PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 2798824

[Quality control in computed tomography].

Abstract

In comparison to the constancy checks in conventional roentgenography, quality control in computed tomography (CT) should be limited to a few simple but essential checks for image quality and radiation burden. These requirements, however, can only be fulfilled in part, because of the complexity of CT systems. Possible parameters are: water and air values, pixel noise/contrast resolution, spatial resolution, artifacts, homogeneity, contrast scale/tube voltage, slice thickness, positioning accuracy, image quality of the topogram, radiation dose and film imaging. With a simple test program, comprising 4 CT-scans and a camera test image that is presently being tested, most of the mentioned quantities can be checked.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G Rockstroh, S Lieberenz, U Straubel. 1989. [Quality control in computed tomography].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2798824/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

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↗