Digital radiography reject analysis: data collection methodology, results, and recommendations from an in-depth investigation at two hospitals.
Reject analysis was performed on 288,000 computed radiography (CR) image records collected from a university hospital (UH) and a large community hospital (CH). Each record contains image information, such as body part and view position, exposure level, technologist identifier, and-if the image was r...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Digital Imaging Vol. 22; no. 1; pp. 89 - 99 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
| Formato: | research tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Feb2009
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=105643776&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 105643776 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 08971889 DOQ jtl: Journal of Digital Imaging issn: 08971889 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Feb2009 vid: 22 iid: 1 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature place: New York, New York artinfo: ui: 105643776 2010184919 10.1007/s10278-008-9112-5 NLM18446413 105643776 ppf: 89 ppct: 10 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Digital radiography reject analysis: data collection methodology, results, and recommendations from an in-depth investigation at two hospitals. aug: au: Foos DH Sehnert WJ Reiner B Siegel EL Segal A Waldman DL affil: Clinical Applications Research Laboratory, Carestream Health Inc., 1049 Ridge Road W, Rochester, NY 14615 sug: subj: Quality Assurance Radiography, Computed Academic Medical Centers Comparative Studies Descriptive Statistics Hospitals, Community Picture Archiving and Communication Systems Quality Control (Technology) Human ab: Reject analysis was performed on 288,000 computed radiography (CR) image records collected from a university hospital (UH) and a large community hospital (CH). Each record contains image information, such as body part and view position, exposure level, technologist identifier, and-if the image was rejected-the reason for rejection. Extensive database filtering was required to ensure the integrity of the reject-rate calculations. The reject rate for CR across all departments and across all exam types was 4.4% at UH and 4.9% at CH. The most frequently occurring exam types with reject rates of 8% or greater were found to be common to both institutions (skull/facial bones, shoulder, hip, spines, indepartment chest, pelvis). Positioning errors and anatomy cutoff were the most frequently occurring reasons for rejection, accounting for 45% of rejects at CH and 56% at UH. Improper exposure was the next most frequently occurring reject reason (14% of rejects at CH and 13% at UH), followed by patient motion (11% of rejects at CH and 7% at UH). Chest exams were the most frequently performed exam at both institutions (26% at UH and 45% at CH) with half captured indepartment and half captured using portable x-ray equipment. A ninefold greater reject rate was found for in-department (9%) versus portable chest exams (1%). Problems identified with the integrity of the data used for reject analysis can be mitigated in the future by objectifying quality assurance (QA) procedures and by standardizing the nomenclature and definitions for QA deficiencies. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|