Advertisement

Digital Radiology Divide at McKinly

  • Neal Goldstein
  • David Ross
  • Ken Christensen
  • Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer
  • Aseem Kumar
  • Marilyn Schroeder
Chapter
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

Abstract

McKinly Hospital for Children, one of the leading pediatric caregivers and research centers in the nation, is implementing a Picture Archive and Communication System (PACS) to promote patient care, enhance efficiency, and reduce costs. The medical imaging department is leading the effort to ensure seamless integration and interoperability, while minimizing the organizational, political, financial, and managerial issues. This case identifies the Organizational Behavior risks and benefits that deployment of a hospital wide information system presents. Additionally, a full case analysis and preferred implementation strategy provide a framework for any organization considering PACS or similar health information technology systems.

The medical imaging department is located on the first floor of the hospital while the department’s magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) division resides on the ground floor. The department consists of highly trained pediatric radiologists, radiologic technologists, nurses, and non-clinical support.

To further promote patient care, enhance efficiency, and reduce costs, the imaging department is implementing a Picture Archive and Communication System (PACS). To supplement PACS, the department is also considering Computed Radiography (CR) and Digital Dictation/Voice Recognition (DDVR) systems.

Keywords

Compute Radiography Radiology Information System Clerical Staff Medical Imaging Department Pediatric Caregiver 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Cabrera A. Defining the role of a PACS technologist. J Digit Imaging. 2002;15(supp 1):120-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Gale B, Safriel Y, Lukban A, Kalowitz J, Fleischer J, Gordon D. Radiology report production times: voice recognition vs. transcription. Radiol Manage. 2001;23:18-22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Gale DR, Gale ME, Schwartz RK, Muse VV, Walker RE. An automated PACS workstation interface: A timesaving enhancement. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:33-36.Google Scholar
  4. Hundt W, Stark O, Scharnberg B, et al. Speech processing in radiology. Eur Radiol. 1999;9:1451-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Levine BA, Mun SK, Benson HR, Horii SC. Assessment of the integration of a HIS/RIS with a PACS. J Digit Imaging. 2003;16:133-140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Carrin JA, Goldburgh MM. SCAR radiologic technologist survey: Analysis of the impact of digital technologies on productivity. J Digit Imaging. 2002;15:132-140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Siegel E, Reiner B. Work flow redesign: The key to success when using PACS. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:563-566.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neal Goldstein
    • 1
  • David Ross
    • 1
  • Ken Christensen
    • 1
  • Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer
    • 1
  • Aseem Kumar
    • 1
  • Marilyn Schroeder
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical EpidemiologyOregon Health Science UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations