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.

Weatherburn, Gwyn; Bryan, Stirling; West, Michael S.

doi:10.1259/bjr.72.859.10624322

Cited by 39 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The most common reasons for repeat images included position errors, artifacts, and patient movement, and position errors accounted for the highest percentage of repeat images (as shown in Table 3). The results are similar to those found in previous studies [4,5,10,11,14,15] (Table 6), and indicated that position errors were the most common problem of the radiology department. In June 2008, problems caused by "other human errors" increased greatly, mainly because when the radiology department underwent auditing, they found that radiologic technologists did not use DR properly and deleted images intentionally, causing the number of repeat images to increase to 54 (87.1% of the total number of "other human errors" in 2008).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Some studies have reported that the most common location of repeat images is in the chest, and this was primarily due to the fact that the chest is the most commonly examined body part [10]. Although in this study the chest was not the body area that generated the highest occurrence of repeat images, the occurrence rate was 4.23%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

“…In the past, calculation of the number of repeat images was primarily performed manually [3,[9][10][11][12]. The efficiency of such process is low, and the continued implementation of quality assurance creates a large burden to the limited human resources of a radiology department.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Managing Repeat Digital Radiography Images—A Systematic Approach and Improvement

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repeat analysis is an important issue for improving image quality in the field of radiology. However, the required data for repeat analysis is not easy to collect, and the accuracy of the analysis results remains controversial. The main purpose of this study is to introduce a systematic approach and, with the assistance of information technology, to improve the accuracy of data collection methods and repeat analysis in a fully digital environment. Another purpose of the study was to reduce the human resources required to maintain image quality on a daily basis. The main participant in this study is the radiology department of a medical center in Taiwan. The hospital had previously implemented a Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS), which was seamlessly integrated with Radiology Information Systems (RIS) and Hospital Information Systems (HIS). A comprehensive mechanism was built for repeat analysis. The analysis was primarily achieved through comparing the difference between the amount of accumulated digital radiography (DR) images and uploaded PACS images with data mining tools. Initially, the radiologic technologists seemed to be resistant to the new quality assurance mechanism, which introduce inaccuracy into the collected data. However, after introducing the improved standard operating procedures with the proposed approach for radiologic technologists, the number of DR images generated became optimal for comparison with the number of PACS images, which made this mechanism feasible. Furthermore, information was collected regarding the reasons for repeat images and was used for improving image quality. The results revealed that the new mechanism was both effective and accurate in the analysis of repeat images.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managing Repeat Digital Radiography Images—A Systematic Approach and Improvement

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Positioning errors were included, with wrong positioning as set by Merrill's Atlas. 8 Cutoff or overconed, off center, marker obstructing the site in question and the part in question was not shown.…”

Section: Error Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Repeat Analysis; Setup and Operation

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the emergence of digital imaging, there have been questions about the necessity of continuing reject analysis programs in imaging departments to evaluate performance and quality. As a marketing strategy, most suppliers of digital technology focus on the supremacy of the technology and its ability to reduce the number of repeats, resulting in less radiation doses given to patients and increased productivity in the department. On the other hand, quality assurance radiographers and radiologists believe that repeats are mainly related to positioning skills, and repeat analysis is the main tool to plan training needs to up-skill radiographers. A comparative study between conventional and digital imaging was undertaken to compare outcomes and evaluate the need for reject analysis. However, digital technology still being at its early development stages, setting a credible reject analysis program became the major task of the study. It took the department, with the help of the suppliers of the computed radiography reader and the picture archiving and communication system, over 2 years of software enhancement to build a reliable digital repeat analysis system. The results were supportive of both philosophies; the number of repeats as a result of exposure factors was reduced dramatically; however, the percentage of repeats as a result of positioning skills was slightly on the increase for the simple reason that some rejects in the conventional system qualifying for both exposure and positioning errors were classified as exposure error. The ability of digitally adjusting dark or light images reclassified some of those images as positioning errors.

show abstract

“…The image can be reproduced indefinitely without losing colour or detail. The exciting concept of a 'film-less' hospital has many benefits for patient care including decreased exposure to radiation, no loss of images and lower rates of rejection [1][2][3] (Table I). Digital imaging may not initially realise cost benefits, 4,5 but advances in technology will rapidly facilitate this.…”

Section: From the Royal Infirmary Of Edinburgh Scotlandmentioning

confidence: 99%