Index of content:
Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2009
- Professional General Poster Discussion: Exhibit Hall
36(2009); http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3181117View Description Hide Description
Purpose: To describe the use of SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) Analysis for medical physics strategic planning. Method and Materials: An organizational profile review of a department's medical physics staff serves as an essential preamble to the SWOT Analysis methodology. The intent of the profile study is to define important components of the work environment including: purpose, mission, vision, values, reporting relationships, workforce relationships, vendor relationships, regulatory environment and productivity tracking. A four‐quadrant SWOT matrix that is consistent with the results of the profile study is created to identify Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats to be used by the medical physics team as an aid in the design of appropriate action items that will lead to successful strategic outcomes. Strengths are organizational characteristics that contribute positively to achieving the defined objectives. Weaknesses are organizational characteristics that are detrimental to achieving the defined objectives. Opportunities are external factors that will assist with achieving the defined objectives. Threats are external factors that could hinder achieving the defined objectives. Results: This methodology facilitates the implementation of specific medical physics operational objectives by utilizing team‐based “brainstorming” techniques that focus on carefully targeted initiatives. Conclusion: SWOT Analysis is a well‐ established management planning tool that has been employed advantageously by diverse industries, including health care, for many years. It is a useful system also for providing medical physicists with a structured, systematic approach in the pursuit of performance excellence.
36(2009); http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3181118View Description Hide Description
This presentation shall cover the major problems that resulted from the purchase and use of a Radioactive Material Transport Package. Purchase of these containers does not require a fully implemented Quality Assurance program. Use and inspection requires adherence to a USNRC qualified Part 71 Quality Assurance program. The ‘old school’ thought process is that you get what you pay for, and you believe what people tell you, especially if you have paperwork to back it up. This is a model that is no longer viable. The consequences of trusting others without an internal confirmation has been significant.
A chronological sequence of events shall be presented with sidebars detailing how problems could have been avoided at each step. The necessity of an independent and fully implemented Quality Assurance program will be discussed. A recap of the penalties and consequences which resulted from these issues will be provided at the end.