Premium
SU‐E‐I‐77: Review of Display Quality Control: Findings and Management
Author(s) -
Weber H,
WalzFlannigan A,
Stekel S,
Langer S
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4924074
Subject(s) - luminance , computer science , vendor , quality (philosophy) , dicom , control (management) , reliability engineering , engineering , artificial intelligence , philosophy , epistemology , marketing , business
Purpose: Time spent and equipment purchased for diagnostic display testing costs money. It is important to understand the values of tests in order to balance cost and value. We describe our experience with both hands‐on and remote quality control testing for diagnostic displays and provide a summary and implications of our findings. We find this information helpful in guiding our own QC program management and it may be of similar benefit to others. Methods: Our data is taken from 4 years of testing a fleet of about 650 color LCD, medical‐grade diagnostic quality displays. The last 2.5 years of data include both hands‐on and remote testing that was facilitated by front panel luminance sensors and remote fleet management tools. Quality control data is included for the following tests:‐Luminance Uniformity‐Artifact‐Max/Min Luminance‐DICOM GSDF conformance. Results: Within the first two years, the majority of displays failed. Fundamental equipment issues were uncovered by quality control testing and were subsequently addressed by the vendor. After the first two years, failures were found in approximately 1% of remote luminance tests done quarterly. Approximately 1–2% of remote tests resulted in communication errors during quarterly testing, most frequently because of USB cables coming unplugged. Primary failure modes are presented. Conclusion: Remote luminance testing (with recalibration only as needed) allowed us to assess the stability in the performance of our diagnostic display fleet. Initial, semiannual testing of new displays uncovered systematic problems with luminance stabilization and showed great value. Ongoing testing has resulted in finding more communication errors rather than luminance related failures, though communication errors have been greatly reduced through re‐engineering. Remote testing does provide the ability to test and recalibrate without a site visit and can save time in the reading room where only qualitative testing is currently performed.