Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Mar;22(1):89-98.
doi: 10.1007/s10278-008-9112-5. Epub 2008 Apr 30.

Digital radiography reject analysis: data collection methodology, results, and recommendations from an in-depth investigation at two hospitals

Affiliations

Digital radiography reject analysis: data collection methodology, results, and recommendations from an in-depth investigation at two hospitals

David H Foos et al. J Digit Imaging. 2009 Mar.

Abstract

Reject analysis was performed on 288,000 computed radiography (CR) image records collected from a university hospital (UH) and a large community hospital (CH). Each record contains image information, such as body part and view position, exposure level, technologist identifier, and--if the image was rejected--the reason for rejection. Extensive database filtering was required to ensure the integrity of the reject-rate calculations. The reject rate for CR across all departments and across all exam types was 4.4% at UH and 4.9% at CH. The most frequently occurring exam types with reject rates of 8% or greater were found to be common to both institutions (skull/facial bones, shoulder, hip, spines, in-department chest, pelvis). Positioning errors and anatomy cutoff were the most frequently occurring reasons for rejection, accounting for 45% of rejects at CH and 56% at UH. Improper exposure was the next most frequently occurring reject reason (14% of rejects at CH and 13% at UH), followed by patient motion (11% of rejects at CH and 7% at UH). Chest exams were the most frequently performed exam at both institutions (26% at UH and 45% at CH) with half captured in-department and half captured using portable x-ray equipment. A ninefold greater reject rate was found for in-department (9%) versus portable chest exams (1%). Problems identified with the integrity of the data used for reject analysis can be mitigated in the future by objectifying quality assurance (QA) procedures and by standardizing the nomenclature and definitions for QA deficiencies.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Honea R, Blado ME, Ma Y. Is reject analysis necessary after converting to computed radiography. J Digit Imaging. 2002;15(1):41–52. doi: 10.1007/s10278-002-5028-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nol J, Isouard G, Mirecki J. Digital repeat analysis; setup and operation. J Digit Imaging. 2006;19(2):159–156. doi: 10.1007/s10278-005-8733-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms