Medical imaging practice changed dramatically with the introduction of digital imaging. Although digital imaging has many advantages, it also has made it easier to delete images that are not of diagnostic quality. Mistakes in imaging—from improper patient positioning, patient movement during the examination, and selecting improper equipment—could go undetected when images are deleted. Such an approach would preclude a reject analysis from which valuable lessons could be learned. In the analog days of radiography, saving the rejected films and then analyzing them was common practice among radiographers. In principle, reject analysis can be carried out easier and with better tools (ie, software) in the digital era, provided that rejected images are stored for analysis. Reject analysis and the subsequent lessons learned could reduce the number of repeat images, thus reducing imaging costs and decreasing patient exposure to radiation. The purpose of this study, which was conducted by order of the Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate, was to investigate whether hospitals in the Netherlands store and analyze failed imaging and, if so, to identify the tools used to analyze those images.
DOCUMENT
Review: With great interest we have read the paper “Pregnancy Screening before Diagnostic Radiography in Emergency Department; an Educational Review” by A.I. Abushouk et al. (1). We agree with the authors that unnecessary fetal radiation exposure should be avoided and that pregnancy screening can be a means to accomplish this. However, in their paper the authors suggest in several instances that radiological imaging during pregnancy can lead to teratogenic effects. In the Abstract it is stated: “Radiation exposure during pregnancy may have serious teratogenic effects to the fetus. Therefore, checking the pregnancy status before imaging women of child bearing age can protect against these effects.”, and in the Introduction: “Therefore, checking the pregnancy status before imaging women of child bearing age can protect against radiation teratogenic effects.” We strongly disagree with these statements: common radiological imaging will usually not give rise to fetal radiation doses high enough to lead to teratogenesis. The statements in the paper may lead to unnecessary worrying of pregnant women and it may discourage themfrom undergoing medically necessary radiological examinations.
DOCUMENT
Abstract gepubliceerd in Elsevier: Introduction: Recent research has identified the issue of ‘dose creep’ in diagnostic radiography and claims it is due to the introduction of CR and DR technology. More recently radiographers have reported that they do not regularly manipulate exposure factors for different sized patients and rely on pre-set exposures. The aim of the study was to identify any variation in knowledge and radiographic practice across Europe when imaging the chest, abdomen and pelvis using digital imaging. Methods: A random selection of 50% of educational institutes (n ¼ 17) which were affiliated members of the European Federation of Radiographer Societies (EFRS) were contacted via their contact details supplied on the EFRS website. Each of these institutes identified appropriate radiographic staff in their clinical network to complete an online survey via SurveyMonkey. Data was collected on exposures used for 3 common x-ray examinations using CR/DR, range of equipment in use, staff educational training and awareness of DRL. Descriptive statistics were performed with the aid of Excel and SPSS version 21. Results: A response rate of 70% was achieved from the affiliated educational members of EFRS and a rate of 55% from the individual hospitals in 12 countries across Europe. Variation was identified in practice when imaging the chest, abdomen and pelvis using both CR and DR digital systems. There is wide variation in radiographer training/education across countries.
DOCUMENT
