The Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine (ACPSEM) is a professional organisation for medical physicists, biomedical engineers and allied professionals in Australia and New Zealand. The ACPSEM was first incorporated in 1977 as the Australasian College of Physical Scientists in Medicine. The college was formed from the earlier Australian Regional Group of the Hospital Physicists Association (UK), Biophysics Group of the Australian Institute of Physics and New Zealand Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering Association. The college was admitted to membership of the International Organization for Medical Physics in 1986.The ACPSEM facilitates training and professional accreditation for practising medical physicists in Australia and New Zealand. This includes significant support for the TEAP training program for medical physics trainees. The ACPSEM also promotes education and research into the biomedical applications of physics, mathematics, engineering and computing.The ACPSEM publishes position papers and topical debates developed with the aim of providing opinions and evidence-based, best-practice guidelines regarding topics and emerging issues relevant to ACPSEM and based on a critical analysis of current facts, data and research.The ACPSEM has an official scientific journal, Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine, which is published 4 times a year. The ACPSEM holds an annual Engineering and Physical Sciences in Medicine conference, and has done every year since 1961..
The consideration of diversity, equity and inclusivity (DEI) is an important part of promoting a robust and respectful workforce, and is critical to the continued success of organisations, including healthcare providers, academic institutions and professional societies. Many professional bodies representing medical physicists have made commitments to DEI principles in the form of mission statements, policies, steering groups, frameworks and workforce surveys. In the Australian and New Zealand medical physics community, DEI work has included reflecting on the impact of stereotypes, surveys on workforce experiences, and capturing workforce diversity metrics (including gender, nationality, age and professional background). These projects have been conducted with the support of the Australasian College of Physical Sciences and Engineering in Medicine (ACPSEM) and have contributed to the enhancement of DEI in the ACPSEM workforce. Most of this work has been focused on gender diversity, reflecting increasing involvement in the Australian and New Zealand workforce: women accounted for 41% of medical physics trainees and 32% of registered medical physicists in a 2020 survey. In 2021, the ACPSEM Professional Standards Board (PSB) incepted the creation of a DEI working group. This movement was supported not only by the ACPSEM Board but also the wider medical physics community, both nationally and inter-nationally. The establishment of this group will support best-practice governance, define the diversity metrics most relevant to our profession and use data collected on these metrics to effect positive change within the ACPSEM boards and committees as well as embedding DEI in policies and procedures for internal and external activities. The DEI working group will enhance the ACPSEM's reputation and ultimately ensure all members feel empowered, respected and represented.
MRI-guided radiotherapy introduces unique quality assurance (QA) requirements due to magnetic field effects on dose delivery, imaging-dependent workflows, adaptive planning and system specific considerations. Consistent, vendor agnostic guidance is needed to support safe commissioning, clinical implementation, and ongoing performance monitoring across MRI-Linac platforms. This guideline defines minimum recommended MRI-Linac commissioning and QA practices to support consistent and safe clinical operation across services. It was developed by the MRI-Linac QA sub-group of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Linac Working Group using an evidence-informed, consensus-based approach. Key international standards, task group reports, vendor documentation, and peer-reviewed literature relevant to the MRI-Linac were reviewed. Candidate QA tests were mapped to clinical risks and system functions, then organized into commissioning and routine QA domains with suggested cadence. Recommendations were refined through iterative working group review, with emphasis on implementation and auditability. The resulting commissioning recommendations are grouped into domains addressing key performance and safety areas for MRI-Linacs. Additionally, a minimum test set is proposed with suggested frequencies and tolerances where supported by evidence. Adoption of this guideline supports harmonized MRI-Linac QA practice, improved reproducibility across sites, and enhanced patient safety. The framework is designed to be implementable across platforms and evolve as MRI-guided radiotherapy workflows, vendor capabilities, and the evidence matures.
The present paper describes the logistics of the 2004-2008 Australasian Level III Dosimetry Intercomparison. Dosimetric intercomparisons (or 'audits') can be used in radiotherapy to evaluate the accuracy and quality of radiation delivery. An intercomparison was undertaken in New Zealand and Australia to evaluate the feasibility and logistics of ongoing dosimetric intercomparisons that evaluate all steps in the radiotherapy treatment process, known as a 'Level III' intercomparison. The study commenced in 2002 with the establishment of a study team, definition of the study protocol, acquisition of appropriate equipment and recruitment of participating radiotherapy centres. Measurements were undertaken between October 2004 and March 2008, and included collation of data on time, costs and logistics of the study. Forty independent Australian and New Zealand radiotherapy centres agreed to participate. Measurement visits were made to 37 of these centres. Data is presented on the costs of the study and the level of support required. The study involved the participation of 16 staff at the study centre who invested over 4000 hours in the study, and of over 200 professionals at participating centres. Recommendations are provided for future phantom-based intercomparisons. It is hoped that the present paper will be of benefit to any centres or groups contemplating similar activities by identifying the processes involved in establishing the study, the potential hazards and pitfalls, and expected resource requirements.
