Analysis of the X-ray work flow in two diagnostic imaging departments with and without a RIS/PACS system.

ASUR Marche, Zona Territoriale 9, Macerata Hospital, Macerata, Italy.
Journal of Digital Imaging (Impact Factor: 1.1). 02/2006; 19 Suppl 1:18-28. DOI: 10.1007/s10278-006-0858-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A traditional radiological workflow is compared with one based on radiology information system/picture archiving and communication system (RIS/PACS). X-ray workflow process was considered in both radiology departments. First, the study identified the main phases of the research work as follows: Process Analysis, Data Collection and Elaboration, Interpretation. Afterwards, the main steps of the whole image acquisition process were defined, and each step was divided into a number of elementary operations. Then, the time required to complete each of these was measured. Data collected were elaborated and synthesized to obtain time frequency distributions for each step and evaluation of the total time for the whole working flow. Statistical elaboration of the collected data shows that x-ray working time decreases, between 35% and 57%, when RIS/PACS is used. Detailed analysis of the whole working process allows identification of possible critical points to improve the image acquisition process.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The radiological examinations performed in intensive care units (ICUs) were analyzed for the purpose of internal quality control. Data included the type of examination performed, the time of day the examination was performed and the differences in radiologist report turnaround times. A retrospective analysis of the radiology information system (RIS) database of all radiological examinations performed in the ICU of a large German hospital from 2009 through 2011 was carried out. The search retrieved 75,169 examinations performed in ICU patients which were included in the analysis. The records were analyzed for type of radiological examination performed, i.e. conventional X-ray, ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), angiography and nuclear medicine examinations, time of day the examination was performed and the interval between examination and time of reporting and release of the final report. Cross-modality it took on average 52 min until a report was written and approximately 7 h before the final report was released. Turnaround times were shortest for ultrasound, conventional X-ray and CT. Over the 3-year observation period there was an overall tendency toward shorter turnaround times whereby improvement in time until reporting was most marked for conventional X-ray, MRI and ultrasound (reduction of 24, 17, and 15 min, respectively). The time until release of the final report improved most markedly for CT, conventional X-ray and angiography (improvement of approximately 6.67, 5.08 and 0.78 h, respectively). During the 3-year observation period a reduction in turnaround times for reporting results and release of finalized reports could be observed, despite an increase in the total number of cases.
    Der Radiologe 08/2013; · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goal of the study was to evaluate the acceptance of a web-based picture archiving and communication system (PACS) by orthopedic surgeons 1 year after implementation. One year after the implementation of a web-based PACS all physicians were surveyed with a standardized questionnaire. Questions included: speed of PACS, quality of clinicoradiological meetings, quality of monitors, PACS training, and performance. Data were evaluated separately for the Department of Orthopedic Surgery and the reference group of all other physicians. Among the respondents, 92% of the orthopedic surgeons stated there was a reduction of time required to receive images, and 64% concluded that patient care was faster. Archived images were received in less than 5 min in 82% after PACS and in 8% before PACS. The clinicoradiological meetings improved with PACS in 100% due to beamer presentation. All would recommend a PACS. The equipment to view images in the operating theater was assessed as being good or very good by 83%; monitor quality was judged better for the outpatient clinics (100% good or very good). Conventional radiograms were missed at the ward rounds by 56%. Training for PACS was considered sufficient by 67%, and 15% asked for refresher courses. In the reference group 60% asked for refresher courses. In the comparison of orthopedic surgeons with the reference group PACS was judged better especially concerning the viewing software and quality of monitors. There is an over all acceptance of PACS by physicians outside the radiology department. The availability of images was not only facilitated it was faster as well. However, the quality of monitors in the operating theater should be improved. To achieve sustained success of PACS consistent training on PACS and its features is necessary. Conventional radiograms were often missed at the ward rounds.
    Der Orthopäde 04/2010; 39(10):994-1002. · 0.51 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medical imaging is one of the most important diagnostic instruments in clinical practice. The technological development of digital medical imaging has enabled healthcare services to undertake large scale projects that require the participation and collaboration of many professionals of varied backgrounds and interests as well as substantial investments in infrastructures. Rather than focusing on systems for dealing with digital medical images, this article deals with the management of projects for implementing these systems, reviewing various organizational, technological, and human factors that are critical to ensure the success of these projects and to guarantee the compatibility and integration of digital medical imaging systems with other health information systems. To this end, the author relates several lessons learned from a review of the literature and the author's own experience in the technical coordination of digital medical imaging projects.
    Radiología 08/2012;


Available from