The rate of repeating X-rays in the medical centers of Jenin District/Palestine and how to reduce patient exposure to radiation

Open access


Reduction of the patient’s received radiation dose to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) is based on recommendations of radiation protection organizations such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The aim of this study was to explore the frequency and characteristics of rejected / repeated radiographic films in governmental and private centers in Jenin city. The radiological centers were chosen based on their high volume of radiographic studies. The evaluation was carried out over a period of four months. The collected data were compiled at the end of each week and entered into a computer for analysis at the end of study. Overall 5000 films (images) were performed in four months, The average repeat rate of radiographic images was 10% (500 films). Repetition rate was the same for both thoracic and abdominal images (42%). The main reason for repeating imaging was inadequate imaging quality (58.2%) and poor film processing (38%). Human error was the most likely reason necessitating the repetition of the radiographs (48 %). Infant and children groups comprised 85% of the patient population that required repetition of the radiographic studies. In conclusion, we have a higher repetition rate of imaging studies compared to the international standards (10% vs. 4-6%, respectively). This is especially noticeable in infants and children, and mainly attributed to human error in obtaining and processing images. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed on a national level due to the ill effects associated with excessive exposure to radiation especially in children, and to reduce cost of the care delivered.

[1] Bushberg JT, Seibert, JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2002.

[2] Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. Radiation protection in diagnostic and interventional radiology. Radiation Protection Series Publication No. 14.1, Victoria, 2008.

[3] Supe SJ, Lyer PS, Sasane JB, et al. Estimation and significance of patient doses from diagnostic X-ray practices in India. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 1992;43(1-4):209-211.

[4] Canon CL. McGraw-Hill Specialty board review radiology. McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, 2010.

[5] International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP Publication 60, Oxford, 1991.

[6] Shabestani MA, Abdi R, Saber MA. Repeat analysis program in radiology departments in Mazandaran province - Iran; impact on population radiation dose. Iran J Radiat Res. 2007;5(1):37-40.

[7] Sniureviciute, M, Adliene D. Problems with film processing in medical X-ray imaging in Lithuania. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):260-263.

[8] Al-Malki MA, Abulfaraj WH, Bhuiyan SI, Kinsara AA. A study on radiographic repeat rate data of several hospitals in Jeddah. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2003;103(4):323-330.

[9] Lau SL, Mak AS, Lam WT, et al. Reject analysis: A comparison of conventional filmescreen radiography and computed radiography with PACS. Radiography. 2004;10(3):183-187.

[10] Zewdeneh D, Teferi S, Admassie D. X-ray reject analysis in Tikur Anbessa and Bethzatha Hospitals. Ethiop J Health Dev. 2008;22(1):63-97.

[11] Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. BEIR V, Washington DC, 1990.

[12] McEntee MF, Kinsella C. An examination of practice during radiography of the clavicle. Radiography. 2010;16(2):125-130.

[13] International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP Publication 103, Oxford, 2008.

[14] World Health Organization (WHO) 1980. Workshop on quality assurance in diagnostic radiology. Geneva, October 20-24.

[15] Papp JF, Quality Management in the Imaging Science (Fifth edition), Riverport Lane, Elsevier MOSBY (2011).

[16] Ofori EK, Antwi WK, Arthur L, et al. Analysis and economic implications of X-ray film repeat/reject in selected hospitals in Ghana. West Afr J Radiol. 2013;20(1):14-18.

Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering

The Journal of Polish Society of Medical Physics

Journal Information

CiteScore 2017: 0.19
ICV 2017 = 103.49

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.104
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.233


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 422 412 26
PDF Downloads 217 215 19