Introduction to Medical Physics (S-MPR-R1) – 2025 review results

Current priority areas

• 10 Year Health Plan for England: fit for the future
• Science in healthcare: Delivering the NHS Long Term Plan – The Chief Scientific Officer’s strategy

Stakeholder feedback

Feedback collecting through the Curriculum Library survey collected between January 2024 and November 2025. All stakeholder feedback is presented verbatim.

S-MPR-R1 Introduction to Medical Physics

Module aim

• Im not sure on the relevance of Medical Physics practices and principles to Ophthalmic & Vision Science trainees or Clinical Engineering trainees, as our nuclear medicine trainees don’t currently have equivalent opportunities/requirements to explore in those departments.
• I understand that it is useful for a Clinical Engineer to have some background and knowledge for what out colleagues in medical physics do. However this is a first year rotation module so we only really observe and reflect on a lot of the aspects, and medical physics is never brought up again in our curriculum so the skills or knowledge we picked up in first year are not further applied. In contrast before clinical engineering stopped specialising there were modules related to rehabilitation engineering which is not really captured in the current curriculum, which I think is a shame. Perhaps there is a way of reducing the medical physics training activities and replacing them with some rehabilitation engineering specific ones. Perhaps a split module?

Training activities

• 2 – Although I appreciate the importance of clinical engineers and computer scientists to understand the wider context of their roles, the need to rotate through medical physics departments places a strain on resources. In a busy training centre such as ourselves, I have had to organise short clinical engineering rotations within nuclear medicine at the detriment to my rotational trainees, who have a such a short time with us anyway.  Furthermore, the fact that the trainee must rotate through “at least two” areas makes it difficult to organise training activity sign offs. I can’t find a way to comment on a second training activity so I will place my comments here. I feel the shortening of the rotations and a focus on reflection over action is understandable, but I believe makes rotational trainees seen as more of a burden than an assistance to a department. Although the previous curriculum had it’s flaws, I felt it allowed trainees to more actively participate in the day-to-day running of a department.
• 2
  • Task- I don’t feel any of these training activities are relevant to Ophthalmic & Vision Science trainees or Clinical Engineering trainees. These trainees require a lot of supervision and support from imaging staff, which has very little clinical benefit at the end given their job roles. It isnt reallly appropriate for imaging departments to have to host them.
  • Type- None of the training activities are appropriate for trainees seeking a career in engineering or ophthalmology. Nor these DOPS are: Carry out quality control testing on a simple piece of x-ray equipment, e.g. a mobile x-ray unit. Perform a simple scan of a phantom. Nor this OCE: Gather a patient history relevant to the medical physics specialty from a patient, patient representative, or another a member of the multidisciplinary team.
  • Considerations- I think this module should be removed from the curriculum altogether. Alternatively, if its deemed appropriate for Ophthalmic & Vision Science trainees or Clinical Engineering trainees to get this experience of imaging departments, then Imaging and Radiotherapy trainees should be given the same opportunities in their 1st year rotations. My experience of delivering this module in the workplace was that the trainees had no understanding of the department they were shadowing or any of the associated legislation, therefore making it a very time intensive rotation due to the trainees needing constant supervision and live teaching.

DOPS

• “Carry out quality control testing on a simple piece of x-ray equipment, e.g. a mobile x-ray unit. Perform a simple scan of a phantom.” – Not relevant or appopriate for engineering or ophthalmology trainees, and not appropriate for Imaging staff to be supervising them in this DOPS.

OCE

• “Gather a patient history relevant to the medical physics specialty from a patient, patient representative, or another a member of the multidisciplinary team.” – Not relevant or appopriate for engineering or ophthalmology trainees, and not appropriate for Imaging staff to be supervising them in this DOPS.

Changes made

Module level changes

Programme level changes

• no changes made

Periodic review

This specialty curriculum requires significant change beyond the scope of an annual review.

Response – no

Rationale

Please provide an overview of the rationale for why the proposed changes are needed or why changes were not needed, with reference to stakeholder feedback.

Response

The feedback was discussed, including the benefits to Clinical Engineering trainees of having a working understanding and relationship with Medical Physics. The changes proposed aimed to expand the scope of the Training Activities and observed assessments to allow delivery in a wider range of departments while still providing an essential insight into Medical Physics practice.

I confirm I have reviewed the Reflective Practice Guidance for ETAs and DTAs and have made any changes necessary.

Specialty Lead Editor signature: Brett Cohen, Robert Flintham, Neil Davis, Rosemary Eaton, Andrew Bridges
Date: 17 December 2025

Change control - completed by the school

Programme structure

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 8 January 2026

Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) mapping

• no change to learning outcomes, HCPC mapping maintained

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 8 January 2026