Medical and Dental Consultantsí Association of Nigeria
Home - About us - Editorial board - Search - Ahead of print - Current issue - Archives - Submit article - Instructions - Subscribe - Advertise - Contacts - Login 
  Users Online: 6369   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2008  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 355-358

An audit of rejected repeated x-ray films as a quality assurance element in a radiology department

Department of Radiology, Irrua Specialist Teaching Hospital P.M.B 08 Irrua, Edo State, Nigeria

Correspondence Address:
K C Eze
Department of Radiology, Irrua Specialist Teaching Hospital P.M.B 08 Irrua, Edo State, Nigeria

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

PMID: 19320410

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

OBJECTIVES: To find out the causes, number, percentage and sizes of rejected radiographic films with a view of adopting measures that will reduce the rate and number of rejected films. SETTING: Radiology Department of a University Teaching Hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a two-year period (1st April 2002 to 31st March 2004), the total number of x-ray films utilized for radiographic examinations, rejected films and sizes of rejected films were collected retrospectively from the medical record of radiology department. All the rejected films were viewed by a radiologist and three radiographers for the causes of the rejects which was arrived at by consensus. The data was analysed. RESULT: A total of 15,095 films were used in the study period and 1,338 films (8.86%) were rejected or wasted. The rate of rejected films varied from 7.69% to 13.82% with average of 8.86%. The greatest cause of film rejects was radiographers' faults 547 (40.88%), followed by equipments faults 255 (19.06%), and patients' faults 250 (18.90%). The highest reject rate (13.82%) was for films used for examination of the spine (15 x 30) cm size. This is followed by 9.92% for skull (18 x 24) cm films and 8.83% for small sized films (24 x 30) cm used for paediatric patients. Of a total of 1,338 rejected films, 1276 (95.37%) additional exposure were done to obtain the basic desired diagnostic information involving 1151 patients; 885 (76.89%) of these patients needed at least one additional hospital visit to take the repeat exposure. CONCLUSION: Rejected films are not billable; patients receive additional radiation and may even come to hospital in another day for the repeat. Radiographer's work is increased as well as that of the support staff. The waiting room may be congested and waiting time increased. The cost of processing chemical and films are increased, thus if work is quantified in monetary terms, the cost of repeats is high. Rejected-repeated film analysis is cheap, simple, practicable, easy to interpret and an effective indictor of quality assurance of radiology departments.

[PDF Not available]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal