Advertisement

Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 486–495 | Cite as

PACS Administrators’ and Radiologists’ Perspective on the Importance of Features for PACS Selection

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

Abstract

Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) play a critical role in radiology. This paper presents the criteria important to PACS administrators for selecting a PACS. A set of criteria are identified and organized into an integrative hierarchical framework. Survey responses from 48 administrators are used to identify the relative weights of these criteria through an analytical hierarchy process. The five main dimensions for PACS selection in order of importance are system continuity and functionality, system performance and architecture, user interface for workflow management, user interface for image manipulation, and display quality. Among the subdimensions, the highest weights were assessed for security, backup, and continuity; tools for continuous performance monitoring; support for multispecialty images; and voice recognition/transcription. PACS administrators’ preferences were generally in line with that of previously reported results for radiologists. Both groups assigned the highest priority to ensuring business continuity and preventing loss of data through features such as security, backup, downtime prevention, and tools for continuous PACS performance monitoring. PACS administrators’ next high priorities were support for multispecialty images, image retrieval speeds from short-term and long-term storage, real-time monitoring, and architectural issues of compatibility and integration with other products. Thus, next to ensuring business continuity, administrators’ focus was on issues that impact their ability to deliver services and support. On the other hand, radiologists gave high priorities to voice recognition, transcription, and reporting; structured reporting; and convenience and responsiveness in manipulation of images. Thus, radiologists’ focus appears to be on issues that may impact their productivity, effort, and accuracy.

Keywords

Picture archiving and communication system PACS Analytical hierarchy process AHP RIS Structured reporting Voice recognition Transcription Open systems Proprietary systems Display quality System continuity Security Backup Recovery Downtime prevention PACS performance monitoring Configuration Upgrade Cardiology images Pathology images System architecture and performance User interface for image manipulation User interface workflow management Worklist management 

References

  1. 1.
    Thrall JH: Reinventing radiology in the digital age II. New directions and new stakeholder value. Radiology 237(1):15–18, 2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Geis JR: Medical imaging informatics: how it improves radiology practice today. J Digit Imaging 20(2):99–104, 2007PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Branstetter IV: BF: basics of imaging informatics. Part 1. Radiology 243(3):656–667, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Franklin MA: A hospital CEO’s perspective: radiology should lead the way in reforming health care delivery. J Am Coll Radiol 10(4):279–282, 2013PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saaty T: Theory and applications of the analytical network process. RWS, Pittsburg, 2005Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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. Inf Manag 36:221–232, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Teltumbde A: A framework for evaluating ERP projects. Int J Prod Res 38(17):4507–4520, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheng EWL, Li H: Information priority-setting for better resource allocation using analytic hierarchy process. Inf Manag Comput Secur 9(2):61–70, 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Joshi V, Lee K, Melson D, Narra VR: Empirical investigation of radiologists’ priorities for PACS selection: an analytical hierarchy process approach. J Digit Imaging 24(4):700–708, 2011PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krupinski E, Kallergi M: Choosing a radiology workstation: technical and clinical considerations. Radiology 242(3):671–682, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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):3682–3692, 2009PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D’Asseler Y, Koole M, Van Laere K, Vandenberghe S, Bouwens L, Van de Walle R, Van de Wiele C, Lemahieu I, Dierckx RA: PACS and multimodality in medical imaging. Technol Health Care 8(1):35–52, 2000. PubMed PMID: 10942990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weiss DL, Siddiqui KM, Scopelliti J: Radiologist assessment of PACS user interface devices. J Am Coll Radiol 3(4):265–273, 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):302–311, 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 77(3):457–461, 2011PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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):1127–1133, 2001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Branstetter IV, BF: Basics of imaging informatics: part 2. Radiology 244(1):78–84, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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):20–23, 1998PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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):23–25, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reiner BI: The challenges, opportunities, and imperative of structured reporting in medical imaging. J Digit Imaging 22:562–568, 2009PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Langer S: OpenRIMS: an open architecture radiology informatics management system. J Digit Imaging 15(2):91–97, 2002PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Langer S: Issues surrounding PACS archiving to external, third-party DICOM archives. J Digit Imaging 22(1):48–52, 2009PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kolowitz BJ, Lauro GR, Barkey C, Black H, Light K, Deible C: Workflow continuity—moving beyond business continuity in a multisite 24–7 healthcare organization. J Digit Imaging 25(6):744–750, 2012PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khorasani R: Business continuity and disaster recovery: PACS as a case example. J Am Coll Radiol 5(2):144–145, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Perez F, Huguet J, Aguilar R, Lara L, Larrabide I, Villa-Uriol MC, López J, Macho JM, Rigo A, Rosselló J, Vera S, Vivas E, Fernàndez J, Arbona A, Frangi AF, Herrero Jover J, González Ballester MA: RADStation3G: a platform for cardiovascular image analysis integrating PACS, 3D+t visualization and grid computing. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 110(3):399–410, 2013PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Duncan LD, Gray K, Lewis JM, Bell JL, Bigge J, McKinney JM: Clinical integration of picture archiving and communication systems with pathology and hospital information system in oncology. Am Surg 76(9):982–986, 2010PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Code of Federal Regulations: TITLE 45 PUBLIC WELFARE, Department of Health and Human Services, PART 46 PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS. January 14, 2009. Available from: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/ohrpregulations.pdf and http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html.
  29. 29.
    Dykema J, Jones NR, Piché T, Stevenson J: Surveying clinicians by Web: current issues in design and administration. Eval Health Prof 36:352, 2013PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lam K, Zhao X: An application of quality function deployment to improve the quality of teaching. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 15(4):389–413, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nance Jr, JW, Meenan C, Nagy PG: The future of the radiology information system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200(5):1064–1070, 2013. PubMed PMID: 23617491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vivek Joshi
    • 1
  • Vamsi R. Narra
    • 2
  • Kailash Joshi
    • 3
  • Kyootai Lee
    • 4
  • David Melson
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyIcahn School of Medicine at Mt. SinaiNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, School of MedicineWashington UniversitySt LouisUSA
  3. 3.University of MissouriSt LouisUSA
  4. 4.Graduate School of Technology ManagementSogang UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  5. 5.Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, School of MedicineWashington UniversitySt LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations