A General Evaluation of the Reasons for X-Ray Retakes: A Hospital Example

Year 2023, Volume: 12 Issue: 3, 1042 - 1049, 26.09.2023

Yasemin Aslan

https://doi.org/10.37989/gumussagbil.1139192

Abstract

The aim of this study is to assess the frequency and causes of X-ray retakes in a university hospital. This is a cross-sectional, retrospective study. The population of the study consists of the number of retaken X-ray examinations in the radiology unit between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021, in a university hospital in Istanbul. In the study, there was no sample selection, and the entire population was taken into consideration. The information was extracted from the radiology records. Descriptive statistics and frequency tables were used in the analysis of the data. The reasons for X-ray retakes are classified under three main headings: patient, staff, and device-related causes. As a result of the study, the rate of X-ray retakes was found to be 0.13%. It was determined that 84.10% of X-ray retakes were due to devices, 8.13% were staff-related, and 7.77% were patient-related. It was also found that 67.23% of device-related retakes were due to portable cassette artifacts, 34.78% of staff-related retakes were due to patient position error, and 77.27% of patient-related retakes were due to the patient's movement during imaging. It is recommended, based on the results of the study, that the hospital management ensure regular maintenance and calibration of the medical devices, promptly repair malfunctioning devices, and provide training to enhance employees’ technical skills.

Keywords

X-ray, Retakes X-ray, Patient safety, Radiology.

Tekrarlanan Röntgen (X-ray) Çekim Nedenlerine Yönelik Genel Bir Değerlendirme: Bir Hastane Örneği

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, bir üniversite hastanesinde tekrar röntgen çekim oranı ve nedenleri hakkında genel bir değerlendirme yapmaktır. Çalışma retrospektif türde kesitsel bir çalışmadır. Çalışmanın evrenini İstanbul’da yer alan bir üniversite hastanesinde 01.01.2019-31.12.2021 tarihleri arasında radyoloji ünitesinde tekrar çekilen röntgen (X-ray) tetkik sayıları oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada örneklem seçimine gidilmemiş ve evrenin tamamı değerlendirmeye alınmıştır. Veriler radyoloji ünitesi kayıtlarından elde edilmiştir. Verilerin analizinde tanımlayıcı istatistiklerden ve sıklık tablolarından faydalanılmıştır. Tekrar röntgen çekim nedenleri; hasta, çalışan ve cihaz kaynaklı nedenler olarak üç ana başlık altında sınıflandırılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda tekrar röntgen çekim oranı %0,13 olarak bulunmuştur. Tekrar çekim nedenlerinin %84,10’unun cihaz, %8,13’ünün çalışan, %7,77’sinin ise hasta kaynaklı olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Cihaz kaynaklı tekrar çekimlerin %67,23’ünün portable kaset artefaktı, çalışan kaynaklı tekrar çekimlerin %34,78’inin pozisyon hatası, hasta kaynaklı tekrar çekimlerin %77,27’sinin ise çekim esnasında hastanın hareket etmesi sonucu yaşandığı bulunmuştur. Çalışma sonuçlarına dayanarak hastane yönetiminin tıbbi cihazların bakım ve kalibrasyonlarını düzenli bir şekilde yaptırması, arızalanan cihazları vaktinde tamir ettirmesi ve çalışanların teknik becerilerini geliştirecek eğitimler verilmesi önerilmektedir.

Keywords

X-ray, Tekrar çekim, Hasta güvenliği, Radyoloji.

Supporting Institution

Çalışmayı destekleyen herhangi bir kurum bulunmamaktadır.

