Advertisement

Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 1052–1061 | Cite as

Fundamentals of Enterprise Photodocumentation: Connecting the Clinical and Technical—a Review of Key Concepts

  • Cheryl A PetersilgeEmail author
Article

Abstract

Photodocumentation is an invaluable tool in many specialties, including dermatology, facial plastic and reconstructive surgery, and wound management. As digital cameras and camera-enabled smartphones have become omnipresent in our society, they have brought photodocumentation to all corners of healthcare organizations including the emergency department as well as family medicine and pediatrics. Simultaneously, enterprise imaging programs have evolved enabling access to all medical images for all providers throughout these organizations. Through their unique perspective, enterprise imaging teams have an opportunity to guide development of high quality, ethical programs that are compliant with legal and regulatory requirements. Clinical and technical standards for photodocumentation are not fully evolved and thus establishing an enterprise photodocumentation program will require communication and education. Development of such a program requires an understanding of the clinical, ethical, and technical issues around photodocumentation. This article explores how photodocumentation is utilized, the patient’s experience, current quality concerns, tools and technical issues around image acquisition, and the topics of informed consent, privacy, security, and lifecycle and health information management.

Keywords

Enterprise imaging Photodocumentation Clinical photography Visible light Digital imaging 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Roth CJ, Lannum LM, Persons KR: A foundation for enterprise imaging: HIMSS-SIIM collaborative white paper. J Digit Imaging 29:530–538, 2016PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Melville JD, Lukefahr JL, Cornell J, Kellogg ND, Lancaster JL: The effect of image quality on the assessment of child abuse photographs. Pediatric Emer Care 29:607–611, 2013Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lund A, Joo D, Lewis K, Arikan Y, Grunfeld A: Photodcouemtnation as an emergency department documentation tool in soft tissue infection: a randomized trial. CJEM 15:345–352, 2013PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evans SM, Baylis S, Carabott R, Jones M, Lawson Z, Marsh N, Payne-James J, Ramadani J, Vanezis P, Kemp A: Focussing on the future; Survey results on the image capture of patterned cutaneous injuries. J Forensic and Legal Medicine 24:7–11, 2014Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uzun M, Bulbul M, Toker S, Beksac B, Kara A: Medical photography: principles for orthopedics. J Orthop Surg Res 9:23–29, 2014PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wu T, Chen S, Xiong X: Evaluation of the clinical photographs in the journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery; from readers’ perspectives. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72:449–455, 2014PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wyatt KD, Willaert BN, Pallagi PJ, Uribe RA, Yiannias JA, Hellmich TR: PhotoExam: adoption of an iOS-based clinical image capture application at Mayo Clinic. Int J of Dermatol 56:1359–1365, 2017Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lakdawala N, Fontanella D, Grant-Kels JM: Ethical considerations in dermatologic photography. Clin Dermatol. 30:486–491, 2012PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eskiizmir G, Özyurt B: The importance of metric view for photo documentation of facial reconstructive surgery: a single blinded survey. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 268:931–934, 2011PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bloemen EM, Rosen T, Schiroo JAC, Clark S, Mulcare MR, Stern ME, Mysliwiec R, Flomenbaum NE, Lachs MS, Hargarten S. Photographing injuries in the acute care setting: development and evaluation of a standardized protocol for research, forensics, and clinical practice. Acad Emerg Med 23:653–659, 201PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prantl L, Brandl D, Ceballos P. A proposal for updated standards of photographic documentation in authentic medicine. Last Reconstr Sure Glob Open,  https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001389, August 17, 2017.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sommer DD, Mendelsohn M: Pitfalls of nonstandardized photography in facial plastic surgery patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 114:10–14, 2004PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hacard F, Maruani A, Delaplace M, Caille A: Patients’ acceptance of medical photography in a French Adult and paediatric dermatology department; a questionnaire survey. Br J Dermatol 169:298–305, 2013PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leger MC, WU T, Haimovic A, Kaplan R, Sanchez M, Cohen D, Leger EA, Stein JA. Patient perspectives on medical photography in dermatology. Dermatol Surg 40:1028–1037, 2014PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang SC, Anderson JA, Jones DV, Evans R: Patient perception of wound photography. Int Wound J 13:326–330, 2016PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dumestre DO, Fraulin FOG: Balancing the need for clinical photography with patient privacy issues: the search for a secure smartphone application to take and store clinical photographs. Plast Surg (Oakv) 25:255–260, 2017Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hsieh C, Yun D, Bhatia AC, Hsu JT, Ruiz de Luzuriaga AM. Patient perception on the usage of smartphones for medical photography and for reference in dermatology.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lau CK, Schumacher HHA, Irwin MS: Patients’ perception of medical photography. J Last Reconstr Aesthet Sure 63:507–511, 2010Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Franko OI, Tirrell TF: Smartphone app use among medical providers in ACGME training programs. J Med Syst 36:3135–3139, 2012PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Evans S, Baylis S, Carabott R, Jones M, Kelson Z, Marsh N, Payne-James J, Ramadani J, Vanezis P, Kemp A: Guidelines for photography of cutaneous marks and injuries: A multi-professional perspective. J Vis Commun Med 37:3–12, 2014PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    RAW benefits in forensic science. Evidence technology magazine. http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1619. Accessed December 20, 2018
