Welcome!
To use the personalized features of this site, please log in or register.
If you have forgotten your username or password, we can help.
|
 |
Maintaining Quality Control Using a Radiological Digital X-ray Dashboard
| |
|
Maintaining Quality Control Using a Radiological Digital X-ray Dashboard
Todd R. Minnigh1 and Jacqueline Gallet1 
| (1) |
Carestream Health, Inc, 150 Verona St, Rochester, NY 14608, USA |
Received: 12 June 2007 Revised: 18 December 2007 Accepted: 20 December 2007 Published online: 13 February 2008
Abstract Repeats are indicators for the quality-imaging manager to schedule additional training and to be used as a basis for dialog
with the reading radiologists to improve the service and quality to patients and referring physicians. Through the thoughtful
application of software and networking, dose management, X-ray usage, and repeat analysis data can be made available centrally.
This provides clinically useful technologist-centric results greatly benefiting an enterprise. This study tracked a radiology
department’s use of a digital X-ray dashboard software application. It was discovered that 80% of the exams were performed
by only 21% of the technologists and that the technologist with the highest throughput had a personal repeat rate of 6.5%
compared to the department average of 7.6%. This study indicated that useful information could be derived and used as a basis
for improving the radiology department’s operations and in maintaining high quality standards.
Key words Workflow - radiology management - quality control - quality management - repeat analysis - productivity - dashboard - computed radiography - digital radiography - dose
References
| 1. |
Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Carrino JA: SCAR Radiologic Technologist Survey: Analysis of the impact of digital technologies on productivity.
J Digit Imaging 15(3):132–140, 2002
|
| |
| 2. |
Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Carrino JA: SCAR Radiologic technologist survey: Analysis of technologist workforce and staffing. J
Digit Imaging 15(3):121–131, 2002
|
| |
| 3. |
Reiner BI, Siegel EL: Changes in technologist productivity with implementation of an enterprise-wide PACS. J Digit Imaging
15:22–26, 2002
|
| |
| 4. |
Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ, et al: Effect of film-based versus filmless operation on the productivity of CT technologists.
Radiology 207:481–485, 1998
|
| |
| 5. |
Reiner BI, Siegel EL: Technologist productivity in the performance of general radiographic examinations: Comparison of film-based
versus filmless operations. AJR 179:33–37, 2002
|
| |
| 6. |
Reiner BI, Siegel EL: PACS and productivity. In: Siegel EL, Kolodner RM Eds. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 1999, pp 103–112
|
| |
| 7. |
Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Siddiqui K: Evolution of the digital revolution: A radiologist perspective. J Digit Imaging 16(4):324–330,
2003
|
| |
| 8. |
Wideman C, Gallet J: Analog to digital workflow improvement: A quantitative study. J Digit Imaging 19(1):29–34, 2006
|
| |
| 9. |
Nol J, Isousard G, Mirecki J: Digital repeat analysis: Setup and operation. J Digit Imaging 19(2):159–166, 2006
|
| |
| 10. |
Honea R, Blado ME, Ma Y: Is reject analysis necessary after converting to computed radiography? J Digit Imaging 15(1):41–52,
2002
|
| |
| 11. |
Ertuk SM, Ordategui-Parra S, Ros PR: Quality management in radiology: Historical aspects and basic definitions. J Am Coll
Radiol 2(12):985–991, 2005
|
| |
| 12. |
Benedetto AR: Six Sigma: Not for the faint of heart. Radiol Manage 25(2):40–53, 2003
|
| |
| 13. |
Murphy PD: An annual strategy for total quality. Radiol Manage 14(3):58–63, 1992
|
| |
| 14. |
Adler A, Carlton R, Wold B: An analysis of radiographic repeat and reject rates. Radiol Technol 63(5):308–14, 1992
|
| |
| 15. |
Gadeholt G, Geitung JT, Gothlin JH, Asp T: Continuing reject-repeat film analysis program. Eur J Radiol 9(3):137–41, 1989
|
| |
| 16. |
Watkinson S, Moores BM, Hill SJ: Reject analysis: Its role in quality assurance. Radiography 50(593):189–94, 1984
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|