Multi-centre digital radiography reject analysis for different clinical room use types: The establishment of local reject reference levels for public hospital departments
IF 1.8 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Daniel Serra MSc, BSc, Michael J Neep PhD, MSc, BApp Sci(Med Rad Tech), Elaine Ryan PhD, MSc, BSc (Hons), PGDip(IPEM)
{"title":"Multi-centre digital radiography reject analysis for different clinical room use types: The establishment of local reject reference levels for public hospital departments","authors":"Daniel Serra MSc, BSc, Michael J Neep PhD, MSc, BApp Sci(Med Rad Tech), Elaine Ryan PhD, MSc, BSc (Hons), PGDip(IPEM)","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.796","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Reject analysis in digital radiography helps guide the training of staff to reduce patient radiation dose and improve department efficiency. The purpose of this study was to perform a multi-centre, vendor agnostic reject analysis across different room usage types, and to provide benchmarks for comparison.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Retrospective reject and exposure log data were collected via USB from fixed general X-ray systems across multiple Australian sites, for collation and analysis. The overall reject rate, local reject reference level, absolute and relative reject rates for body part categories, reject rates by room usage types and the reject rate for each reason of rejection were calculated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Data were collected from 44 X-ray systems, across 11 hospitals. A total of 2,031,713 acquired images and 172,495 rejected images were included. The median reject rate was 9.1%. The local reject reference level (LRRL), set as the 75<i>th</i> percentile of all reject rates, was 10.6%. Median reject rates by room type were emergency (7.4%), inpatients + outpatients (9.6%), outpatients (9.2%), and hybrid (10.1%). The highest absolute reject rates by body part were chest (2.1%) and knee (1.4%). The highest relative rates by body part were knee (18.1%) and pelvis (17.2%). The most frequent reasons for image rejection were patient positioning (76%) and patient motion (7.5%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The results compare well with previously published data. The range of reject rates highlights the need to analyse typical reject rates in different ways. With analysis feedback to participating sites and the implementation of standardised reject reasons, future analysis should monitor whether reject rates reduce.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"71 3","pages":"412-420"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.796","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmrs.796","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Reject analysis in digital radiography helps guide the training of staff to reduce patient radiation dose and improve department efficiency. The purpose of this study was to perform a multi-centre, vendor agnostic reject analysis across different room usage types, and to provide benchmarks for comparison.
Methods
Retrospective reject and exposure log data were collected via USB from fixed general X-ray systems across multiple Australian sites, for collation and analysis. The overall reject rate, local reject reference level, absolute and relative reject rates for body part categories, reject rates by room usage types and the reject rate for each reason of rejection were calculated.
Results
Data were collected from 44 X-ray systems, across 11 hospitals. A total of 2,031,713 acquired images and 172,495 rejected images were included. The median reject rate was 9.1%. The local reject reference level (LRRL), set as the 75th percentile of all reject rates, was 10.6%. Median reject rates by room type were emergency (7.4%), inpatients + outpatients (9.6%), outpatients (9.2%), and hybrid (10.1%). The highest absolute reject rates by body part were chest (2.1%) and knee (1.4%). The highest relative rates by body part were knee (18.1%) and pelvis (17.2%). The most frequent reasons for image rejection were patient positioning (76%) and patient motion (7.5%).
Conclusions
The results compare well with previously published data. The range of reject rates highlights the need to analyse typical reject rates in different ways. With analysis feedback to participating sites and the implementation of standardised reject reasons, future analysis should monitor whether reject rates reduce.
介绍:数字放射摄影中的剔除分析有助于指导员工培训,从而减少患者辐射剂量并提高部门效率。本研究的目的是针对不同的房间使用类型进行多中心、不受供应商影响的剔除分析,并提供比较基准:方法:通过 USB 从澳大利亚多个地点的固定普通 X 光系统收集回顾性剔除和曝光日志数据,并进行整理和分析。方法:通过 USB 从澳大利亚多个地点的固定普通 X 光系统收集回顾性剔除率和曝光日志数据,以便进行整理和分析:数据收集自 11 家医院的 44 个 X 光系统。结果:数据收集自 11 家医院的 44 套 X 光系统,共获取 2,031,713 张图像和 172,495 张剔除图像。剔除率中位数为 9.1%。本地剔除参考水平(LRRL)设定为所有剔除率的第 75 百分位数,为 10.6%。按病房类型划分,中位废片率分别为急诊(7.4%)、住院+门诊(9.6%)、门诊(9.2%)和混合型(10.1%)。按身体部位划分,绝对拒收率最高的是胸部(2.1%)和膝部(1.4%)。身体各部位相对拒收率最高的是膝关节(18.1%)和骨盆(17.2%)。图像拒绝的最常见原因是患者的体位(76%)和患者的运动(7.5%):结论:研究结果与之前公布的数据对比良好。拒收率的范围凸显了以不同方式分析典型拒收率的必要性。通过对参与地点的分析反馈以及标准化拒收原因的实施,未来的分析应能监测拒收率是否降低。
期刊介绍:
Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences (JMRS) is an international and multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal that accepts manuscripts related to medical imaging / diagnostic radiography, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine, medical ultrasound / sonography, and the complementary disciplines of medical physics, radiology, radiation oncology, nursing, psychology and sociology. Manuscripts may take the form of: original articles, review articles, commentary articles, technical evaluations, case series and case studies. JMRS promotes excellence in international medical radiation science by the publication of contemporary and advanced research that encourages the adoption of the best clinical, scientific and educational practices in international communities. JMRS is the official professional journal of the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (ASMIRT) and the New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology (NZIMRT).