American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 170, 1153-1159, Copyright © 1998 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Radiology report times: impact of picture archiving and communication systems

S Bryan, G Weatherburn, J Watkins, M Roddie, J Keen, N Muris and MJ Buxton
Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the impact on radiologist reporting time of the change from conventional film to hard-copy computerized radiography and of the subsequent move to soft-copy images on picture archiving and communication system (PACS) workstations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A controlled before and after research design was undertaken. Data were collected on four occasions: two relating to conventional film, one relating to hard-copy computerized radiography, and one relating to soft-copy PACS images. Data collection was by direct observation of radiology reporting sessions by independent health service researchers. Data were collected on report times, details of images viewed, characteristics of the radiologist, and details of interruptions. To control for potential biases in the before and after comparisons, ordinary least squares multiple regression analysis was used. The principal comparison was between reports with PACS and reports with computerized radiography hard-copy because no change was noted in the organization of the reporting process between these two data collection rounds other than the introduction of the PACS. RESULTS: Data were collected on a total of 5568 report observations. Report time in the PACS data collection period was not significantly different (p = .32) than that in the computerized radiography hard-copy period. Reporting with the PACS was associated with significantly more (p < .01) historical images (i.e., images of the same patient obtained in previous examinations) being viewed. CONCLUSION: Report time was not lengthened by the introduction of the PACS. The finding that more historical images were viewed when the PACS was in use indicates that the PACS brought about a positive change in reporting practice.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. P. Krestin, J. C. Miller, S. J. Golding, G. G. Frija, G. M. Glazer, H. G. Ringertz, and J. H. Thrall Reinventing Radiology in a Digital and Molecular Age: Summary of Proceedings of the Sixth Biannual Symposium of the International Society for Strategic Studies in Radiology (IS3R), August 25 27, 2005 Radiology, September 1, 2007; 244(3): 633 - 638. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Roos, B. Chilla, M. Zanetti, M. Schmid, P. Koch, C. W. A. Pfirrmann, and J. Hodler MRI of Meniscal Lesions: Soft-Copy (PACS) and Hard-Copy Evaluation Versus Reviewer Experience. Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2006; 186(3): 786 - 790. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S P Prabhu, S Gandhi, and P R Goddard Ergonomics of digital imaging Br. J. Radiol., July 1, 2005; 78(931): 582 - 586. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Shaw A clinician's guide to digital X-ray systems J R Soc Med, January 8, 2001; 94(8): 391 - 395. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. H. Lev, J. Farkas, J. J. Gemmete, S. T. Hossain, G. J. Hunter, W. J. Koroshetz, and R. G. Gonzalez Acute Stroke: Improved Nonenhanced CT Detection-Benefits of Soft-Copy Interpretation by Using Variable Window Width and Center Level Settings Radiology, October 1, 1999; 213(1): 150 - 155. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				J. Hawnaur Recent advances: Diagnostic radiology BMJ, July 17, 1999; 319(7203): 168 - 171. [Full Text]