References

• 1. Dădulescu, E, Şorop, I, Mossang, D, Pera, C, Pătru, E, Bondari, D. and Prejbeanu, I. (2008). “Benefit vs. Risks in Children's Exposure to Radiation for Medical Diagnosis Purposes”. Romanian Journal of Bioethics, 7 (1), 91-98.
• 2. Abdullah, S.H. (2013). “Loosing or Damaging Occur in X-ray Films and Its Effects on Patient Health”. Tikrit Medical Journal, 19 (2), 296-304.
• 3. Kaya, T. (2017). “Radyografinin Temel Prensipleri ve Radyografik Yorumda Temel İlkeler”. Türk Radyoloji Seminerleri, 5, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.5152/trs.2017.507.
• 4. Kepler, K, Servomaa, A. and Filippova, I. (2005). “Preliminary Reference Levels for Diagnostic Radiology in Estonia”. 13-17 June, 2005, IFMBE proceedings, 13th Nordic Baltic Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Medical Physics (pp. 29-30). Umea/Sweden.
• 5. Aydoğdu, A, Aydoğdu, Y. ve Akıncı, Z.D. (2017). “Temel Radyolojik İnceleme Yöntemlerini Tanıma”. İnönü Üniversitesi Sağlık Hizmetleri Meslek Yüksek Okulu Dergisi, 5 (2), 44-53.
• 6. Körner, M, Weber, C.H, Wirth, S, Pfeifer, K.J, Reiser, M.F. and Treitl, M. (2007). “Advances in Digital Radiography: Physical Principles and System Overview”. Radiographics, 27 (3), 675-686. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.273065075.
• 7. Waaler, D. and Hofmann, B. (2010). “Image Rejects / Retakes-Radiographic Challenges”. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 139 (1-3), 375–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq032.
• 8. Akhtar, W, Aslam, M, Ali, A, Mirza, K. and Ahmad, M.N. (2008). “Film Retakes in Digital and Conventional Radiography”. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, 18 (3), 151-153.
• 9. Jones, A.K, Heintz, P, Geiser, W, Goldman, L, Jerjian, K, Martin, M, Peck, D, Pfeiffer, D, Ranger, N. and Yorkston, J. (2015). “Ongoing Quality Control in Digital Radiography: Report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 151”. Medical Physics, 42 (11), 6658-6670. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4932623.
• 10. Awad, F, Naem, F.A, Gemea, A, Wedaa, N, Mohammed, Z. and Elser, S.T. (2021). “X-Ray Film Reject Analysis in Radiology Departments of Port Sudan Hospitals”. International Journal of Radiology and Imaging Technology, 7 (72), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.23937/2572-3235.1510072.
• 11. Güden, E, Öksüzkaya, A, Balcı, E, Tuna, R, Borlu, A. ve Çetinkara, K. (2012). “Radyoloji Çalışanlarının Radyasyon Güvenliğine İlişkin Bilgi, Tutum ve Davranışı”. Sağlıkta Performans ve Kalite Dergisi, 3 (1), 29-45.
• 12. Kjelle, E. and Chilanga, C. (2022). “The Assessment of Image Quality and Diagnostic Value in X ‑ Ray Images : A Survey on Radiographers’ Reasons for Rejecting Images”. Insights into Imaging, 13 (36), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01169-9.
• 13. Kapur, N, Nargotra, N, Singh, T, Dhaka, R, Rajak, R.S, Virmani, N. and Sharma, B.B. (2019). “Study of Proper Technique to Avoid Repeat Radiography with Proper Instructions and Positioning”. International Journal of Radiology Research, 1 (1), 33-37.
• 14. Ataç, G.K. ve İnal, T. (2020). “BT İncelemelerde Görüntü Kalitesi ve Artefaktlar”. Türk Radyoloji Seminerleri, 8 (1), 110-128. https://doi.org/10.5152/trs.2020.842.
• 15. Mc Fadden, S, Roding, T, de Vries, G, Benwell, M, Bijwaard, H. and Scheurleer, J. (2018). “Digital Imaging and Radiographic Practise in Diagnostic Radiography: An Overview of Current Knowledge and Practice in Europe”. Radiography, 24 (2), 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2017.11.004.
• 16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2022). “Radiation and Your Health, ALARA – As Low As Reasonably Achievable”. Erişim adresi: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/alara.html#:~:text=The%20guiding%20principle%20of%20radiation,if%20the%20dose%20is%20small (Erişim tarihi: 26.06.2022).
• 17. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2018). “Radiation Protection and Safety in Medical Uses of Ionizing Radiation, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SSG-46. IAEA: Vienna”. Erişim adresi: https://www.iaea.org/publications/11102/radiation-protection-and-safety-in-medical-uses-of-ionizing-radiation. (Erişim tarihi: 26.06.2022).
• 18. Ling, C.C, Li, W.X. and Anderson, L.L. (1995). “The Relative Biological Effectiveness of I-125 and Pd-103”. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 32 (2), 373-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(95)00530-C.
• 19. Ji, K, Wang, Y, Du, L, Xu, C, Liu, Y, He, N, Wang, J. and Liu, Q. (2019). “Research Progress on the Biological Effects of Low-Dose Radiation in China”. Dose-Response, 17 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325819833488.
