2020 Joint AAPM | COMP Virtual Meeting
Back to session list

Session Title: Guidelines for Writing and Reviewing AAPM Task Group Reports
Question 1: Which section is now required in Science Council Task Group reports to maximize the value and standardize the information for readers of task group reports?
Reference:Reference: AAPM Task Group 275 is the first report which has been published that includes the now required Key Recommendations Section. Report No. 275 ‐ Strategies for Effective Physics Plan and Chart Review in Radiation Therapy: Report of AAPM Task Group 275 (2020), Medical Physics, in press, and available on the AAPM & Med Phys websites: https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/mp.14030
Choice A:Technology table
Choice B:List of possible vendors
Choice C:Key recommendations
Choice D:History of the topic
Question 2: For reports in Therapy Physics Committee, a risk-assessment section is required in some proposals and expected to be covered within the report content. This risk assessment section was put in place because of which AAPM report?
Reference:Reference: Huq et al, The report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management, Med Phys 43: 4209‐4262, 2016.
Choice A:Task Group 40 on Comprehensive QA for Radiation Oncology
Choice B:Task Group 100 on Application of Risk Analysis Methods to Radiation Therapy Quality Management
Choice C:Task Group 135 on Quality Assurance for Robotic Radiosurgery
Choice D:Task Group 142 on Quality Assurance of Medical Accelerators
Question 3: Which of the following are effective to maintain high standards of writing achievement?
Reference:Reference: Larson, Carl E., Carl Larson, and Frank MJ LaFasto. Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong. Vol. 10. Sage, 1989.
Choice A:Individual standards
Choice B:Team pressure
Choice C:Consequences of success or failure
Choice D:All of the above
Question 4: You are having a crucial conversation with a team member who consistently has failed to meet writing goals. One or both of you shut down or want to walk away during the conversation. Of the following options, what is the best solution?
Reference:Patterson, Kerry. Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. New York:McGraw‐Hill, 2012.
Choice A:End the conversation and ask the TG member to step down.
Choice B:Bring the conversation back to safety by sincerely asking questions to find the source of anger or denial.
Choice C:TG members are volunteering their time, and it is probably best to accept whatever their contribution is.
Choice D:Refer the matter to the chair of your parent committee.
Question 5: Which of the following issues motivated the AAPM to revise its task group report review process?
Reference:Fraass, B. Task Group Creation and Effective Report Development: How are Task Groups Created, AAPM Spring Clinical Meeting, April 4‐7 2020 (Virtual).
Choice A:Task group report review takes too long
Choice B:There exist opportunities for reports to get stalled in many stages of the review process
Choice C:Serial review by different committees can result in conflicting reviewer recommendations
Choice D:Dual “final stage” of review (AAPM’s EXCOM and journal editor) can result in conflicting opinions
Choice E:All of the above
Question 6: How are the reports of Task Groups that include both imaging and therapy clinical components handled in the streamlined report review process?
Reference:Fraass, B. Task Group Creation and Effective Report Development: How are Task Groups Created, AAPM Spring Clinical Meeting, April 4‐7 2020 (Virtual).
Choice A:The AAPM Therapy Physics Committee performs the final review.
Choice B:Therapy Physics Committee and Imaging Physics Committee perform a joint review.
Choice C:Therapy Physics, Imaging Physics, and Practice Environment Committees all participate in reviewing the draft report.
Choice D:A special ad‐hoc committee is convened to review multidisciplinary task group reports
Back to session list