Back to Authors

Tarbox, Lawrence

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2883-5558

Mayo Clinic

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

Citations 2

AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor‐neutral reject analysis in radiography
Little, Kevin J. , Reiser, Ingrid , Apgar, Bruce, Dave, Jaydev K. , Fisher, Ryan , Hulme, Katie, Jafari, Mary Ellen, Marshall, Emily L. , Meyer, Stephen, Moore, Quentin T , Murphy, Nicole, Nishino, Thomas K. , Nye, Katelyn, Sabol, John M. , Tarbox, Lawrence , Uzenoff, Robert, Walz‐Flannigan, Alisa , Willis, Charles E., Little, Kevin , Marshall, Emily , Nishino, Thomas , Sensakovic, William, Reiser, Ingrid , Dalal, Poonam, O'Donnell, Kevin, Sánchez, Adrian A. , Sensakovic, William F. , Zhang, Jie

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics | March 30, 2023 | Volume: 24 | Issue: 5 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/acm2.13938 Get It

AbstractReject rate analysis is considered an integral part of a diagnostic radiography quality control (QC) program. A rejected image is a patient radiograph that was not presented to a radiologist for diagnosis and that contributes unnecessary radiation dose to the patient. Reject rates that are either too high or too low may suggest systemic department shortcomings in QC mechanisms. Due to the lack of standardization, reject data often cannot be easily compared between radiography systems from different vendors. The purpose of this report is to provide guidance to help standardize data elements that are required for comprehensive reject analysis and to propose data reporting and workflows to enable an effective and comprehensive reject rate monitoring program. Essential data elements, a proposed schema for classifying reject reasons, and workflow implementation options are recommended in this task group report.
Summary of the AAPM task group 248 report: Interoperability assessment for the commissioning of medical imaging acquisition systems
Walz‐Flannigan, Alisa , Weiser, John C., Goode, Allen R. , Junck, Kevin L., Tarbox, Lawrence , Dave, Jaydev K. , Clunie, David , Langer, Steve G., McColl, Roderick W.

Medical Physics | May 6, 2019 | Volume: 46 | Issue: 7 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/mp.13571 Get It

PurposeWe summarize the AAPM TG248 Task Group report on interoperability assessment for the commissioning of medical imaging acquisition systems in order to bring needed attention to the value and role of quality assurance testing throughout the imaging chain.MethodsTo guide the clinical physicist involved in commissioning of imaging systems, we describe a framework and tools for incorporating interoperability assessment into imaging equipment commissioning.ResultsWhile equipment commissioning may coincide with equipment acceptance testing, its scope may extend beyond validation of product or purchase specifications. Equipment commissioning is meant to provide assurance that a system is ready for clinical use, and system interoperability plays an essential role in the clinical use of an imaging system.ConclusionThe functionality of a diagnostic imaging system extends beyond the acquisition console and depends on interoperability with a host of other systems such as the Radiology Information System, a Picture Archive and Communication System, post‐processing software, treatment planning software, and clinical viewers.