Literature DB >> 26520756

Ongoing quality control in digital radiography: Report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 151.

A Kyle Jones1, Philip Heintz2, William Geiser1, Lee Goldman3, Khachig Jerjian4, Melissa Martin5, Donald Peck6, Douglas Pfeiffer7, Nicole Ranger8, John Yorkston9.   

Abstract

Quality control (QC) in medical imaging is an ongoing process and not just a series of infrequent evaluations of medical imaging equipment. The QC process involves designing and implementing a QC program, collecting and analyzing data, investigating results that are outside the acceptance levels for the QC program, and taking corrective action to bring these results back to an acceptable level. The QC process involves key personnel in the imaging department, including the radiologist, radiologic technologist, and the qualified medical physicist (QMP). The QMP performs detailed equipment evaluations and helps with oversight of the QC program, the radiologic technologist is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the QC program. The continued need for ongoing QC in digital radiography has been highlighted in the scientific literature. The charge of this task group was to recommend consistency tests designed to be performed by a medical physicist or a radiologic technologist under the direction of a medical physicist to identify problems with an imaging system that need further evaluation by a medical physicist, including a fault tree to define actions that need to be taken when certain fault conditions are identified. The focus of this final report is the ongoing QC process, including rejected image analysis, exposure analysis, and artifact identification. These QC tasks are vital for the optimal operation of a department performing digital radiography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26520756     DOI: 10.1118/1.4932623

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  11 in total

Review 1.  Development of a tool to aid the radiologic technologist using augmented reality and computer vision.

Authors:  Robert D MacDougall; Benoit Scherrer; Steven Don
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-09-02

2.  Implementation of a patient dose monitoring system in conventional digital X-ray imaging: initial experiences.

Authors:  Christina Heilmaier; Niklaus Zuber; Dominik Weishaupt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  A mobile isocentric C-arm for intraoperative cone-beam CT: Technical assessment of dose and 3D imaging performance.

Authors:  N M Sheth; T De Silva; A Uneri; M Ketcha; R Han; R Vijayan; G M Osgood; J H Siewerdsen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-01-06       Impact factor: 4.506

4.  Evaluation of digital radiography practice using exposure index tracking.

Authors:  Alexander W Scott; Yifang Zhou; Janet Allahverdian; Jessica L Nute; Christina Lee
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Educational Module Intervention for Radiographers to Reduce Repetition Rate of Routine Digital Chest Radiography in Makkah Region of Saudi Arabia Tertiary Hospitals: Protocol of a Quasi-Experimental Study.

Authors:  Rosliza Abdul Manaf; Abdullah A Almalki; Muhamad Hanafiah Juni; Hayati Kadir Shahar; Noramaliza Mohd Noor; Abdelsafi Gabbad
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2017-09-26

6.  Method for automatic detection of defective ultrasound linear array transducers based on uniformity assessment of clinical images - A case study.

Authors:  Robert Lorentsson; Nasser Hosseini; Jan-Olof Johansson; Wiebke Rosenberg; Benny Stenborg; Lars Gunnar Månsson; Magnus Båth
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Medical physics 3.0 versus 1.0: A case study in digital radiography quality control.

Authors:  Diana E Carver; Charles E Willis; Paul J Stauduhar; Thomas K Nishino; Jered R Wells; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-08-17       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Assessment of Image Quality in Digital Radiographs Submitted for Hip Dysplasia Screening.

Authors:  Lilah Moorman; Helle Precht; Janni Jensen; Eiliv Svalastoga; Dorte H Nielsen; Helle F Proschowsky; Fintan J McEvoy
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2019-12-03

9.  The assessment of image quality and diagnostic value in X-ray images: a survey on radiographers' reasons for rejecting images.

Authors:  Elin Kjelle; Catherine Chilanga
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2022-03-04

10.  Digital radiograph rejection analysis during "Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic" in a tertiary care public sector hospital in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan.

Authors:  Amir Ali; Muhammad Yaseen
Journal:  Chin J Acad Radiol       Date:  2021-06-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.