Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Stephenson-Smith B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8424327 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextIn the emergency ward, where the use of ultrasound is common (including for sterile procedures), ward equipment is constantly exposed to high risks of microbiological contamination. There are no clear guidelines for disinfection control practices in emergency departments, and it is not known how emergency ward doctors follow good hygiene practices.MethodA multi-centre audit was conducted in 16 emergency services from Northern France regional hospitals, in form of a questionnaire. It was proposed to all emergency ward physicians. We excluded questionnaires when physicians mentioned that they did not use ultrasound on a daily basis. The questionnaire was designed using existing hygiene and ultrasound disinfection practices guidelines from varying French medical societies. It included three different clinical scenarios: (a) ultrasound on healthy skin, (b) on injured skin, and (c) ultrasound-guided punctures. All questions were closed-ended, with only one answer corresponding to the guidelines. We then calculated compliance rates for each question, each clinical situation, and an overall compliance rate for all the questions.Results104 questionnaires were collected, and 19 were excluded. For the 85 analysed questionnaires, the compliance rates were 60.4% 95% CI [56.4-64.7] for ultrasound on healthy skin, 70.9% 95% CI [66.3-76.1] on injured skin and 69.4% 95% CI [65.1-73.6] for ultrasound-guided punctures. The overall compliance rate for the compliance questions was 66.1% 95% CI [62.8-69.1]. Analysis of the questionnaires revealed severe asepsis errors, misuse of gel, ignorance of infection control practices to be applied in the context of ultrasound-guided puncture and exposure of the probe to body fluids.ConclusionThis study details areas for quality improvement in the disinfection of emergency ultrasound scanner use. Consequently, we propose a standardized protocol based upon the recommendations used for the questionnaire drafting, with a visual focus on the low compliance points that have been revealed in this audit. This protocol has been distributed to all the medical emergency services audited and included in the emergency resident's ultrasound learning program.

Project description:ObjectiveSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged as a global pandemic in early 2020 with rapidly evolving approaches to diagnosing the clinical illness called coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The primary objective of this scoping review is to synthesize current research of the diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, routine laboratory tests, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), immunology tests, and computed tomography (CT) for the emergency department (ED) diagnosis of COVID-19. Secondary objectives included a synopsis of diagnostic biases likely with current COVID-19 research as well as corresponding implications of false-negative and false-positive results for clinicians and investigators.MethodsA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR)-adherent synthesis of COVID-19 diagnostic accuracy through May 5, 2020, was conducted. The search strategy was designed by a medical librarian and included studies indexed by PubMed and Embase since January 2020.ResultsA total of 1,907 citations were screened for relevance. Patients without COVID-19 are rarely reported, so specificity and likelihood ratios were generally unavailable. Fever is the most common finding, while hyposmia and hypogeusia appear useful to rule in COVID-19. Cough is not consistently present. Lymphopenia is the mostly commonly reported laboratory abnormality and occurs in over 50% of COVID-19 patients. rRT-PCR is currently considered the COVID-19 criterion standard for most diagnostic studies, but a single test sensitivity ranges from 60% to 78%. Multiple reasons for false-negatives rRT-PCR exist, including sample site tested and disease stage during which sample was obtained. CT may increase COVID-19 sensitivity in conjunction with rRT-PCR, but guidelines for imaging patients most likely to benefit are emerging. IgM and IgG serology levels are undetectable in the first week of COVID-19, but sensitivity (range = 82% to 100%) and specificity (range = 87% to 100%) are promising. Whether detectable COVID-19 antibodies correspond to immunity remains unanswered. Current studies do not adhere to accepted diagnostic accuracy reporting standards and likely report significantly biased results if the same tests were to be applied to general ED populations with suspected COVID-19.ConclusionsWith the exception of fever and disorders of smell/taste, history and physical examination findings are unhelpful to distinguish COVID-19 from other infectious conditions that mimic SARS-CoV-2 like influenza. Routine laboratory tests are also nondiagnostic, although lymphopenia is a common finding and other abnormalities may predict severe disease. Although rRT-PCR is the current criterion standard, more inclusive consensus-based criteria will likely emerge because of the high false-negative rate of PCR tests. The role of serology and CT in ED assessments remains undefined.

