Frequency and rate of Radiographics repeat and it’s causes in selected Hospitals in Kermanshah (2006)

Introduction: The examination of radiographics repeat rate and the causes are considered as one of the main factors in assessing the performance of radiographers and the function of the equipments in radiography services. The analysis of repeated films can reveal sources of the errors and areas where improvement can be made. Apart from imposing additional charges, the repeats are responsible for unnecessary exposure to a higher radiation dose on the part of the patients.  There have been some inconsistent reports of the repeat rate in kermanshah radiography centers.  Therefore, this study was designed and carried out in some selected hospitals in Kermanshah in 2006.

Materials and Methods: For this descriptive study, plain X-rays were examined over a period of five-months. Repeated films were collected by quality control technicians. Demographic information of the patients and the radiographers as well as the causes of the repeats were determined. They were then recorded into a checklists designed based on the research specific objectives. Data were then analyzed using a descriptive method.

Results: A total of 11109radiography was performed over the period. 730 repeated cases were identified. The repeat rate was 6.6%. The highest repeat rate belonged to Imam Reza Hospital at 8.5%. The most important cause of the repeat came out to be unsatisfactory exposure at 2.7%. Skull and sinuses were the two most repeated a rays (12%). Patient aged 76-90 (7%) and the uneducated (7.3%) scored the highest in terms of the number of the repeats they had. The other figures for the repeats were 6.8%, in females and 6.4% in males and in urban 6.5% and rural 6.8%. A high repeat rate (6.9%) occurred when the radiographer and the patient were of the opposite sex. Radiographers with a work experience under 2 years scored higher on the number of the repeats (9/8%), with students of radiography coming out second (9%) as opposed to technicians who had the least number of the repeats (6/7%).

Conclusion:  The result revealed the repeat rate (6/6%) consistent with those reported in other similar studies. Yet such rate could not be tolerated for some centers and also some specific areas of the body. Therefore, a number of preventive measures including regular calibration of equipments, in-service training of the staff, employing permanent radiographers in a number proportionate to the work load, giving instruction to the patients, supervising  the student radiographers, using new digital radiographic equipments could be implemented to reduce the repeat rate and also improve the safety and efficiency  of radiography centers.