PurposeThe purpose of this guideline is to provide a list of critical performance tests in order to assist the Qualified Medical Physicist (QMP) in establishing and maintaining a safe and effective quality assurance (QA) program. The performance tests on a linear accelerator (linac) should be selected to fit the clinical patterns of use of the accelerator and care should be given to perform tests which are relevant to detecting errors related to the specific use of the accelerator.MethodsA risk assessment was performed on tests from current task group reports on linac QA to highlight those tests that are most effective at maintaining safety and quality for the patient. Recommendations are made on the acquisition of reference or baseline data, the establishment of machine isocenter on a routine basis, basing performance tests on clinical use of the linac, working with vendors to establish QA tests and performing tests after maintenance.ResultsThe recommended tests proposed in this guideline were chosen based on the results from the risk analysis and the consensus of the guideline's committee. The tests are grouped together by class of test (e.g., dosimetry, mechanical, etc.) and clinical parameter tested. Implementation notes are included for each test so that the QMP can understand the overall goal of each test.ConclusionThis guideline will assist the QMP in developing a comprehensive QA program for linacs in the external beam radiation therapy setting. The committee sought to prioritize tests by their implication on quality and patient safety. The QMP is ultimately responsible for implementing appropriate tests. In the spirit of the report from American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 100, individual institutions are encouraged to analyze the risks involved in their own clinical practice and determine which performance tests are relevant in their own radiotherapy clinics.

Purpose: Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center (MBPCC) has established a Medical Physics Residency Program to provide clinical training to M.S. and Ph.D. graduates of the CAMPEP‐accredited Louisiana State University (LSU)‐MBPCC Medical Physics Graduate Program. It graduates approximately six students yearly, which equates to a need for twelve residency positions in a two‐year program. To address this need for residency positions, MBPCC decided to expand its maximum capacity of 6 residents to a total of 12 residents by developing a Consortium consisting of partnerships with radiation oncology physics residency programs located at regional outside clinical institutions. Methods: We feel that the proposed Consortium model offers: • broader range of procedures than available at most single institutions • exposure to more commercial products than training at most single institutions • various approaches to clinical topics than may be available at most single institutions • potential reduction of CAMPEP workload by producing smaller number of large programs • broad evaluation and examination of all Consortium residents, regardless of training location, by representatives from each of the Consortium partner sites MBPCC will be responsible for organization, accreditation, administration, and operation of the Consortium program. Partner institutions could then focus on clinical training of the residents. Results: The Consortium institutions have shown a great deal of support, both from their medical physics groups and administrations, in developing these partnerships. We are currently working with administrative personnel at each location to finalize the details of these partnerships through a Memorandum of Understanding. All partner sites are expected to begin resident training in July of this year. Conclusions: The Consortium is a network of for‐profit, non‐profit, academic, community, and private entities. These types of collaborative endeavors will be required to reach the number of residency positions needed to meet the 2014 ABR mandate and to maintain graduate medical physics training programs.