentioned that currently South Africa MP’s do not need certification to practice, and expressed the concern if government mis-interpretes the IBMP’s goal and requires the MP to get certified. Suggested other names for the Board.
e.Europe – Wil vander Putten, representing EFOMP, will not accept the practice of limiting to three radiological branches. He expressed EFOMP’s interest in assisting. Also expressed concerns if being too ambitious. He also suggested different names for the international body.
f. North America – William Hendee, past President of ABR, encouraged the creation of an international body to provide advice, help, and accreditation. To have an organization to certify MP is very difficult. He mentioned ABR should be willing to help in some way. New rules after 2012 will make it more difficult for non-US candidates to get certified by ABR due to the requirements for graduate programs to have CAMPEP accreditation.
g. Some names suggested include “Advisory Committee on Accreditation of Medical Physics Programs”, “Clinical Medical Physicist Certification Committee”, “International Advisory Board”, “International Medical Physicist Certification Board”
h.IAEA – Joanna Izewska mentioned the various workgroups of IAEA and expressed the interest of the agency to support the effort to strengthen the MP practice, particularly in developing countries.
i. Many comments were made in support of the international certification initiative. Many pointed out the need of getting the governments’ attention and to recognize the profession.
3. Identification of Voting Member Countries – more discussions on ways to identify countries that really want to advance the international certification body beyond the verbal support stage. Representatives are asked to initiate discussions in depth within the national MP organizations to debate if such an international body is needed. KY Cheung is asked to lead the effort to come up with a formula to determine the one-time fees discussed in the first meeting that is a function of the GDP and number of MP.
4.Future meeting format – Virtual meetings
a. Use email, minimize phone conferences
b. Limit all discussions to within the two-week period of the virtual meeting
c. Set agreed on dates first so that all voting members are available at least part of the 2-week period
d. All votes are made using the ‘REPLY TO ALL’ button
5. Short term goals – in chronological order, identify voting members and observing members, establish guidelines, accredit existing national boards, provide assistance to national organizations on board certification issues, and study the feasibility of creating an independent board.
6. Budget – to be determined by voting members
7. The meeting adjourned at 2 pm.
Attachment 1
Signup sheet with email addresses TG Meeting Sept 9, 2009

Submitted respectfully by Raymond Wu, Chairman of TG, Sept 17, 2009