Repeat Rates in Digital Chest Radiography and Strategies for Improvement

Purpose: To determine the repeat rate (RR) of chest radiographs acquired with portable computed radiography (CR) and installed direct radiography (DR) and to develop and assess strategies designed to decrease the RR. Materials and Methods: The RR and reasons for repeated digital chest radiographs were documented over the course of 16 months while a task force of thoracic radiologists, technologist supervisors, technologists, and information technology specialists continued to examine the workflow for underlying causes. Interventions decreasing the RR were designed and implemented. Results: The initial RR of digital chest radiographs was 3.6% (138/3818) for portable CR and 13.3% (476/3575) for installed DR systems. By combining RR measurement with workflow analysis, targets for technical and teaching interventions were identified. The interventions decreased the RR to 1.8% (81/4476) for portable CR and to 8.2% (306/3748) for installed DR. Conclusions: We found the RR of direct digital chest radiography to be significantly higher than that of computed chest radiography. We believe this is due to the ease with which repeat images can be obtained and discarded, and it suggests the need for ongoing surveillance of RR. We were able to demonstrate that strategies to lower the RR, which had been developed in the era of film-based imaging, can be adapted to the digital environment. On the basis of our findings, we encourage radiologists to assess their own departmental RRs for direct digital chest radiography and to consider similar interventions if necessary to achieve acceptable RRs for this modality.

[1]  Sheung-ling Lau,et al.  Reject analysis: a comparison of conventional film–screen radiography and computed radiography with PACS , 2004 .

[2]  J. Junewick,et al.  Effect of digital radiography on emergency department radiographic examinations , 2006, Emergency Radiology.

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

[4]  D. Waaler,et al.  Image rejects/retakes--radiographic challenges. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

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

[6]  P M Parizel,et al.  Reject analysis: a pilot programme for image quality management. , 1991, European journal of radiology.

[7]  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.

[8]  Khan M. Siddiqui,et al.  Quality assurance: the missing link. , 2006, Radiology.

[9]  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.

[10]  Douglas M. Tucker,et al.  Quality assurance and quality control of an intensive care unit picture archiving and communication system , 1995, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[11]  M. A. Dunn,et al.  X-ray film reject analysis as a quality indicator , 1998 .

[12]  T Asp,et al.  Continuing reject-repeat film analysis program. , 1989, European journal of radiology.

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

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

[15]  A. Kinsara,et al.  A study on radiographic repeat rate data of several hospitals in Jeddah. , 2003, Radiation protection dosimetry.

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