Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 700–708 | Cite as

Empirical Investigation of Radiologists’ Priorities for PACS Selection: An Analytical Hierarchy Process Approach

  • Vivek Joshi
  • Kyootai Lee
  • David Melson
  • Vamsi R. Narra
Article

Abstract

Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) are being widely adopted in radiology practice. The objective of this study was to find radiologists’ perspective on the relative importance of the required features when selecting or developing a PACS. Important features for PACS were identified based on the literature and consultation/interviews with radiologists. These features were categorized and organized into a logical hierarchy consisting of the main dimensions and sub-dimensions. An online survey was conducted to obtain data from 58 radiologists about their relative preferences. Analytical hierarchy process methodology was used to determine the relative priority weights for different dimensions along with the consistency of responses. System continuity and functionality was found to be the most important dimension, followed by system performance and architecture, user interface for workflow management, user interface for image manipulation, and display quality. Among the sub-dimensions, the top two features were: security, backup, and downtime prevention; and voice recognition, transcription, and reporting. Structured reporting was also given very high priority. The results point to the dimensions that can be critical discriminators between different PACS and highlight the importance of faster integration of the emerging developments in radiology into PACS.

Key words

PACS structured reporting voice recognition transcription RIS open systems proprietary systems display quality system continuity security backup recovery downtime prevention system architecture and performance user interface for image manipulation user interface workflow management, worklist 

References

  1. 1.
    Krupinski E, Kallergi M: Choosing a radiology workstation: technical and clinical considerations. Radiology 242(3):671–682, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thrall JH: Reinventing radiology in the digital age II. New directions and new stakeholder value. Radiology 237(1):15–18, 2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van de Wetering R, Batenburg R, Versendaal J, Lederman R, Firth L: A balanced evaluation perspective: picture archiving and communication system impacts on hospital workflow. J Digit Imaging 19(Suppl 1):10–7, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geis JR: Medical imaging informatics: how it improves radiology practice today. J Digit Imaging 20(2):99–104, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Branstetter IV, BF: Basics of imaging informatics. Part 1. Radiology 243(3):656–67, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saaty T: Theory and applications of the analytical network process. RWS, Pittsburg, 2005Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lai VS, Trueblood RP, Wong BK: Software selection: a case study of the application of the analytical hierarchical process to the selection of a multimedia authoring system. Information & Management 36:221–232, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teltumbde A: A framework for evaluating ERP projects. International Journal of Production Research 38(17):4507–4520, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheng EWL, Li H: Information priority-setting for better resource allocation using analytic hierarchy process. Information Management & Computer Security 9(2):61–70, 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang J, Xu J, Baladandayuthapani V: Contrast sensitivity of digital imaging display systems: contrast threshold dependency on object type and implications for monitor quality assurance and quality control in PACS. Med Phys 36(8):3682–92, 2009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morgan MB, Branstetter IV, BF, Lionetti DM, Richardson JS, Chang PJ: The radiology digital dashboard: effects on report turnaround time. J Digit Imaging 21(1):50–58, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Langer S: OpenRIMS: an open architecture radiology informatics management system. J Digit Imaging 15(2):91–7, 2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weiss DL, Siddiqui KM, Scopelliti J: Radiologist assessment of PACS user interface devices. J Am Coll Radiol 3(4):265–73, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Luo H, Hao W, Foos DH, Cornelius CW: Automatic image hanging protocol for chest radiographs in PACS. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 10(2):302–11, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Birdwell RL: The preponderance of evidence supports computer-aided detection for screening mammography. Radiology. 253(1):9–16, 2009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sadaf A, Crystal P, Scaranelo A, Helbich T: Performance of computer-aided detection applied to full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancers. Eur J Radiol. 2009; in press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krupinski EA, Radvany M, Levy A, Ballenger D, Tucker J, Chacko A, VanMetter R: Enhanced visualization processing: effect on workflow. Acad Radiol 8(11):1127–33, 2001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Faggioni L, Neri E, Cerri F, Turini F, Bartolozzi C: Integrating image processing in PACS. Eur J Radiol. 2009; in press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Branstetter IV, BF: Basics of imaging informatics: part 2. Radiology 244(1):78–84, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boochever SS: HIS/RIS/PACS integration: getting to the gold standard. Radiol Manage 26(3):16–24, 2004. quiz 25–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mehta A, Dreyer KJ, Schweitzer A, Couris J, Rosenthal D: Voice recognition—an emerging necessity within radiology: experiences of the Massachusetts General Hospital. J Digit Imaging 11(4 Suppl 2):20–3, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Trumm CG, Glaser C, Paasche V, Crispin A, Popp P, Küttner B, Francke M, Nissen-Meyer S, Reiser M: Impact of a PACS/RIS-integrated speech recognition system on radiology reporting time and report availability. Rofo 178(4):400–9, 2006. GermanPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosenthal DI, Chew FS, Dupuy DE, Kattapuram SV, Palmer WE, Yap RM, Levine LA: Computer-based speech recognition as a replacement for medical transcription. AJR Am J Roentgenol 170(1):23–5, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reiner BI: The Challenges, Opportunities, and Imperative of Structured Reporting in Medical Imaging. J Digit Imaging. 22:562–568, 2009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Langer S: Issues surrounding PACS archiving to external, third-party DICOM archives. J Digit Imaging 22(1):48–52, 2009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khorasani R: Business continuity and disaster recovery: PACS as a case example. J Am Coll Radiol 5(2):144–5, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Edge RM, McKenzie S, Ribeiro S: PACS sans RIS. Radiol Manage 26(4):28–34, 2004PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lam K, Zhao X: An application of quality function deployment to improve the quality of teaching. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 15(4):389–413, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pezzullo JA, Tung GA, Rogg JM, Davis LM, Brody JM, Mayo-Smith WW: Voice recognition dictation: radiologist as transcriptionist. J Digit Imaging 21(4):384–9, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vivek Joshi
    • 1
  • Kyootai Lee
    • 2
  • David Melson
    • 3
  • Vamsi R. Narra
    • 3
  1. 1.Miller School of MedicineUniversity of MiamiMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Technology ManagementUlsan National Institute of Science and TechnologyUlsanSouth Korea
  3. 3.Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, School of MedicineWashington UniversitySt LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations