Analysis and Economic Implications of X-ray Film Repeat/Reject in selected Hospitals in Ghana
Article Sidebar
Views | PDF/EPUB Downloads:
13
/ 3
/ 3
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background/aims: Repeat of X-ray examinations contributes to the radiation burden of patient and waste of resources in most developing countries. This study determined the economic implications of repeated X-ray examinations in 10 selected hospitals in Ghana.
Materials and Methods: The study was carried out in July, 2011 using a total of 2785 radiographs from 1685 patients (85.9%
adult and 14.1% pediatrics). Of these, 944 (56.0%) were female and 741 (44.0%) male. Reject films were compiled and classified according to the reasons for the reject. Time and cost analyses due to the repeat examinations were also carried out.
Results: Out of 2785 radiographs included in the study, 540 representing 19.4% were rejected. The overall reject rate for the individual hospitals ranged from 14.6% to 20.8%. The minimum time wasted by the radiographers in repeating examinations during the 1 month study was estimated to be approximately 135 h representing 17 working days in Ghana. The loss of revenue per month due to 540 rejected/ repeated radiographs amounts to approximately $6021 equating to approximately $72,256/annum. Exposure error and poor patient positioning constituted between 52.0% and 23.0% respectively of the overall causes of film rejection and were evenly distributed across the hospitals.
Conclusion: Consistent training in radiographic techniques and standardization of protocols as well as quality assurance
measures in the hospitals could help overcome the reported exposure error and poor patient positioning and improve revenue savings.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
How to Cite
References
1. Moores BM. Competency requirements and CPD‑Preparing for the future needs of medical imaging. Radiography 2002;8:259‑68.
2. Spalding M. Towards continuing education and professional development: Drivers for change in therapy radiography. J Radiother Pract 2003;3:131‑8.
3. Shanahan MC. Information literacy skills of undergraduate medical radiation students. Radiography 2007;13:187‑96.
4. Hafslund B, Clare J, Graverholt B, Nortvedt MW. Evidence‑based radiography. Radiography 2008;14:343‑8.
5. The International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists. Guidelines for the Education of Entry‑level
Professional Practice in Medical Radiation Sciences. 2004. Available from: http://www.isrrt.org/isrrt/Education_Standards.asp. [Last accessed on 2013 May 15].
6. Sheung‑Ling L, Suk‑Han AM, Chi‑Kwok C. Reject analysis: A comparison of conventional film‑screen radiography and computed radiography with PACS. Radiography 2004;10:183‑7.
7. Wilson RL. Chiropractic Radiography and Quality Assurance Handbook. New York: CRC Press, LLC; 2000.
8. Clark PA, Hogg P. Reject/repeat analysis and the effect prior film viewing has on a department’s reject/repeat rate. Radiography
2003;9:127‑37.
9. Dunn MA, Rogers AT. X‑ray film analysis as a quality indicator. Radiography 1998;4:29‑31.
10. Finch A, Bury R, Davies G, Fife I, Huflon A. Assurance of Quality in the Diagnostic Imaging Department. 2 nd ed. London; British
Institute of Radiology; 2001.
11. Bryman A. Social research methods. 3 rd ed. Oxford; Oxford University Press; 2008.
12. Doolen T, Aken EV. A study on medical imaging equipment productivity and utilization. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Industrial
Engineering Research Conference. Arizona State University Tempe, AZ, USA: Mengqi Hu Industrial Engineering Program School
of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering; 2011.
13. Arvanitis TN, Parizel PM, Degryse HR, De Schepper AM. Reject analysis: A pilot programme for image quality management. Eur
J Radiol 1991;12:171‑6.
14. McEntee MF, Brennan PC, Connor GO. The effect of X‑ray tube potential on the image quality of PA chest radiographs when using
digital image acquisition devices. Radiography 2004;10:287‑92.
15. Fung KK, Gilboy WB. The effect of beam tube potential variation on gonad dose to patients during chest radiography investigated using high sensitivity LiF: Mg, Cu, P thermoluminescent dosemeters. Br J Radiol 2001;74:358‑67.
16. Lanhede B, Båth M, Kheddache S, Sund P, Björneld L, Widell M, et al. The influence of different technique factors on image quality of chest radiographs as evaluated by modified CEC image quality criteria. Br J Radiol 2002;75:38‑49.
17. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Document 1423. Optimisation of the radiological protection of patients
undergoing radiography, fluoroscopy and computed tomography. Report of a Coordinated Research Project in Africa, Asia and
Eastern Europe. IAEA‑TECDOC‑1423. Vienna: IAEA; 2004.
18. Nixon PP, Thorogood J, Holloway J, Smith NJ. An audit of film reject and repeat rates in a department of dental radiology. Br J
Radiol 1995;68:1304‑7.
19. Peer S, Peer R, Walcher M, Pohl M, Jaschke W. Comparative reject analysis in conventional film‑screen and digital storage phosphor radiography. Eur Radiol 1999;9:1693‑6.