  22. 22.
    Using HEIF or HEVC media on Apple devices. Apple Support. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207022. Accessed March 18, 2019
  23. 23.
    HEIF from iphones and DICOM viewers. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/comp.protocols.dicom/nhHA7_GH5EI. Accessed March 18, 2019
  24. 24.
    Cram D, Strattos R, Clark S: Review of Dicompass DICOM camera app for Android. J Digit Imaging 29:3–6, 2016PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cram D, Roth CJ, Towbin A: Orders- versus encounters-based image capture: implications pre- and post-procedure workflow, technical and build capabilities, resulting, analytics and revenue capture: HIMSS-SIIM collaborative white paper. J Digit Imaging 29:559–566, 2016PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clunie DA, Dennison DK, Cram D, Persons KR, Bronakalla MD, Primo HR: Technical challenges of enterprise imaging: HIMSS-SIIM collaborative white paper. J Digit Imaging 29:583–614, 2016PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Towbin AJ, Roth CJ, Bronkalla M, Cram D: Workflow challenges of enterprise imaging: HIMSS-SIIM collaborative white paper. J Digit Imaging 29:574–582, 2016PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    St John J, Walker J, Goldberg D, Maloney ME: Avoiding medical errors in cutaneous site identification: a best practices review. Dermatol Surg 42:477–484, 2016PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rennert R, Golinko M, Kaplan D, Falttau A, Brem H: Standardization of wound photography using the wound electronic medical record. Adv Skin Wound Care 22:32–38, 2009PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosenberg A, Meyerle JH: Total-body photography in skin cancer screening: the utility of standardized imaging. Cutis 99:312–316, 2017PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dibernardo BE, Adams RL, Krause J, Fiorillo MA, Gheradini G: Photographic standards in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:559–568, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nguyen TT, VanderWalde L, Bellavance E, Eisenhauer T, Hecken T, Johnson N, Kaufman DI, O’Neill J, Patten CR, Teller P, Tevis S, Sarantou T, Throckmorton A: Ethical considerations of medical photography in the management of breast disease. Ann Sure Oncol 25:2801–2806, 2018Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Segal J, Sacopulos MJ: Photography consent and related legal issues. Facial Plast Sure Clin North Am. 18:237–244, 2010Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chan N, Charette J, Dumestre DO, Fraulin FOG: Should ‘smart phones’ be used for patient photography? Plast Surg 24:32–34, 2016Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kunde L, McMeniman E, Parker M: Clinical photography in dermatology: ethical and medico-legal considerations in the age of digital and smartphone technology. Australasian Journal of Dermatology 54:192–197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    de Meijer PPG, Karlsson J, LaPrade RF, Verhaar JAN, Wijdicks CA: A guideline to medical photography: a perspective on digital photography in an orthopedic setting. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:2606–2611, 2012PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang K, Kowalski EJ, Chung KC: The art and science of photography in hand surgery. J Hand Surg Am 39:580–588, 2014PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dickason WL, Hanna DC: Pitfalls of comparative photography in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Last Reconstr Sure 58:166–175, 1976Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kodner C, Wetherton A: Diagnosis and management of physical abuse in children. Am Fam Physician. 15:669–675, 2013Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Biggs PR, Evans ST, Jones MD, Theobald PS: Development of a methodology for the standardization and improvement of ‘smartphone’ photography of patterned bruises and other cutaneous injuries. Science and Justice 53:358–362, 2013PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ferrucci M, Doiron TD, Thompson RM, Jones, 2nd JP, Freeman AJ, Neiman JA: Dimensional review of scales for forensic photography. J Forensic Sci 61:509–519, 2016PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Goldman RJ, Salcido R: More than one way to measure a wound: an overview of tools and techniques. Adv Skin Wound Care 15:236–243, 2002PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stotts NA. Seeing red and yellow and black. The three-color concept of wound care. Nursing 20:59–61, 1990Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bringing a camera in to the OR. AAOS Now. https://www.aaos.org/AAOSNow/2014/Feb/managing/managing8/?ssopc=1. Accessed December 19, 2018
  45. 45.
    Herrmann TL, Fauber TL, Gill J, Hoffman C, Orth DK, Peterson PA, Prouty RR, Woodward AP, Odle TG: Best practices in digital radiography. 84:83–89, 2012Google Scholar
  46. 46.
  47. 47.
    Wiedemann LA: Using clinical photos in EHRs. J AHIMA 81:44–45, 2010PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dougherty M, Washington L: Defining and disclosing the designated record set and the legal health record. J AHIMA 79:65–68, 2008PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of MedicineCase Western Reserve UniversityNoveltyUSA

Personalised recommendations