Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A General Framework for Monitoring Image Acquisition Workflow in the Radiology Environment: Timeliness for Acute Stroke CT Imaging

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many facets of an image acquisition workflow leave a digital footprint, making workflow analysis amenable to an informatics-based solution. This paper describes a detailed framework for analyzing workflow and uses acute stroke response timeliness in CT as a practical demonstration. We review methods for accessing the digital footprints resulting from common technologist/device interactions. This overview lays a foundation for obtaining data for workflow analysis. We demonstrate the method by analyzing CT imaging efficiency in the setting of acute stroke. We successfully used digital footprints of CT technologists to analyze their workflow. We presented an overview of other digital footprints including but not limited to contrast administration, patient positioning, billing, reformat creation, and scheduling. A framework for analyzing image acquisition workflow was presented. This framework is transferable to any modality, as the key steps of image acquisition, image reconstruction, image post processing, and image transfer to PACS are common to any imaging modality in diagnostic radiology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boland GW: Enhancing CT productivity: strategies for increasing capacity. American Journal of Roentgenology 191(1):3–10, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gunn ML, Maki JH, Hall C, Bhargava P, Andre JB, Carnell J, ... Beauchamp NJ: Improving MRI scanner utilization using modality log files. J Am Coll Radiol 14(6):783–786, 2017.

  3. Flug J, Nagy P: The lean concept of waste in radiology. Journal of the American College of Radiology 8(6):443–445, 2011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hirschorn DS, Hinrichs CR, Gor DM, Shah K, Visvikis G: Impact of a diagnostic workstation on workflow in the emergency department at a level I trauma center. Journal of digital imaging 14:199–201, 2001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ, Pomerantz S, Dahlke A, Rallis D: Radiologists’ productivity in the interpretation of CT scans: a comparison of PACS with conventional film. American Journal of Roentgenology 176(4):861–864, 2001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ, Glasser D: Effect of film-based versus filmless operation on the productivity of CT technologists. Radiology 207(2):481–485, 1998

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kato H, Kubota G, Kojima K, Hayashi N, Nishihara E, Kura H, Aizawa M: Preliminary time-flow study: comparison of interpretation times between PACS workstations and films. Computerized medical imaging and graphics 19(3):261–265, 1995

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Redfern RO, Horii SC, Feingold E, Kundel HL: Radiology workflow and patient volume: effect of picture archiving and communication systems on technologists and radiologists. Journal of Digital Imaging 13:97–100, 2000

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Siegel E, Reiner B: Work flow redesign: the key to success when using PACS. American Journal of Roentgenology 178(3):563–566, 2002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Reiner B, Siegel E, Scanlon M: Changes in technologist productivity with implementation of an enterprisewide PACS. Journal of digital imaging 15(1):22–26, 2002

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Reiner BI, Siegel EL: Technologists’ productivity when using PACS: comparison of film-based versus filmless radiography. American Journal of Roentgenology 179(1):33–37, 2002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Siegel EL, Reiner BI, Siddiqui KM: Ten filmless years and ten lessons: a 10th-anniversary retrospective from the Baltimore VA Medical Center. Journal of the American College of Radiology 1(11):824–833, 2004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lepanto L, Paré G, Aubry D, Robillard P, Lesage J: Impact of PACS on dictation turnaround time and productivity. Journal of digital imaging 19(1):92, 2006

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Wideman C, Gallet J: Analog to digital workflow improvement: a quantitative study. Journal of Digital Imaging 19(1):29–34, 2006

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Humphrey LM, Fitzpatrick K, Atallah N et al.: Time comparison of intensive care units with and without digital viewing systems. J Digit Imaging 6:37–41, 1993

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schemmel A, Lee M, Hanley T, Pooler BD, Kennedy T., Field, A., ... John-Paul JY. Radiology workflow disruptors: a detailed analysis. J Am Coll Radiol 13(10):1210–1214, 2016.

  17. Dhanoa D, Dhesi TS, Burton KR, Nicolaou S, Liang T: The evolving role of the radiologist: the Vancouver workload utilization evaluation study. Journal of the American College of Radiology 10(10):764–769, 2013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. John-Paul JY, Kansagra AP, Mongan J: The radiologist's workflow environment: evaluation of disruptors and potential implications. Journal of the American College of Radiology 11(6):589–593, 2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gay SB, Sobel AH, Young LQ, Dwyer SJ: Processes involved in reading imaging studies: workflow analysis and implications for workstation development. Journal of digital imaging 10(1):40–45, 1997

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Beard D: Designing a radiology workstation: a focus on navigation during the interpretation task. Journal of Digital Imaging 3(3):152–163, 1990

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. TJC. Specifications Manual for Joint Commission National Quality Measures, Version 2017A. 2017. https://manual.jointcommission.org/releases/TJC2017A/rsrc56/Manual/TableOfContentsTJC/TJC_v2017A.pdf

