Reject rate analysis in digital radiography: an Australian emergency imaging department case study.
Computed radiography
digital radiography
reject analysis
reject rate
Journal
Journal of medical radiation sciences
ISSN: 2051-3909
Titre abrégé: J Med Radiat Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620352
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
14
02
2019
revised:
04
05
2019
accepted:
08
06
2019
pubmed:
19
7
2019
medline:
15
12
2020
entrez:
19
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Reject analysis in digital radiography (DR) helps guide the education and training of staff, influences department workflow, reduces patient dose and improves department efficiency. The purpose of this study was to investigate rejected radiographs at a major metropolitan emergency imaging department to help form a benchmark of reject rates for DR and to assess what radiographs are being rejected and why. A retrospective longitudinal study was undertaken as an in-depth clinical audit. The data were collected using automated reject analysis software from two digital x-ray systems from June 2015 to April 2017. The overall reject rate, reasons for rejection as well as the reject rates for individual radiographers, examination types and projections were analysed. A total of 90,298 radiographic images were acquired and included in the analysis. The average reject rate was 9%, and the most frequent reasons for image rejection were positioning error (49%) and anatomy cut-off (21%). The reject rate varied between radiographers as well as for individual examination types and projections. The variation in radiographer reject rates and the high reject rate for some projections indicate that reject analysis is still necessary as a quality assurance tool for DR. A feedback system between radiologists and radiographers may reduce the high percentage of positioning errors by standardising the technical factors used to assess image quality. Future reject analysis should be conducted regularly incorporating an exposure indicator analysis as well as retrospective assessment of individual rejected images.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31318181
doi: 10.1002/jmrs.343
pmc: PMC7063252
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
72-79Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology.
Références
J Digit Imaging. 2012 Feb;25(1):196-200
pubmed: 21725621
J Digit Imaging. 2011 Apr;24(2):243-55
pubmed: 19885636
Pediatr Radiol. 2011 May;41(5):573-81
pubmed: 21491197
Acta Radiol Open. 2015 Oct 08;4(10):2058460115604339
pubmed: 26500784
J Digit Imaging. 2009 Aug;22(4):393-9
pubmed: 18592314
J Digit Imaging. 2013 Apr;26(2):217-26
pubmed: 22850934
J Med Radiat Sci. 2020 Mar;67(1):72-79
pubmed: 31318181
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2011 Sep;147(1-2):220-2
pubmed: 21764806
J Digit Imaging. 2009 Mar;22(1):84-8
pubmed: 18270779
J Digit Imaging. 2006 Jun;19(2):159-66
pubmed: 16421768
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2001;94(1-2):69-71
pubmed: 11487846
J Digit Imaging. 2009 Mar;22(1):89-98
pubmed: 18446413