PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11911065

Quality control of the automatic processor.

Abstract

An often ignored component of a radiology quality control program is daily sensitometric testing of automatic film processors. Sensitometric strip tests can reveal fluctuating chemical activity levels of developing solutions that can have a detrimental effect on developing films. By performing a daily sensitometric strip test before patient films are developed, time, cost, and patient radiation exposure are minimized, which reduces the number of retakes as a result of processing problems. Sensitometric strip tests also assist in quality control by making troubleshooting more specific.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L M Legg. 2001. Quality control of the automatic processor.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11911065/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Automatic verification of step-and-shoot IMRT field segments using portal imaging.

In step-and-shoot IMRT, many individual beam segments are delivered. These segments are generated by the IMRT treatment planning system and subsequently transmitted electronically through computer hardware and software modules before they are finally delivered. Hence, an independent system that monitors the actual field shape during treatment delivery is an added level of quality assurance in this complicated process. In this paper we describe the development and testing of such a system. The system verifies the field shape by comparing the radiation field detected by the built-in portal imaging system on the linac to the actual field shape planned on the treatment planning system. The comparison is based on a software algorithm that detects the leaf edge positions of the radiation field on the portal image and compares that to the calculated positions. The process is fully automated and requires minimal intervention of the radiation therapists. The system has been tested with actual clinical plan sequences and was able to alert the operator of incorrect settings in real time.

Quality Control↗

Is reject analysis necessary after converting to computed radiography?

Reject analysis is an accepted standard of practice for quality assurance in conventional radiology. The need for reject analysis has been challenged by the introduction of computed radiography (CR) because of low reported reject rates and because criteria for improperly exposed images were lacking. Most CR systems include quality control (QC) workstations that are capable of modifying the appearance of images before release, and also of deleting poor images before they are analyzed. Texas Children's Hospital has been using computed radiography since October 1995, and now conducts essentially filmless imaging operations using a large-scale picture archival and communications system (PACS) with fourteen CR units. The QC workstation is a key element of our CR operation; however, the extensive software tools of the workstation are limited in terms of avoiding repeated examinations. Neither the QC workstation nor the PACS itself is designed to support reject analysis, so our task was to design a system that accommodates identification, isolation, and archiving of repeated examinations, making use of our electronic imaging systems. We had already developed transcription codes for our radiologist's examination critique, so we adopted these as codes for rejected images. The technologist at the QC workstation appends the critique code to patient demographic information, modifies other fields to indicate that the image is rejected, and archives as usual. Modified routing tables prevent the release of rejected images but ensure they are available for review. Our frequency and reasons for repeated examinations are comparable to other reports of reject analysis in the literature. The most frequent cause of a repeated examination is mis-positioning. The process of developing the method for capturing repeat, collecting the data, and analyzing it is only one-half of the battle; to achieve an improvement in services, it is necessary to feed back the results to management and staff and to implement training as indicated. It is our intention to share our results with PACS and CR vendors in the hope that they will incorporate some mechanisms for reject analysis into the design of their systems.

Quality Control↗

Monitoring the accuracy of a PACS image database.

"What you don't know won't hurt you" is a proverb that does not apply to a database on which patient lives depend. One of the core components of the picture Archiving and communications system (PACS) is an image database that contains the location and state of images and their corresponding demographic information. An image associated with the wrong patient name has potentially devastating implications, especially if the error is not caught early. This article describes how Texas Children's Hospital addresses the challenge of ensuring the accuracy of data of our PACS image database. It presents the routine checks that our PACS analysts perform every three hours and on a daily and monthly basis. These include steps involved in "fixing" exam data when an examination has missing or incorrect demographic information. In addition, this report compares how our institution assured accuracy of our film-based archive before PACS. Human error is the source of most inaccuracies in the image database, and automation such as bar code scanners and DICOM Modality Work List management have decreased their frequency, but without totally eliminating them. Some errors are routinely generated by the nature of radiology imaging operations and the limitations of devices for automating those operations. For example, computed tomography exams of the head, chest, and abdomen are routinely acquired during the same scan but must be separated into different exams for interpretation by different physicians. Factors contributing to inaccurate information include major system modifications, such as software or hardware upgrades, service interruptions, inaccurate problem descriptions provided by the user to the PACS analyst, and steps taken by the PACS analyst or technologist to correct errors.

Quality Control↗