One Year’s Results from a Server-Based System for Performing Reject Analysis and Exposure Analysis in Computed Radiography

Rejected images represent both unnecessary radiation exposure to patients and inefficiency in the imaging operation. Rejected images are inherent to projection radiography, where patient positioning and alignment are integral components of image quality. Patient motion and artifacts unique to digital image receptor technology can result in rejected images also. We present a centralized, server-based solution for the collection, archival, and distribution of rejected image and exposure indicator data that automates the data collection process. Reject analysis program (RAP) and exposure indicator data were collected and analyzed during a 1-year period. RAP data were sorted both by reason for repetition and body part examined. Data were also stratified by clinical area for further investigation. The monthly composite reject rate for our institution fluctuated between 8% and 10%. Positioning errors were the main cause of repeated images (77.3%). Stratification of data by clinical area revealed that areas where computed radiography (CR) is seldom used suffer from higher reject rates than areas where it is used frequently. S values were log-normally distributed for examinations performed under either manual or automatic exposure control. The distributions were positively skewed and leptokurtic. S value decreases due to radiologic technology student rotations, and CR plate reader calibrations were observed. Our data demonstrate that reject analysis is still necessary and useful in the era of digital imaging. It is vital though that analysis be combined with exposure indicator analysis, as digital radiography is not self-policing in terms of exposure. When combined, the two programs are a powerful tool for quality assurance.

[1]  Norlin T. Winkler,et al.  Quality Control In Diagnostic Radiology , 1976, Other Conferences.

[2]  Peter M. Kuzmak,et al.  Minimizing Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Modality Worklist patient/study selection errors , 2001, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[3]  G C Weatherburn,et al.  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. , 1999, The British journal of radiology.

[4]  E GrayetalJoel Quality Control in Diagnostic Imaging , 1983 .

[5]  R. Peer,et al.  Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiography , 1999, European Radiology.

[6]  Gerhard Spekowius,et al.  Simulation of the imaging performance of x-ray image intensifier/TV camera chains , 1995, Medical Imaging.

[7]  Matthew T. Freedman,et al.  Potential for unnecessary patient exposure from the use of storage phosphor imaging systems , 1993, Medical Imaging.

[8]  William Chauvenet,et al.  A manual of spherical and practical astronomy , 1891 .

[9]  J. Mirecki,et al.  Digital Repeat Analysis; Setup and Operation , 2005, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[10]  J A Seibert,et al.  Computed radiography X-ray exposure trends. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[11]  Bruce I. Reiner,et al.  Digital Radiography Reject Analysis: Data Collection Methodology, Results, and Recommendations from an In-depth Investigation at Two Hospitals , 2008, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[12]  Kalpana M Kanal,et al.  Computed radiography dose data mining and surveillance as an ongoing quality assurance improvement process. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  Eliseo Vano,et al.  Image Retake Analysis in Digital Radiography Using DICOM Header Information , 2009, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[14]  P. Holgate Lognormal Distributions: Theory and Applications , 1989 .

[15]  Todd R. Minnigh,et al.  Maintaining Quality Control Using a Radiological Digital X-ray Dashboard , 2009, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[16]  Rosemary Honea,et al.  Is reject analysis necessary after converting to computed radiography? , 2002, Journal of digital imaging.

[17]  Morgan Williamson,et al.  Objective measures of quality assurance in a computed radiography-based radiology department , 1995, Medical Imaging.

[18]  S S Sagel,et al.  Digital mobile radiography. , 1990, Journal of thoracic imaging.

[19]  W. Eckelman,et al.  NCRP report no. 93: Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland (1987). US$15.00 , 1988 .