• 20. Brenner, D.J, Doll, R, Goodhead, D.T, Hall, E.J, Land, C.E, Little, J.B, Lubin, J.H, Preston, D.L, Preston, R.J, Puskin, J.S, Ron, E, Sachs, R.K, Samet, J.M, Setlow, R.B. and Zaider, M. (2003). “Cancer Risks Attributable to Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation: Assessing What We Really Know David”. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 100 (24), 13761–13766. https://doi.org/10.1073_pnas.2235592100.
• 21. Rodgers, C.C. (2020). “Low-dose X-ray Imaging May Increase the Risk of Neurodegenerative Diseases”. Medical Hypotheses, 142, 109726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109726.
• 22. Simonetto, C, Schöllnberger, H, Azizova, T.V, Grigoryeva, E.S, Pikulina, M.V. and Eidemüller, M. (2015). “Cerebrovascular Diseases in Workers at Mayak PA: The Difference in Radiation Risk between Incidence and Mortality”. PLoS ONE, 10 (5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125904.
• 23. Sodickson, A, Baeyens, P.F, Andriole, K.P, Prevedello, L.M, Nawfel, R.D, Hanson, R. and Khorasani, R. (2009). “Recurrent CT, Cumulative Radiation Exposure, and Associated Radiation-induced Cancer Risks from CT of Adults”. Radiology, 251 (1), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2511081296.
• 24. Yıldız, S, Çeçe, H. ve Türksoy, Ö. (2012). “Pediatrik Yaşta Bilgisayarlı Tomografi Uygulamalarında Radyasyon Dozunu Azaltma Stratejileri”. Düzce Tıp Dergisi, 14 (3), 69-73.
• 25. Almalki, A.A, Abdul Manaf, R, Juni, M.H, Kadir Shahar, H, Mohd Noor, N. and Gabbad, A. (2017). “A Systematic Review on Repetition Rate of Routine Digital Radiography”. International Journal of Current Research, 9 (2), 46325-46330.
• 26. Whaley, J.S, Pressman, B.D, Wilson, J.R, Bravo, L, Sehnert, W.J. and Foos, D.H. (2013). “Investigation of The Variability in The Assessment of Digital Chest X-Ray Image Quality”. Journal of Digital Imaging, 26 (2), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9515-1.
• 27. Yousef, M, Edward, C, Ahmed, H, Bushara, L, Hamdan, A. and Elnaiem, N. (2013). “Film Reject Analysis for Conventional Radiography in Khartoum Hospitals”. Asian Journal of Medical Radiological Research, 2 (1), 1-5.
• 28. Lin, C, Chan, P, Huang, K, Lu, C, Chen, Y. and Chen, Y.L. (2016). “Guidelines for Reducing Image Retakes of General Digital Radiography”. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 8 (36), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814016644127.
• 29. Hofmann, B, Rosanowsky, T.B, Jensen, C. and Wah, K.H.C. (2015). “Image Rejects in General Direct Digital Radiography”. Acta Radiologica Open, 4 (10), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2058460115604339.
• 30. Andersen, E.R, Jorde, J, Taoussi, N, Yaqoob, S.H, Konst, B. and Seierstad, T. (2912). “Reject Analysis in Direct Digital Radiography”. Acta Radiologica, 53 (2), 174–178. https://doi.org/10.1258/ar.2011.110350.
• 31. Jones, A.K, Polman, R, Willis, C.E. and Shepard, S.J. (2011). “One Year’s Results from A Server-Based System for Performing Reject Analysis and Exposure Analysis in Computed Radiography”. Journal of Digital Imaging, 24 (2), 243–255. https://orcid.org/10.1007/s10278-009-9236-2.
• 32. Assi, A.A.N. (2018). “The Rate of Repeating X-rays in The Medical Centers of Jenin District/Palestine and How to Reduce Patient Exposure to Radiation”. Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering, 24 (1), 33-36. https://doi.org/10.2478/pjmpe-2018-0005.
• 33. Dağcı, A. ve Aslan, E. (2020). “Sağlık Sektöründe Yalın Üretim Uygulaması: Tokat İlinde Bir Devlet Hastanesi Örneği”. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi, 23 (4), 623-638.
• 34. Taylor, N. (2015). “The Art of Rejection: Comparative Analysis between Computed Radiography (CR) and Digital Radiography (DR) Workstations in the Accident & Emergency and General Radiology Departments at a District General Hospital Using Customised and Standardised Reject Criteria Over a Three Year Period”. Radiography, 21 (3), 236-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2014.12.003.
• 35. Balsak, H. (2014). Radyoloji Çalışanlarının Tanı Amaçlı Kullanılan Radyasyonun, Zararlı Etkileri Hakkında Bilgi, Tutum ve Davranışları. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İnönü Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Malatya.
• 36. Akhtar, W, Hussain, M, Aslam, M, Ali, A. and Faisal, A. (2011). “Predictors of Positioning Error in Digital Radiography”. Pakistan Journal of Radiology, 21 (3), 102-106.
• 37. Ohta, Y, Matsuzawa, H, Yamamoto, K, Enchi, Y, Kobayashi, T. and Ishida, T. (2021). “Development of Retake Support System for Lateral Knee Radiographs by Using Deep Convolutional Neural Network”. Radiography, 27 (4), 1110-1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2021.05.002.
• 38. Akyurt, N. (2017). “Radyoloji Bölümlerinde Fazla Tetkik İsteme ve Tekrar Oranları “Kamu Örneği””. Türkiye Klinikleri Radyoloji Özel, 10 (1), 19-24.