BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (1995) 68, 1304-1307
© 1995 British Institute of Radiology
doi:

Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nixon, P. P.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, N. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nixon, P. P.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, N. J.

The British Journal of Radiology, Vol 68, Issue 816 1304-1307, Copyright © 1995 by British Institute of Radiology


ARTICLES

An audit of film reject and repeat rates in a department of dental radiology

PP Nixon, J Thorogood, J Holloway and NJ Smith
Department of Dental Radiology, King's College School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.

A study of film reject and repeat rates was undertaken in the Department of Dental Radiology of King's College School of Medicine and Dentistry over a 6 month period. The aim of the study was to assess the effects of changes implemented after a previous audit, and to carry out a more detailed analysis of the factors influencing the reject and repeat rates using a larger volume of data. The information recorded included the equipment and projection used, and the age of the patient if under 16 years. The overall reject rate was 3.06%, 1.84% less than recorded in the earlier study, and the repeat rate was 0.93%. Positioning errors were the most frequent cause for rejection. Significant differences in reject rates were noted between different projections, and also between qualified staff and those in training. The rejection rate for patients under 16 years was not significantly higher than for patients over 16 years, the most frequent cause of rejection was still positioning faults, but patient movement accounted for a larger proportion of the rejects than was the case in adult patients. The results demonstrate the role of audit in isolating factors leading to additional exposures. The effectiveness of changes implemented following a reject film analysis is also shown.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
M Mupparapu, S Jariwala, S. Singer, I. Kim, and M Janal
Comparison of re-exposure rates of intraoral radiographs between dental students and trained dental assistants in an oral and maxillofacial radiology clinic
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., May 1, 2007; 36(4): 224 - 228.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 1995 by the British Institute of Radiology.