FILM REJECT ANALYSIS AS A MEASURE OF QUALITY ASSURRANCE: A CASE STUDY OF SOME SELECTED HOSPITALS IN PLATEAU STATE, NIGERIA

Film reject analysis is a planned and systematic action necessary to provide adequate confidence that a product or service will satisfy the given requirement for quality of image or radiographs. In this research work, reject film analysis as quality assurance element will be carried out in 3 selected hospitals in Plateau state, Nigeria for different rejected film sizes in each case respectively from December, 2018- December, 2019. Rejected radiographs were collected analyzed and categorized based on body parts such as chest, skull, knee, lumbar sacral, shoulder, neck, femur and pelvis. The reasons for rejection were categorized as: Over exposure, Under exposure, Poor processing, Poor positioning, Wrong placing of anatomical marker, Fog, Artifact and Multiple exposure. The three studied hospitals (selected by convenience), H1, H2, and H3 are located in Jos and environs. From this study, it was observed that the anatomical part mostly rejected was the chest and the highest reason for the rejected radiographs was Under exposure. The reject rates of Hospitals H1, H2, and H3 were found to be 8.85%, 6.65% and 5.6% respectively which were above the World Health Organization(WHO) but within the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directorate (CRCPD) recommended permissible values of 5% and (5-10%) respectively. The findings imply that patients may have been exposed to avoidable radiation doses

Reject Rates of Radiographic Images in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology: A Literature Review

This report surveyed the image reject rates of intra-oral, extra-oral, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging in the academic literature. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were queried in mid-April 2021. Manual screening of the reference lists of the identified publications was performed to identify papers missed from the database search. All publications returned by the searches were initially included. Exclusion criteria included irrelevance, no reporting of reject rate, no access to the article, and not original article. The total number of images and the number of rejects were recorded for each type of radiographic images. Factors and commonest errors associated with the rejects were recorded. Twenty-six original articles were identified and reviewed. The average reject rate was 11.25% for bitewings, 16.38% for periapicals, 4.10% for panoramics, 6.08% for lateral cephalography, and 2.77% for CBCT. Positioning error and patient movement were two common reasons for the rejects. The average reject rates computed from data pooled across studies should form the reference values for quality assurance programs to follow. Future reject analysis studies should report more radiographic parameters such as type of collimation for intra-oral radiography and patient posture for CBCT.