Project description:To investigate and compare the scatter rejection properties and low-contrast performance of the scan equalization digital radiography (SEDR) technique to the slot-scan and conventional full-field digital radiography techniques for chest imaging.A prototype SEDR system was designed and constructed with an a-Se flat-panel (FP) detector to improve image quality in heavily attenuating regions of an anthropomorphic chest phantom. Slot-scanning geometry was used to reject scattered radiation without attenuating primary x rays. The readout scheme of the FP was modified to erase accumulated scatter signals prior to image readout. A 24-segment beam width modulator was developed to regulate x-ray exposures regionally and compensate for the low x-ray flux in heavily attenuating regions. To measure the scatter-to-primary ratios (SPRs), a 2 mm thick lead plate with a 2-D array of aperture holes was used to measure the primary signals, which were then subtracted from those obtained without the lead plate to determine scatter components. A 2-D array of aluminum beads (3 mm in diameter) was used as the low-contrast objects to measure the contrast ratios (CRs) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) for evaluating the low-contrast performance in chest phantom images. A set of two images acquired with the same techniques were subtracted from each other to measure the noise levels. SPRs, CRs, and CNRs of the SEDR images were measured in four anatomical regions of chest phantom images and compared to those of slot-scan images and full-field images acquired with and without antiscatter grid.The percentage reduction of SPR (percentage of SPRs reduced with scatter removal/ rejection methods relative to that for nongrid full-field imaging) averaged over four anatomical regions was measured to be 80%, 83%, and 71% for SEDR, slot-scan, and full-field with grid, respectively. The average CR over four regions was found to improve over that for nongrid full-field imaging by 259%, 279%, and 145% for SEDR, slot-scan, and full-field with grid, respectively. The average CNR over four regions was found to improve over that for nongrid full-field imaging by 201% for SEDR as compared to 133% for the slot-scan technique and 14% for the antiscatter grid method.Both SEDR and slot-scan techniques outperformed the antiscatter grid method used in standard full-field radiography. For imaging with the same effective exposure, the SEDR technique offers no advantage over the slot-scan method in terms of SPRs and CRs. However, it improves CNRs significantly, especially in heavily attenuating regions. The improvement of low-contrast performance may help improve the detection of the lung nodules or other abnormalities and may offer SEDR the potential for dose reduction in chest radiography.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The gold standard in general radiography is to place a radiopaque anatomical side marker in the field of view for each radiographic image prior to exposure. The advent of digital radiography has allowed for anatomical side markers to be digitally added to films as part of post-processing. The aim of this audit was to identify whether general X-ray images performed in a tertiary Women's and Children's Hospital were being appropriately annotated with a definitive side marker, and to identify factors that may contribute to inappropriately labelled images. METHODS:Four hundred images from 201 patients' examinations occurring within a randomly selected time period were assessed to ascertain whether radiographic anatomical side markers were visible when images were viewed via the hospitals main viewing platform. The audit occurred in January 2014. The scope included both mobile and in-department general X-ray examinations, with the patient age range extending from 1 day to 18 years. RESULTS:Of the 400 images evaluated, 88 (22%) were found to have a lead marker that matched the anatomy being imaged within the primary beam; 289 (72.3%) images contained a correct digital marker inserted as part of the post-processing of the image. In total, 377 (94.2%) images were appropriately marked. Of the 23 (5.8%) images not marked correctly, 22 images had no marker and 1 was incorrectly marked with a digital marker. There was a noticeable relationship between absent anatomical markers and chest X-rays performed outside of the medical imaging department. CONCLUSIONS:While it is encouraging that the majority of the images assessed were correctly annotated, with only a small number of missing markers, there are opportunities for further improvement. The audit findings suggest that reduced access to lead markers influences marker use. Strategies that may improve compliance at an individual level include distribution of personalised anatomical side markers, and targeted staff education sessions. At a department level, regular audits and monitoring should be encouraged.

Project description:The organisational context of healthcare settings has an essential role in how research evidence is used in clinical practice. The Alberta Context Tool (ACT) measures 10 concepts of organisational context with higher scores indicating a more positive work environment and potentially better use of research evidence in patient care. We assessed the psychometric properties of the ACT in Emergency Departments (EDs). This validation study was conducted as part of a multi-centre trial of triage, treatment and transfer (T3 Trial) of patients with stroke admitted to EDs. Stratified sampling with proportional allocation was used to recruit ED nurses from 26 participating hospitals at baseline. Nurses completed a survey containing the ACT. Structural validity was investigated by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients. Item-rest correlations and the average inter-item correlations were also assessed. 558 ED nurses completed the survey, comprised of 433 surveys without missing data. Our exploratory factor analysis produced a 14-factor structure, explaining 62% of variance of organisational context. For eight of ten concepts, item loadings matched the factor structure of the original ACT. Confirmatory factor analysis of the 10 ACT concepts showed moderate model fit (p = 0.001, root mean square error of approximation: 0.049, standardised root mean squared residual: 0.048). Cronbach's alphas showed very good internal consistency for nine of ten ACT concepts (?>0.7; 0.45-0.90). Item-rest correlations indicated that most ACT items (50 of 56 items) within any concept related well to the total score of the concept. Average inter-item correlations indicated potential redundant items for three concepts (feedback processes, leadership, staffing) that were above the threshold of 0.5. While identifying a few shortcomings for some ACT concepts in an ED context, the majority of findings confirm reliability and validity of the original ACT in an Australian population of ED nurses.