  22. Saver JL: Time is brain—quantified. Stroke 37(1):263–266, 2007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Reiner B, Siegel E, Carrino JA: Workflow optimization: current trends and future directions. Journal of Digital Imaging 15(3):141–152, 2002

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Branstetter, IV BF: Basics of imaging informatics: Part. Radiology 243(3):656–667, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Branstetter, IV BF: Basics of imaging informatics: Part 2. Radiology 244(1):78–84, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cook TS, Zimmerman SL, Steingall SR, Maidment AD, Kim W, Boonn WW: Informatics in radiology: RADIANCE: an automated, enterprise-wide solution for archiving and reporting CT radiation dose estimates. Radiographics 31(7):1833–1846, 2011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gress DA, Dickinson RL, Erwin WD, Jordan DW, Kobistek RJ, Stevens DM, ...: Fairobent LA. AAPM medical physics practice guideline 6. a.: Performance characteristics of radiation dose index monitoring systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017

  28. Grimes J, Leng S, Zhang Y, Vrieze T, McCollough C: Implementation and evaluation of a protocol management system for automated review of CT protocols. Journal of applied clinical medical physics 17(5):1–11, 2016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Langer SG: A flexible database architecture for mining DICOM objects: the DICOM data warehouse. Journal of digital imaging 25(2):206–212, 2012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Langer SG: DICOM data warehouse: Part 2. Journal of digital imaging 29(3):309–313, 2016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. US Department of Health and Human Services. Security standards: General rules, 46 CFR section 164.308(a)-(c)

  32. US Department of Health and Human Services. Technical safeguards. 45 CFR section 164–312 (b)

  33. Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise Profile. “Management of Acquisition Protocols (MAP)” Published 2017–07-14 Downloaded on 8/25/2017 from http://ihe.net/Technical_Frameworks/#radiology

  34. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM). “Supplement 121: CT Procedure Plan and Protocol Storage SOP Class” Downloaded on 8/25/2017 from http://dicom.nema.org/Dicom/News/oct2013/docs_oct2013/sup121_pc.pdf

  35. Szczykutowicz TP, Siegelman J: On the same page—physicist and radiologist perspectives on protocol management and review. Journal of the American College of Radiology 12(8):808–814, 2015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Szczykutowicz TP, Malkus A, Ciano A, Pozniak M: Tracking patterns of nonadherence to prescribed CT protocol parameters. Journal of the American College of Radiology 14(2):224–230, 2017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Szczykutowicz TP, Rubert N, Belden D, Ciano A, Duplissis A, Hermanns A, Monette S, JanssenSaldivar E: A wiki based solution to managing your institutions imaging protocols. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016

  38. Szczykutowicz TP, Rubert N, Belden D, Ciano A, Duplissis A, Hermanns A, Monette S, JanssenSaldivar E: A wiki based CT protocol management system. Radiol Manage. 2015

  39. Boland GW, Houghton MP, Marchione DG, McCormick W: Maximizing outpatient computed tomography productivity using multiple technologists. Journal of the American College of Radiology 5(2):119–125, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by a research grant from GE Healthcare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Timothy P. Szczykutowicz, Christina L. Brunnquell & Walter W. Peppler

  2. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Timothy P. Szczykutowicz, Christina L. Brunnquell, Gregory D. Avey, Carrie Bartels, Daryn S. Belden, Richard J. Bruce, Aaron S. Field, Walter W. Peppler, Peter Wasmund & Gary Wendt

  3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Timothy P. Szczykutowicz & Aaron S. Field

  4. 1005 Wisconsin Institutes for Medical Research, 1111 Highland Ave, Madison, WI, 53705, USA

    Timothy P. Szczykutowicz

Authors
  1. Timothy P. Szczykutowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina L. Brunnquell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gregory D. Avey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carrie Bartels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daryn S. Belden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Richard J. Bruce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Aaron S. Field
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Walter W. Peppler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Peter Wasmund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Gary Wendt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy P. Szczykutowicz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

All authors are involved in a collaborative project that supplies CT protocols to GE Healthcare. TPS is also a GE consultant and the founder of protocolshare.org. RB is co-founder and officer of ImageMoverMD, and GW is on the MAB of McKesson and HealthMyne, a stockholder in HealthMyne, and co-founder of WITS(MD). AF receives research support from GE Healthcare. WP is a stockholder in GE Healthcare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Szczykutowicz, T.P., Brunnquell, C.L., Avey, G.D. et al. A General Framework for Monitoring Image Acquisition Workflow in the Radiology Environment: Timeliness for Acute Stroke CT Imaging. J Digit Imaging 31, 201–209 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-018-0055-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-018-0055-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation