Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Digital Imaging 2/2011

01-04-2011

One Year’s Results from a Server-Based System for Performing Reject Analysis and Exposure Analysis in Computed Radiography

Authors: A. Kyle Jones, Raimund Polman, Charles E. Willis, S. Jeff Shepard

Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Issue 2/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Rejected images represent both unnecessary radiation exposure to patients and inefficiency in the imaging operation. Rejected images are inherent to projection radiography, where patient positioning and alignment are integral components of image quality. Patient motion and artifacts unique to digital image receptor technology can result in rejected images also. We present a centralized, server-based solution for the collection, archival, and distribution of rejected image and exposure indicator data that automates the data collection process. Reject analysis program (RAP) and exposure indicator data were collected and analyzed during a 1-year period. RAP data were sorted both by reason for repetition and body part examined. Data were also stratified by clinical area for further investigation. The monthly composite reject rate for our institution fluctuated between 8% and 10%. Positioning errors were the main cause of repeated images (77.3%). Stratification of data by clinical area revealed that areas where computed radiography (CR) is seldom used suffer from higher reject rates than areas where it is used frequently. S values were log-normally distributed for examinations performed under either manual or automatic exposure control. The distributions were positively skewed and leptokurtic. S value decreases due to radiologic technology student rotations, and CR plate reader calibrations were observed. Our data demonstrate that reject analysis is still necessary and useful in the era of digital imaging. It is vital though that analysis be combined with exposure indicator analysis, as digital radiography is not self-policing in terms of exposure. When combined, the two programs are a powerful tool for quality assurance.
Footnotes
1
The reason for this limit is the possibility of saturation/clipping in certain anatomical regions. In practice, we do not immediately reject every image with S < 50; ideally, the images are evaluated for clipping or saturation prior to rejection. The choice of a lower limit for the S value involves consideration of the latitude (L) of the histogram of the values of interest (VOI). For example, if L = 2 and S = 50, an image pixel value of 511 would map to an exposure of 4 mR and the maximum VOI exposure would be 40 mR. However, certain details, such as the skin line, may be compromised with exposures beyond this point. If the latitude of the image is less, e.g., L = 1.5 for an extremity image, larger overexposures can be tolerated without concern for clipping. If the latitude of the image is greater, e.g., L = 2.5 for a chest image, clipping would be seen at lower exposure levels.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference United States Food and Drug Administration: Code of federal regulations, 21CFR900.12(e)(3)(ii), 2008 United States Food and Drug Administration: Code of federal regulations, 21CFR900.12(e)(3)(ii), 2008
2.
go back to reference National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Report 99. Quality assurance for diagnostic imaging. Bethesda: NCRP, 1988 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Report 99. Quality assurance for diagnostic imaging. Bethesda: NCRP, 1988
3.
go back to reference American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Report 74. Quality control in diagnostic radiology. Madison: Medical Physics, 2002 American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Report 74. Quality control in diagnostic radiology. Madison: Medical Physics, 2002
4.
go back to reference American College of Radiology: ACR Technical Standard for Diagnostic Medical Physics Performance Monitoring of Radiographic and Fluoroscopic Equipment, Reston: ACR, 2006, pp. 1139–1142 American College of Radiology: ACR Technical Standard for Diagnostic Medical Physics Performance Monitoring of Radiographic and Fluoroscopic Equipment, Reston: ACR, 2006, pp. 1139–1142
5.
go back to reference Gray JE, Winkler NT, Stears J, Frank ED: Quality Control in Diagnostic Imaging, Gaithersburg: Aspen, 1983 Gray JE, Winkler NT, Stears J, Frank ED: Quality Control in Diagnostic Imaging, Gaithersburg: Aspen, 1983
6.
go back to reference Chu WK, Ferguson S, Wunder B, Smith R, Vanhoutte JJ: A two-year reject/retake profile analysis in pediatric radiology. Health Phys 42:53–59, 1982PubMedCrossRef Chu WK, Ferguson S, Wunder B, Smith R, Vanhoutte JJ: A two-year reject/retake profile analysis in pediatric radiology. Health Phys 42:53–59, 1982PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference GE Medical Systems: Revolution XQ/i digital radiographic imaging system. Pub. 98-5502:1–8, 1998 GE Medical Systems: Revolution XQ/i digital radiographic imaging system. Pub. 98-5502:1–8, 1998
8.
