A study on radiographic repeat rate data of several hospitals in Jeddah

Abstract

Radiographic repeat rate data in diagnostic radiology in King Fahad Hospital (KFH), King Abdulaziz Hospital (KAH), and Maternity and Children Hospital (MCH) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, have been studied. The study provided valuable information to suggest preventive measures to reduce repeats. The variables included in the study are exposure techniques, examination types, total number of films used, number of films repeated, the film sizes, gender, the age groups of the patients, and reason for repetition. The total number of examinations in all three hospitals is 6001 using 8887 films on 5412 patients. The average repeat rate was 7.93%, where the individual hospital repeat rates were 9.57% in the MCH, 7.84% in KAH, and 7.44% in KFH. The repeat rate for children and infants was found to be undesirable. The quality assurance (QA) programme can effectively reduce the unnecessary exposure and can identify the cause of the exposure. The overexposure, underexposure, and position fault were the foremost contributors for repeats and constitute 32.91%, 28.94%, and 22.98% of the total respectively. The QA study identified that human error and equipment malfunction are the major contributors to these causes of repeats. The highest repetition rate was for pelvis, 13.64%, followed by skull, 11.59%, and abdomen, 10.41%. It is estimated that the total area of wasted film in all three hospitals is 74.3 m2. As per the average repeat rate, the cost of repeat films in the entire kingdom per year has been projected to be about 1.82 million US dollars (SR 6.83 million) in the government hospitals only. Based on the findings of this study a set of recommendations have been prescribed for the radiology department to reduce the repeat rate and to improve the safety culture.

Patient dose from radiographic rejects/repeats in radiology centers of Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Iran

“…The radiographers were informed about the study through a series of presentations. The forms included the following information: type of examination, number and size of film used, number and size of film repeated, reason for repetition, gender and age group (infant (0 -5 years), child (5 -14 years), adult (14 years and above)) [4].…”

“…The use of ionizing radiation in medical imaging contributes the largest amount of man-made exposure to the public [3]. It has been estimated that about 21% of the total somatic dose and about 10% of the total genetically significant dose arise from medical procedures, the most important contributor being diagnostic radiology [4]. Diagnostic procedures contribute more than 95% of the medical exposures [5].…”

Ongoing quality control in digital radiography: Report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 151

“…A review of the literature revealed that repeated image rates hovered around 10% in screen-film departments, with approximately 45% of images repeated owing to exposure errors, which are expected to be greatly reduced in digital imaging. 9,11,12,23,[25][26][27] Rejected image rates in digital departments have been reported to range from 4% to 8%. [10][11][12]14,16 Therefore, this task group recommends that 8% be used as a target for overall rejected image rate, and 10% as a threshold for investigation and possible corrective action.…”

The rate of repeating X-rays in the medical centers of Jenin District/Palestine and how to reduce patient exposure to radiation

“…Assi: Rate of repeating X-rays methodology was used [8]. The rejected films were those labeled as useless, or discarded radiographs.…”

“…For this study, repeated film is defined as an x-ray film that is repeated for diagnostic purposes due to the inadequacy of the initial imaging study. Clearly, this will result in additional exposure to radiation by the patient [8]. Therefore, optimizing X-ray imaging in order to reduce the likelihood of repeated imaging and patient exposure to extra radiation is an important and complex process given the high standards required for obtaining a meaningful and informative X-ray with a good quality to assist in the diagnostic process [9].…”