Call to Action: Creating Resources for Radiology Technologists to Capture Higher Quality Portable Chest X-rays.

covid-19 imaging imaging quality medical education medical errors medical quality pcxr portable chest x-rays radiology radiology technologists

Journal

Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Historique:
accepted: 15 09 2022
entrez: 12 12 2022
pubmed: 13 12 2022
medline: 13 12 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Background Patient rotation, foreign body overlying anatomy, and anatomy out of field of view can have detrimental impacts on the diagnostic quality of portable chest x-rays (PCXRs), especially as the number of PCXR imaging increases due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although preventable, these "quality failures" are common and may lead to interpretative and diagnostic errors for the radiologist. Aims In this study, we present a baseline quality failure rate of PCXR imaging as observed at our institution. We also conduct a focus group highlighting the key issues that lead to the problematic images and discuss potential interventions targeting technologists that can be implemented to address imaging quality failure rate. Materials and methods A total of 500 PCXRs for adult patients admitted to a large university hospital between July 12, 2021, and July 25, 2021, were obtained for evaluation of quality. The PCXRs were evaluated by radiology residents for failures in technical image quality. The images were categorized into various metrics including the degree of rotation and obstruction of anatomical structures. After collecting the data, a focus group involving six managers of the technologist department at our university hospital was conducted to further illuminate the key barriers to quality PCXRs faced at our institution.. Results  Out of the 500 PCXRs evaluated, 231 were problematic (46.2%). 43.5% of the problematic films with a repeat PCXR within one week showed that there was a technical problem impacting the ability to detect pathology. Most problematic films also occurred during the night shift (48%). Key issues that lead to poor image quality included improper patient positioning, foreign objects covering anatomy, and variances in technologists' training. Three interventions were proposed to optimize technologist performance that can lower quality failure rates of PCXRs. These include a longitudinal educational curriculum involving didactic sessions, adding nursing support to assist technologists, and adding an extra layer of verification by internal medicine residents before sending the films to the radiologist. The rationale for these interventions is discussed in detail so that a modified version can be implemented in other hospital systems.  Conclusion This study illustrates the high baseline error rate in image quality of PCXRs at our institution and demonstrates the need to improve on image quality. Poor image quality negatively impacts the interpretive accuracy of radiologists and therefore leads to wrong diagnoses. Increasing educational resources and support for technologists can lead to higher image quality and radiologist accuracy.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36507112
doi: 10.7759/cureus.29197
pmc: PMC9731552
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e29197

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022, Jin et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

J Digit Imaging. 2013 Aug;26(4):610-3
pubmed: 23771825
J Am Coll Radiol. 2004 Jan;1(1):59-65
pubmed: 17411521
Insights Imaging. 2014 Dec;5(6):723-30
pubmed: 25272950
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2022 Jan-Feb;51(1):38-45
pubmed: 33446334
Respir Care. 2012 Mar;57(3):427-43
pubmed: 22391269
J Trauma Manag Outcomes. 2013 May 09;7(1):2
pubmed: 23656999
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Apr;204(4):903-8
pubmed: 25794085
Radiol Technol. 2007 Jul-Aug;78(6):494-516; quiz 517-9
pubmed: 17626232
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Nov;203(5):957-64
pubmed: 25341133
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2018 Dec 05;2018:780-788
pubmed: 30815120
J Hosp Med. 2019 Feb;14(2):83-89
pubmed: 30785415
Insights Imaging. 2021 Apr 20;12(1):51
pubmed: 33877458
World J Radiol. 2010 Oct 28;2(10):377-83
pubmed: 21161023
Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2016 Jul 24;30:402
pubmed: 27683643
Clin Radiol. 2016 Jul;71(7):698-701
pubmed: 27156208
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 May;188(5):1173-8
pubmed: 17449754
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Dec 15;96(24):1840-50
pubmed: 15601640
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Oct 1;180(10):1369-1370
pubmed: 32730623
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Nov;211(5):986-992
pubmed: 30063376
Radiology. 2020 Nov;297(2):374-379
pubmed: 32808887
J Med Radiat Sci. 2022 Jun;69(2):147-155
pubmed: 35180810
Crit Care Clin. 2007 Jul;23(3):539-73
pubmed: 17900484
Pediatr Radiol. 2011 May;41(5):592-601
pubmed: 21191577
Intensive Care Med. 2012 Nov;38(11):1787-99
pubmed: 23011527
Phys Eng Sci Med. 2020 Sep;43(3):765-779
pubmed: 32662037
Res Nurs Health. 2010 Aug;33(4):276-87
pubmed: 20645420

Auteurs

Michael X Jin (MX)

Radiology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, USA.

Kevin Gilotra (K)

Radiology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, USA.

Austin Young (A)

Radiology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, USA.

Elaine Gould (E)

Radiology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, USA.

Classifications MeSH