Understanding reasons for image rejection by radiologists and radiographers.

A core element of a radiographer's role is the decision on whether a radiograph is sufficient for diagnosis, or a repeat examination is needed. Studies illustrate the disagreement on the diagnostic value of radiographs between radiographers and radiologists, which may influence repeat examinations. This study investigates if parameters contributing to image quality are possible determinants to explain the difference between professions. A total of 74 radiographers and radiologists from three different countries assessed three data sets (chest PA, hip HBL, c-spine lateral), each containing 25 radiographs. All observers scored image quality in terms of anatomical visualisation, positioning, collimation, detector exposure and judged the diagnostic value using the ACR RadLex classification. All assessments were performed on a clinically relevant display. Visual grading characteristics were used to compare image quality evaluations between groups. Radiographers scored the visualisation of anatomical structures lower than radiologists though the difference was not statistically significant. A difference in classification using the RadLex categories - with radiographers rejecting more radiographs - was demonstrated. Only the subjective evaluation of the detector exposure correlated statistically with RadLex ratings. There was no difference between radiographers and radiologists when reviewing patient positioning and collimation. Radiographers and radiologists agree on the visualisation of anatomical structures, but radiographers are more critical towards the diagnostic value. Within the criteria studied, the evaluation of anatomical structures does not explain the difference. Radiographs have a higher change of being rejected if the observer (subjectively) assessed the detector exposure as inappropriate. This correlation is stronger for radiographers.

Informations de copyright

© 2022 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.