Radiograph Reject Analysis in a Large Tertiary Care Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Innovative Healthcare Institute - Tập 2 Số 2 - Trang 30-33 - 2019
Khalid Alyousef1, Shatha Alkahtani2, Raghad Alessa2, Hajar Alruweili2
1Department of Medical Imaging, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2Department of Medical Imaging, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Tóm tắt

Abstract Background: Analysis of rejected radiographs is an important quality indicator of any radiology department. At King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC), about 185,000 radiographs are performed annually. Methods: The rejected radiographs over a period of 5 years were analyzed using a dedicated electronic rejection system. The rejection is performed by a certified radiologist and communicated electronically to the concerned technologist. Results: A total of 455 rejected radiographs were reviewed and analyzed. Of the reviewed rejected radiographs, 247 were adults (60%) whereas 166 were pediatrics (40%). In terms of sex, 231 (56%) of the rejected radiographs were for men and 182 (44%) were for women. The most common reason for rejection was labeling (22%), followed by procedure protocol (20%). Other reasons included positioning (14%), processing (14%), artifacts (13%), wrong documentation (9%), and exposure error (6%). The rejection due to exposure error was very low (6%) owing to the utilization of digital systems that offer a wide exposure latitude. Reported data at hospitals that use analog systems show up to 67% of rejections were due to exposure error. In terms of body parts, the highest rejection was for extremities (43%) followed by chest (31%). The remaining rejected radiographs includes abdomen (9%), spine (8%), pelvis (5%), and head and neck (4%).Conclusion: The outcome of this study can be used to set up training programs to improve radiological services and reduce the unnecessary radiation exposure to the patients.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Jones, 2015, Ongoing quality control in digital radiography: Report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 151, Med Phys, 42, 6658, 10.1118/1.4932623

Taylor, 2015, The art of rejection: Comparative analysis between computed radiography (CR) and digital radiography (DR) workstations in the accident & emergency and general radiology departments at a district general hospital using customised and standardised reject criteria over a three year period, Radiography, 21, 236, 10.1016/j.radi.2014.12.003

Erturk, 2005, Quality management in radiology: Historical aspects and basic definitions, J Am Coll Radiol, 2, 985, 10.1016/j.jacr.2005.06.002

Owusu-Banahene, 2014, Film reject analysis and image quality in diagnostic radiology department of a teaching hospital in Ghana, J Radiat Res Appl Sci, 7, 589, 10.1016/j.jrras.2014.09.012

Hofmann, 2015, Image rejects in general direct digital radiography, Acta Radiol Open, 4

Khan, 2016, Frequency of common causes of rejected/repeated chest x-rays in radiology department of a teaching hospital, Gomal J Med Sci, 14, 164

Waaler, 2010, Image rejects/retakes–radiographic challenges, Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 139, 375, 10.1093/rpd/ncq032

Shepard, 2009, An exposure indicator for digital radiography: AAPM task group 116 (executive summary), Med Phys, 36, 2898, 10.1118/1.3121505

Foos, 2009, Digital radiography reject analysis: Data collection methodology, results, and recommendations from an in-depth investigation at two hospitals, J Digit Imaging, 22, 89, 10.1007/s10278-008-9112-5

Yousef, 2013, Film reject analysis for conventional radiography in Khartoum Hospitals, Asian J Med Radiol Res, 1, 34

Akhtar, 2008, Film retakes in digital and conventional radiography, J Coll Physicians Surg Pak, 18, 151

Jabbari, 2012, Patient dose from radiographic rejects/repeats in radiology centers of Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Iran, Health, 4, 94, 10.4236/health.2012.42015

Shepard, 2002, Quality control in diagnostic radiology: Report of AAPM Task Group 12 Diagnostic Imaging Committee, Med Phys, 29, 11

Weatherburn, 1999, 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, 72, 653, 10.1259/bjr.72.859.10624322

Peer, 1999, Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiography, Eur Radiol, 9, 1693, 10.1007/s003300050911

Honea, 2002, Is reject analysis necessary after converting to computed radiography?, J Digit Imaging, 15, 41, 10.1007/s10278-002-5028-7

Lau, 2004, Reject analysis: A comparison of conventional film-screen radiography and computed radiography with PACS, Radiography, 10, 183, 10.1016/j.radi.2004.03.014

Nol, 2006, Digital repeat analysis; setup and operation, J Digit Imaging, 19, 159, 10.1007/s10278-005-8733-1

Minnigh, 2009, Maintaining quality control using a radiological digital X-ray dashboard, J Digit Imaging, 22, 84, 10.1007/s10278-007-9098-4

Danial, 2008, X-ray reject analysis in Tikur Anbessa and Bethzatha hospitals, Ethiop J Health, 22, 63

Dunn, 1998, X-Ray film reject analysis as a quality indicator radiography, 4, 29

Polman, 2008, Reject analysis tool, 38

Jones, 2011, One year's results from a server-based system for performing reject analysis and exposure analysis in computed radiography, J Digit Imaging, 24, 243, 10.1007/s10278-009-9236-2

Adler, 1992, An analysis of radiographic repeat and reject rates, Radiol Technol, 63, 308

Sadiq, 2017, Reject–repeat analysis of plain radiographs as a quality indicator at University of Malduguri Teaching Hospital (UMTH), Eur J Pharm Med Res, 4, 188

Joseph, 2015, Film reject analysis in radiology department of a teaching hospital in North-Eastern Nigeria, Niger J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol, 4, 21

Whaley, 2013, Investigation of the variability in the assessment of digital chest X-ray image quality, J Digit Imaging, 26, 217, 10.1007/s10278-012-9515-1

James, 2005, Uncovering the causes of unnecessary repeated medical imaging examinations, or part of, in two hospital departments, The Radiographer, 52, 26, 10.1002/j.2051-3909.2005.tb00038.x

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Innovative Healthcare Institute

Tập 2 Số 2

30-33

Thông tin tác giả