Digital radiograph rejection analysis during “Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic” in a tertiary care public sector hospital in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan
Tóm tắt
Evaluation of X-ray reject analysis is an important quality parameter in diagnostic facility. The aim of this study was to find out the radiograph rejection and its causes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemics as there was fear of coronavirus disease infection among the technical staff from the incoming patients in a busy, high volume public sector tertiary care hospital. This descriptive study was conducted at Radiology Department, Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar from August to November, 2020. The rejected radiographs and their causes were analyzed. A total of 15,000 X-ray procedures were conducted during study period out of which 2550 cases were repeated making the total rejection 17%. Rejection in male and female were 74.3 and 25.7%, respectively, while rejection in adults was (80.1%) and (19.9%) in pediatric age group of the total rejection. The main cause of rejection was positioning (30.5%) followed by artifacts (22.4%), motion (12.1%), improper collimation (10%), wrong labeling (8.4%), exposure errors (6.9%), detector errors (3.7%), machine faults (2.8%), re-request from referring physician (1.7%), and PACS issues (1.5%). In terms of body anatomical parts, the highest rejection was observed in extremities (44.1%), followed by chest radiography (23.3%), spine (11.4%), abdomen (6.4%), skull (5.9%), pelvis (4.7%), KUB (3.7%), and neck (0.6%), respectively. Radiograph rejection is common problem in every diagnostic facility but significant reduction can be achieved by implementing rejection analysis as basic quality indicator, and conducting technologist/s specific training programs for their knowledge and skill enhancement.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Jones AK, Heintz P, Geiser W, et al. Ongoing quality control in digital radiography: report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 151. Med Phys. 2015;42:6658–70.
Owusu-Banahene J, Darko EO, Hasford F, et al. Film reject analysis and image quality in diagnostic Radiology Department of a Teaching hospital in Ghana. J Radiat Res Appl Sci. 2014;7(4):589–94.
Alyousef KA, Alkahtani S, Alessa R, et al. Radiograph reject analysis in a Large Tertiary Care Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Glob J Qual Saf Healthc. 2019;2:30–3.
Hofmann B, Rosanowsky TB, Jensen C, et al. Image rejects in general direct digital radiography. Acta Radiol Open. 2015;4:2058460115604339.
Khan S, Zahir MZ, Khan J, et al. Frequency of common causes of rejected/repeated chest X-rays in radiology department of a teaching hospital. Gomal J Med Sci. 2016;14:164–6.
Waaler D, Hofmann B. Image rejects/retakes–radiographic challenges. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2010;139:375–9.
Shepard SJ, Wang J, Flynn M, et al. An exposure indicator for digital radiography: AAPM task group 116 (executive summary). Med Phys. 2009;36:2898–914.
Foos DH, Sehnert WJ, Reiner B, et al. Digital radiography reject analysis: data collection methodology, results, and recommendations from an in-depth investigation at two hospitals. J Digit Imaging. 2009;22:89–98.
Zewdu M, Kadir E, Berhane M. Analysis and economic implication of X-ray film reject in Diagnostic Radiology Department of Jimma University Specialized Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2017;27(4):421–6.
Andersen ER, Jorde J, Taoussi N, et al. Reject analysis in direct digital radiography. Acta Radiol. 2012;53(2):174–8.
Shabestani Monfared A, Abdi R, Saber MA. Repeat analysis program in radiology departments in Mazandaran province-Iran: impact on population radiation dose. Iran J Radiat Res. 2007;5(1):37–40.
Lin C-S, Chan P-C, Huan K-H, et al. Guidelines for reducing image retakes of general digital radiography. Adv Mech Eng. 2016;8(4):1–6.
Weatherburn GC, Bryan S, West M. A comparison of image reject rates when using film, hard copy computed radiography and soft copy images on picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) workstations. Br J Radiol. 1999;72:653–60.
