Interlaboratory comparison and accreditation in quality control testing of diagnostic X-ray equipment

Abstract

The University of Tartu provides a quality control service to the majority of diagnostic X-ray departments in Estonia. Its methodology has been adopted from the IEC and other relevant standards. Recently the Testing Centre of the University of Tartu was accredited on this methodology by ISO/IEC 17025. Besides the implementation of the quality management system, participation in interlaboratory comparison (ILC) was one of the prerequisites for the accreditation. Tests for estimating reproducibility of tube voltage and dose rate, accuracy of the voltage and accuracy of exposure time were carried out on a diagnostic X-ray unit in the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Helsinki. The measurement performance was judged by calculating deviation E(n) normalised with respect to the stated uncertainties. E(n) values for all tests were less than unity and by the common ILC criteria the testing performance could be considered as acceptable.

Accreditation of Biomedical Calibration Measurements in Turkey

“…For accreditation studies, the quality assurance of the test results is obtained by interlaboratory comparisons and proficiency testing (PT) (Bode, 2008;Kubota et al, 2008;Kopler et al, 2005). The interlaboratory comparisons and proficiency testing bring significant benefits to laboratories.…”

A General Evaluation of the Reasons for X-Ray Retakes: A Hospital Example

“…Dijital röntgen çekimlerinde hastayı geçen Xışınları, röntgen filmi veya fluoroskopi ekranı yerine ışın miktarının bilgisayar aracılığıyla ölçülebildiği bir düzenek üzerine düşürülerek daha kolay bir şekilde değerlendirilmesine olanak sağlamaktadır. 4,5 Konvansiyonel çekimlerde istenen görüntü tonlamasının ayarlanamaması teknik bir yetersizlik olarak kabul edilmekte ve yaşanan hataları en aza indirmek amacıyla daha güvenilir bir yöntem olarak dijital radyografi kabul görmektedir. 9 Radyolojik görüntülerin genellikle artefakt, pozisyon hatası, aşırı veya yetersiz şutlama, cihaz kaynaklı sorunlar, hastanın hareket etmesi ve teknisyen hatası gibi faktörler nedeniyle tekrarlandığı görülmektedir.…”