go back to reference Honea R, Blado ME, Ma Y: Is reject analysis necessary after converting to computed radiography? J Digit Imaging 15(Suppl 1):41–52, 2002PubMedCrossRef Honea R, Blado ME, Ma Y: Is reject analysis necessary after converting to computed radiography? J Digit Imaging 15(Suppl 1):41–52, 2002PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Nol J, Isouard G, Mirecki J: Digital repeat analysis; setup and operation. J Digit Imaging 19:159–166, 2006PubMedCrossRef Nol J, Isouard G, Mirecki J: Digital repeat analysis; setup and operation. J Digit Imaging 19:159–166, 2006PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Peer S, Peer R, Walcher M, Pohl M, Jaschke W: Comparative reject analysis in conventional film–screen and digital storage phosphor radiography. Eur Radiol, 9:1693–1696, 1999CrossRef Peer S, Peer R, Walcher M, Pohl M, Jaschke W: Comparative reject analysis in conventional film–screen and digital storage phosphor radiography. Eur Radiol, 9:1693–1696, 1999CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Weatherburn GC, Bryan S, West M: A 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, 1999PubMed Weatherburn GC, Bryan S, West M: A 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, 1999PubMed
13.
go back to reference Foos DH, Sehnert WJ, Reiner B, et al: Digital radiography reject analysis: Data collection methodology, results, and recommendations from an in-depth investigation at two hospitals. J Digit Imaging 22:89–98, 2009PubMedCrossRef Foos DH, Sehnert WJ, Reiner B, et al: Digital radiography reject analysis: Data collection methodology, results, and recommendations from an in-depth investigation at two hospitals. J Digit Imaging 22:89–98, 2009PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Polman R, Jones AK, Willis CE, Shepard SJ: Reject analysis tool. Proc SIIM 2008:38–40, 2008 Polman R, Jones AK, Willis CE, Shepard SJ: Reject analysis tool. Proc SIIM 2008:38–40, 2008
15.
go back to reference Burkhart RL: Quality Assurance Programs for Diagnostic Radiology Facilities. In: U.S. Department of Health E, and Welfare ed: Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office; 1980:21 Burkhart RL: Quality Assurance Programs for Diagnostic Radiology Facilities. In: U.S. Department of Health E, and Welfare ed: Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office; 1980:21
16.
go back to reference Sagel SS, Jost RG, Glazer HS, et al: Digital mobile radiography. J Thorac Imag 5:36–48, 1990CrossRef Sagel SS, Jost RG, Glazer HS, et al: Digital mobile radiography. J Thorac Imag 5:36–48, 1990CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Freedman M, Pe E, Mun SK: The potential for unnecessary patient exposure from the use of storage phosphor imaging systems. SPIE 1897:472–479, 1993CrossRef Freedman M, Pe E, Mun SK: The potential for unnecessary patient exposure from the use of storage phosphor imaging systems. SPIE 1897:472–479, 1993CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Gur D, Fuhman CR, Feist JH: Natural migration to a higher dose in CR imaging. Proceedings of the Eight European Congress of Radiology 154, 1993 Gur D, Fuhman CR, Feist JH: Natural migration to a higher dose in CR imaging. Proceedings of the Eight European Congress of Radiology 154, 1993
19.
go back to reference Seibert JA, Shelton DK, Moore EH: Computed radiography X-ray exposure trends. Acad Radiol 3:313–318, 1996PubMedCrossRef Seibert JA, Shelton DK, Moore EH: Computed radiography X-ray exposure trends. Acad Radiol 3:313–318, 1996PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Stewart BK, Kanal KM, Perdue JR, Mann FA: Computed radiography dose data mining and surveillance as an ongoing quality assurance improvement process. AJR 189:7–11, 2007PubMedCrossRef Stewart BK, Kanal KM, Perdue JR, Mann FA: Computed radiography dose data mining and surveillance as an ongoing quality assurance improvement process. AJR 189:7–11, 2007PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Willis CE, Leckie RG, Carter JR, et al: Objective measures of quality assurance in a computed radiography-based radiology department. SPIE 2432:12, 1995CrossRef Willis CE, Leckie RG, Carter JR, et al: Objective measures of quality assurance in a computed radiography-based radiology department. SPIE 2432:12, 1995CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Crow EL, Shimizu K Eds. Lognormal Distributions: Theory and Applications, 1st ed. New York: CRC, 1988 Crow EL, Shimizu K Eds. Lognormal Distributions: Theory and Applications, 1st ed. New York: CRC, 1988
24.
go back to reference Chauvenet WA: A Manual of Spherical and Practical Astronomy, 5th edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1863 Chauvenet WA: A Manual of Spherical and Practical Astronomy, 5th edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1863
25.
go back to reference Carroll QB: Fuchs’s Radiographic Exposure and Quality Control, 7th edition. Springfield: Thomas, 2003 Carroll QB: Fuchs’s Radiographic Exposure and Quality Control, 7th edition. Springfield: Thomas, 2003
26.
go back to reference Kuzmak PM, Dayhoff RE: Minimizing Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Modality Worklist patient/study selection errors. J Digit Imaging 14:153–157, 2001PubMedCrossRef Kuzmak PM, Dayhoff RE: Minimizing Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Modality Worklist patient/study selection errors. J Digit Imaging 14:153–157, 2001PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Minnigh TR, Gallet J: Maintaining quality control using a radiological digital X-ray dashboard. J Digit Imaging 22:84–88, 2009PubMedCrossRef Minnigh TR, Gallet J: Maintaining quality control using a radiological digital X-ray dashboard. J Digit Imaging 22:84–88, 2009PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
One Year’s Results from a Server-Based System for Performing Reject Analysis and Exposure Analysis in Computed Radiography
Authors
A. Kyle Jones
Raimund Polman
Charles E. Willis
S. Jeff Shepard
Publication date
01-04-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Issue 2/2011
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Electronic ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-009-9236-2

Other articles of this Issue 2/2011

Journal of Digital Imaging 2/2011 Go to the issue