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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J Gray N Winkler J Stears E Frank (1983) Quality Control in Diagnostic Imaging Ansen Publication Maryland, USA
S Peer et al. (1999) ArticleTitleComparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiography Eur Radiol 9 1693–1696 Occurrence Handle10525892 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1MvlslaltA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10.1007/s003300050911
R Honea ME Blado Y Ma (2002) ArticleTitleIs reject analysis necessary after converting to computed radiography J Digit Imaging 15 IssueIDSuppl 141–152
PathSpeed Workstation 8.1, Operating Instructions. GE Medical Systems P.O. Box 414, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA, 5/4, 6/14, 2000
Fuji Computed Radiography FCR 5000, Operation manual. Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. 2nd edn, Aug 1998
DM Tucker M McEachern (1995) ArticleTitleQuality assurance and quality control of an intensive care picture archiving and communication system J Digit Imaging 8 IssueID4 162–167 Occurrence Handle8573625 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK287lvVCjtQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF03168715
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 1999
P Ballinger (1991) Merrill's Atlas of Radiographic Positions and Radiologic Procedures EditionNumber7 Mosby USA
JR Pilling (2003) ArticleTitlePicture archiving and communication systems: the users' view Br J Radiol 76 519–524 Occurrence Handle12893692 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3szmtVWltQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10.1259/bjr/67551353
GC Weatherburn S Bryan M West (1999) ArticleTitleA comparison of image reject rates when using film, hard copy computed radiography and soft copy images on picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) workstations Br J Radiol 72 653–660 Occurrence Handle10624322 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c%2FovFCnug%3D%3D
Acknowledgments
Special thanks are due to Ms. Susan Fisher, Mr. Matthew Lam, and Mr. Mario Carpini for their help with the study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nol, J., Isouard, G. & Mirecki, J. Digital Repeat Analysis; Setup and Operation. J Digit Imaging 19, 159–166 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-005-8733-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-005-8733-1