查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 放射治療廢片分析
- 明室系統與一般暗房之X光片廢片分析
- 骨盆固定器對擺位誤差的影響
- 廢片分析--一年來之經驗
- Postoperative Radiotherapy of Adult Supratentorial High-grade Astrocytoma
- 品管圈(Q.C.C.)手法提升農企業組織經營效率之個案研究
- Malignant Primary Extragonadal Germ Cell Tumors of Mediastinum--An Analysis of Clinical and Radiological Features in 15 Cases
- Radiation Therapy in Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma
- 防風指標成分之製備與品質管制
- 印刷控制導表對印刷品品質管制與檢測的差異
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 放射治療廢片分析=An Analysis of Reject Film in a Radiotherapy Department |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 阮國榮; 王重榮; 劉明祥; 蔣文忠; 黃雅玉; 謝震球; | 書刊名 | 中華放射線醫學雜誌 |
卷期 | 26:4 2001.08[民90.08] |
頁次 | 頁165-168 |
分類號 | 419.27 |
關鍵詞 | 廢片; 廢片率; 放射治療; 品質管制; Reject film; Rejection rate; Radiotherapy; Quality assurance; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本研究探討放射治療科之廢片率,並分析其產生原因,藉以減少醫療浪費,提升治療品質。本研究收集1999年6月至2000年1月之模擬攝影定位片(SF)及治療室驗證片(VF),凡經醫師或治療室資深技術師認定無法判讀之X光片則列為廢片,按月收集,然後計算其每月廢片率(廢片量/月用量)及平均廢片率。廢片產生原因依技術(例如曝光、配件、中心點偏離等)、病人、機械等三項因素歸類。研究期間,第一階段(前四個月)為探討期,第二階段(後四個月)為宣導期,我們針對兩階段之廢片率做比較,以探討廢片率改善之情形。在研究的8個月期間,SF總用量為4669張,廢片282張,每月廢片率4.84-10.9%,平均廢片率為6.04%。VF總用量為5789張,廢片119張,每月廢片率0.87-3.4%,平均廢片率為2.06%。廢片產生原因以技術因素最多,佔95.97%,病人、機械因素各佔2.13%、1.9%。SF在第一及第二階段廢片率分別為7.11%及5.02%,VF在第一及第二階段之廢片率以Chi-Squared test比較,第二階段之廢片率統計上均比第一階段有意義的降低(p<0.05)。廢片分析是放射治療品管之一,廢片之成因以技術因素為主,廢片率可經由人員教育訓練而獲得改善。 |
英文摘要 | Purpose: This study reported the rate and causes of reject films in a radiotherapy department. Materials and methods: This study collected the simulation films (SF) and verification films (VF) of patients treated with radiotherapy at this department between June, 1999 and January 2000. Films justified by physicians or senior technicians as poor in image quality or inaccurate for localization were considered as reject films. The reject films were collected and its rate calculated. The causes of film rejection were documented and classified into three categories, namely technique-, patient-, and facility-related factors. For analysis, the first and the later 4 months of the study were defined as Period 1 and Period 2, respectively. In order to evaluate any reduction in the rejection rate may exist in the two studying periods, the rejection rates of the two respective periods were compared and tested by Chi-Squared test. Results: In the period of study, total used and rejected SF was 4669 and 282, respectively. Monthly rejection rate of the SF ranged form 4.84% to 10.09%, with an average of 6.04%. Total used and rejected VF was 5789 and 119, respectively. Monthly rejection rate of the VF ranged from 0.87% to 3.4%, with an average of 2.06%. The most common cause of film rejection was related to technique errors, accounting for 95.97% of rejected films. Rejection rates for SF in the Period 1 vs Period 2 were 7.11% and 5.85%, respectively. Rejection rates for VF in the Period 1 vs Period 2 were 2.34% and 0.88%, respectively. The differences of respective rejection rates in the two studying periods were statistically significant (p<0.05). Conclusion: Reject film analysis should be included as part of quality assurance program in a radiotherapy department. The most common cause of film rejection in the practice of radiotherapy was technique-related. The reduction of rejection rate was achievable by patient education and personnel training. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。