Cargando…

Digital radiography reject analysis of examinations with multiple rejects: an Australian emergency imaging department clinical audit

INTRODUCTION: The largest source of manmade ionising radiation exposure to the public stems from diagnostic medical imaging examinations. Reject analysis, a form of quality assurance, was introduced to minimise repeat exposures. The purpose of this study was to analyse projection‐specific reject rat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stephenson‐Smith, Brittany, Neep, Michael J, Rowntree, Pamela
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8424327/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33826800
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.468
_version_ 1783749653217411072
author Stephenson‐Smith, Brittany
Neep, Michael J
Rowntree, Pamela
author_facet Stephenson‐Smith, Brittany
Neep, Michael J
Rowntree, Pamela
author_sort Stephenson‐Smith, Brittany
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The largest source of manmade ionising radiation exposure to the public stems from diagnostic medical imaging examinations. Reject analysis, a form of quality assurance, was introduced to minimise repeat exposures. The purpose of this study was to analyse projection‐specific reject rates and radiographic examinations with multiple rejects. METHODS: A retrospective audit of rejected radiographs was undertaken in a busy Australian metropolitan emergency digital X‐ray room from March to June 2018. The data were collected by reject analysis software embedded within the X‐ray unit. Reject rates, and reasons for rejection for each X‐ray projection were analysed. RESULTS: Data from 11, 596 images showed overall reject rate was 10.3% and the overall multiple reject rate was 1.3%. The projections with both a high number and high percentage of rejects were antero‐posterior (AP) chest (175, 18.1%), AP pelvis (78, 22.5%), horizontal beam hip (61, 33.5%) and horizontal beam knee (116, 30.5%). The projections with both a high frequency and multiple reject rate were horizontal beam knee (32, 8.4%) and horizontal beam hip (17, 9.3%). The top reasons for multiple rejects were positioning (67.1%) and anatomy cut‐off (8.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study demonstrated that projection‐specific reject and multiple reject analysis in digital radiography is necessary in identifying areas for quality improvement which will reduce radiation exposure to patients. Projections that were frequently repeated in this study were horizontal beam knee and horizontal beam hip. Future research could involve re‐auditing the department following the implementation of improvement strategies to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8424327
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84243272021-09-13 Digital radiography reject analysis of examinations with multiple rejects: an Australian emergency imaging department clinical audit Stephenson‐Smith, Brittany Neep, Michael J Rowntree, Pamela J Med Radiat Sci Original Articles INTRODUCTION: The largest source of manmade ionising radiation exposure to the public stems from diagnostic medical imaging examinations. Reject analysis, a form of quality assurance, was introduced to minimise repeat exposures. The purpose of this study was to analyse projection‐specific reject rates and radiographic examinations with multiple rejects. METHODS: A retrospective audit of rejected radiographs was undertaken in a busy Australian metropolitan emergency digital X‐ray room from March to June 2018. The data were collected by reject analysis software embedded within the X‐ray unit. Reject rates, and reasons for rejection for each X‐ray projection were analysed. RESULTS: Data from 11, 596 images showed overall reject rate was 10.3% and the overall multiple reject rate was 1.3%. The projections with both a high number and high percentage of rejects were antero‐posterior (AP) chest (175, 18.1%), AP pelvis (78, 22.5%), horizontal beam hip (61, 33.5%) and horizontal beam knee (116, 30.5%). The projections with both a high frequency and multiple reject rate were horizontal beam knee (32, 8.4%) and horizontal beam hip (17, 9.3%). The top reasons for multiple rejects were positioning (67.1%) and anatomy cut‐off (8.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study demonstrated that projection‐specific reject and multiple reject analysis in digital radiography is necessary in identifying areas for quality improvement which will reduce radiation exposure to patients. Projections that were frequently repeated in this study were horizontal beam knee and horizontal beam hip. Future research could involve re‐auditing the department following the implementation of improvement strategies to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-04-07 2021-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8424327/ /pubmed/33826800 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.468 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Stephenson‐Smith, Brittany
Neep, Michael J
Rowntree, Pamela
Digital radiography reject analysis of examinations with multiple rejects: an Australian emergency imaging department clinical audit
title Digital radiography reject analysis of examinations with multiple rejects: an Australian emergency imaging department clinical audit
title_full Digital radiography reject analysis of examinations with multiple rejects: an Australian emergency imaging department clinical audit
title_fullStr Digital radiography reject analysis of examinations with multiple rejects: an Australian emergency imaging department clinical audit
title_full_unstemmed Digital radiography reject analysis of examinations with multiple rejects: an Australian emergency imaging department clinical audit
title_short Digital radiography reject analysis of examinations with multiple rejects: an Australian emergency imaging department clinical audit
title_sort digital radiography reject analysis of examinations with multiple rejects: an australian emergency imaging department clinical audit
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8424327/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33826800
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.468
work_keys_str_mv AT stephensonsmithbrittany digitalradiographyrejectanalysisofexaminationswithmultiplerejectsanaustralianemergencyimagingdepartmentclinicalaudit
AT neepmichaelj digitalradiographyrejectanalysisofexaminationswithmultiplerejectsanaustralianemergencyimagingdepartmentclinicalaudit
AT rowntreepamela digitalradiographyrejectanalysisofexaminationswithmultiplerejectsanaustralianemergencyimagingdepartmentclinicalaudit