Digital Repeat Analysis; Setup and Operation

Article

Since the emergence of digital imaging, there have been questions about the necessity of continuing reject analysis programs in imaging departments to evaluate performance and quality. As a marketing strategy, most suppliers of digital technology focus on the supremacy of the technology and its ability to reduce the number of repeats, resulting in less radiation doses given to patients and increased productivity in the department. On the other hand, quality assurance radiographers and radiologists believe that repeats are mainly related to positioning skills, and repeat analysis is the main tool to plan training needs to up-skill radiographers. A comparative study between conventional and digital imaging was undertaken to compare outcomes and evaluate the need for reject analysis. However, digital technology still being at its early development stages, setting a credible reject analysis program became the major task of the study. It took the department, with the help of the suppliers of the computed radiography reader and the picture archiving and communication system, over 2 years of software enhancement to build a reliable digital repeat analysis system. The results were supportive of both philosophies; the number of repeats as a result of exposure factors was reduced dramatically; however, the percentage of repeats as a result of positioning skills was slightly on the increase for the simple reason that some rejects in the conventional system qualifying for both exposure and positioning errors were classified as exposure error. The ability of digitally adjusting dark or light images reclassified some of those images as positioning errors.

Key words

PACS CR digital reject analysis equipment use education repeat analysis exposure selection positioning and techniques 

References

  1. 1.
    Gray, J, Winkler, N, Stears, J, Frank, E 1983Quality Control in Diagnostic ImagingAnsen PublicationMaryland, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peer, S,  et al. 1999Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiographyEur Radiol916931696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Honea, R, Blado, ME, Ma, Y 2002Is reject analysis necessary after converting to computed radiographyJ Digit Imaging15141152Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    PathSpeed Workstation 8.1, Operating Instructions. GE Medical Systems P.O. Box 414, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA, 5/4, 6/14, 2000Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fuji Computed Radiography FCR 5000, Operation manual. Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. 2nd edn, Aug 1998Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tucker, DM, McEachern, M 1995Quality assurance and quality control of an intensive care picture archiving and communication systemJ Digit Imaging8162167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Registration requirements and industry best practice for ionising radiation apparatus used in diagnostic imaging. Environment Protection Authority NSW Radiation Guideline No. 6; Part 2. Fluoroscopy and Radiography. Clause 3.6. November 1999Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ballinger, P 1991Merrill's Atlas of Radiographic Positions and Radiologic Procedures7MosbyUSAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pilling, JR 2003Picture archiving and communication systems: the users' viewBr J Radiol76519524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weatherburn, GC, Bryan, S, West, M 1999A comparison of image reject rates when using film, hard copy computed radiography and soft copy images on picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) workstationsBr J Radiol72653660PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SCAR (Society for Computer Applications in Radiology) 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Imaging DepartmentBlacktown Mt Druitt Health ServiceBlacktownAustralia
  2. 2.School of Exercise and Health SciencesUniversity of Western SydneyPenrith South DCAustralia

Personalised recommendations