Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 84–88 | Cite as

Maintaining Quality Control Using a Radiological Digital X-ray Dashboard

Article

Abstract

Repeats are indicators for the quality-imaging manager to schedule additional training and to be used as a basis for dialog with the reading radiologists to improve the service and quality to patients and referring physicians. Through the thoughtful application of software and networking, dose management, X-ray usage, and repeat analysis data can be made available centrally. This provides clinically useful technologist-centric results greatly benefiting an enterprise. This study tracked a radiology department’s use of a digital X-ray dashboard software application. It was discovered that 80% of the exams were performed by only 21% of the technologists and that the technologist with the highest throughput had a personal repeat rate of 6.5% compared to the department average of 7.6%. This study indicated that useful information could be derived and used as a basis for improving the radiology department’s operations and in maintaining high quality standards.

Key words

Workflow radiology management quality control quality management repeat analysis productivity dashboard computed radiography digital radiography dose 

Notes

OPEN ACCESS

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. 1.
    Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Carrino JA: SCAR Radiologic Technologist Survey: Analysis of the impact of digital technologies on productivity. J Digit Imaging 15(3):132–140, 2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Carrino JA: SCAR Radiologic technologist survey: Analysis of technologist workforce and staffing. J Digit Imaging 15(3):121–131, 2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reiner BI, Siegel EL: Changes in technologist productivity with implementation of an enterprise-wide PACS. J Digit Imaging 15:22–26, 2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ, et al: Effect of film-based versus filmless operation on the productivity of CT technologists. Radiology 207:481–485, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reiner BI, Siegel EL: Technologist productivity in the performance of general radiographic examinations: Comparison of film-based versus filmless operations. AJR 179:33–37, 2002PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reiner BI, Siegel EL: PACS and productivity. In: Siegel EL, Kolodner RM Eds. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 1999, pp 103–112Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Siddiqui K: Evolution of the digital revolution: A radiologist perspective. J Digit Imaging 16(4):324–330, 2003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wideman C, Gallet J: Analog to digital workflow improvement: A quantitative study. J Digit Imaging 19(1):29–34, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nol J, Isousard G, Mirecki J: Digital repeat analysis: Setup and operation. J Digit Imaging 19(2):159–166, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Honea R, Blado ME, Ma Y: Is reject analysis necessary after converting to computed radiography? J Digit Imaging 15(1):41–52, 2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ertuk SM, Ordategui-Parra S, Ros PR: Quality management in radiology: Historical aspects and basic definitions. J Am Coll Radiol 2(12):985–991, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benedetto AR: Six Sigma: Not for the faint of heart. Radiol Manage 25(2):40–53, 2003PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murphy PD: An annual strategy for total quality. Radiol Manage 14(3):58–63, 1992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Adler A, Carlton R, Wold B: An analysis of radiographic repeat and reject rates. Radiol Technol 63(5):308–14, 1992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gadeholt G, Geitung JT, Gothlin JH, Asp T: Continuing reject-repeat film analysis program. Eur J Radiol 9(3):137–41, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Watkinson S, Moores BM, Hill SJ: Reject analysis: Its role in quality assurance. Radiography 50(593):189–94, 1984PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carestream Health, IncRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations