Does periodic lung screening of films meets standards?
Objective: To determine whether the workers’ periodic chest x-ray screening techniques in accordance with the quality standards is the responsibility of physicians. Evaluation of differences of interpretations by physicians in different levels of education and the importance of standardization of interpretation.
Methods: Previously taken chest radiographs of 400 workers who are working in a factory producing the glass run channels were evaluated according to technical and quality standards by three observers (pulmonologist, radiologist, pulmonologist assistant). There was a perfect concordance between radiologist and pulmonologist for the underpenetrated films. Whereas there was perfect concordance between pulmonologist and pulmonologist assistant for over penetrated films.
Results: Pulmonologist (52%) has interpreted the dose of the films as regular more than other observers (radiologist; 44.3%, pulmonologist assistant; 30.4%). The frequency of interpretation of the films as taken in inspiratory phase by the pulmonologist (81.7%) was less than other observers (radiologist; 92.1%, pulmonologist assistant; 92.6%). The rate of the pulmonologist (53.5%) was higher than the other observers (radiologist; 44.6%, pulmonologist assistant; 41.8%) for the assessment of the positioning of the patients as symmetrical. Pulmonologist assistant (15.3%) was the one who most commonly reported the parenchymal findings (radiologist; 2.2%, pulmonologist; 12.9%).
Conclusion: It is necessary to reorganize the technical standards and exposure procedures for improving the quality of the chest radiographs. The reappraisal of all interpreters and continuous training of technicians is required.
How to cite this:Binay S, Arbak P, Safak AA, Balbay EG, Bilgin C, Karatas N. Does periodic lung screening of films meets standards? Pak J Med Sci. 2016;32(6):1506-1511. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.326.11267
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- There are currently no refbacks.