Introduction 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.

IntroductionThe provision of a written comment on traumatic abnormalities of the musculoskeletal system detected by radiographers can assist referrers and may improve patient management, but the practice has not been widely adopted outside the United Kingdom. The purpose of this study was to investigate Australian radiographers' perceptions of their readiness for practice in a radiographer commenting system and their educational preferences in relation to two different delivery formats of image interpretation education, intensive and non-intensive.MethodsA cross-sectional web-based questionnaire was implemented between August and September 2012. Participants included radiographers with experience working in emergency settings at four Australian metropolitan hospitals. Conventional descriptive statistics, frequency histograms, and thematic analysis were undertaken. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test examined whether a difference in preference ratings between intensive and non-intensive education delivery was evident.ResultsThe questionnaire was completed by 73 radiographers (68% response rate). Radiographers reported higher confidence and self-perceived accuracy to detect traumatic abnormalities than to describe traumatic abnormalities of the musculoskeletal system. Radiographers frequently reported high desirability ratings for both the intensive and the non-intensive education delivery, no difference in desirability ratings for these two formats was evident (z = 1.66, P = 0.11).ConclusionsSome Australian radiographers perceive they are not ready to practise in a frontline radiographer commenting system. Overall, radiographers indicated mixed preferences for image interpretation education delivered via intensive and non-intensive formats. Further research, preferably randomised trials, investigating the effectiveness of intensive and non-intensive education formats of image interpretation education for radiographers is warranted.