Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Swiss teleradiology survey: present situation and future trends

  • Computer Applications
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to obtain a survey about the present situation including the usage pattern, technical characteristics and the anticipated future of teleradiology in Switzerland. An internet-based questionnaire was made available to all members of the Swiss Society of Radiology. Questions concerning current teleradiology usage, the type of transmitted modalities, the technology employed, security, billing issues and the anticipated future of teleradiology were addressed. One hundred and two (22.67%) of 450 radiologists responded to the survey. Of the total, 41.2% (42) were teleradiology users, 35.3% (36) planned to use teleradiology in the near future and 24.5% (25) did not use or plan to use teleradiology. The mean number of examinations transmitted per month was 198 (range 1–2,000) and the mean distance was 33 km (range 1,250 km). An emergency service was considered the most important purpose (mean score 6.90; minimum 1, maximum 10) for the use of teleradiology, followed by image distribution (mean 6.74) and expert consultation (mean 6.61). The most commonly transmitted modality was computed tomography (mean 8.80), followed by conventional X-rays (8.40) and magnetic resonance imaging (8.32). The most commonly transmitted format was Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) (66.7%), followed by bitmap/Joint Photographic Experts Group (jpg) (38.1%), using the DICOM send/receive protocol (52.4%), followed by the hypertext transfer protocol (26.2%) and e-mail (21.4%). For security a secure connection (54.8%) followed by encryption (14.3%) and anonymization (9.5%) was used. For the future, image distribution was rated the most important aspect of teleradiology (7.88), followed by emergency (7.22) and expert consultation (6.53). Development of legal regulations is considered most important (8.17), followed by data security guidelines (8.15). Most radiologists believe that insurance companies should pay for the costs of teleradiology (37.3%), followed by the radiologist (33.3%). In conclusion, in Switzerland a wide spectrum of teleradiology applications and technologies is in use. Guidelines and reimbursement issues remain to be solved.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Linkous JD (2002) Telemedicine: an overview. J Med Pract Manage 18:24–27

    Google Scholar 

  2. Struber J, Tichon J (2003) Minimum technical requirements and evaluating effectiveness of teleradiology. Technol Health Care 11:391–398

    Google Scholar 

  3. Walz M, Bolte R, Lehmann KJ, Lutgemeier J, Georgi M (1999) Economic analysis of teleradiology applications with KAMEDIN. Stud Health Technol Inform 64:208–216

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kangarloo H, Valdez JA, Yao L, Chen S, Curran J, Goldman D, Sinha U, Dionisio JD, Taira R, Sayre J, Seeger L, Johnson R, Barbaric Z, Steckel R (2000) Improving the quality of care through routine teleradiology consultation. Acad Radiol 7:149–155

    Google Scholar 

  5. Johansen I, Breivik E (2004) Is teleradiology service in primary health care cost-effective? Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 124:2490–2492

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hynes DM, Stevenson G, Nahmias C (1997) Towards filmless and distance radiology. Lancet 350:657–660

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ashcroft RE, Goddard PR (2000) Ethical issues in teleradiology. Br J Radiol 73:578–582

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kalyanpur A, Neklesa VP, Taylor CR, Daftary AR, Brink JA (2000) Evaluation of JPEG and wavelet compression of body CT images for direct digital teleradiologic transmission. Radiology 217:772–779

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dreyer KJ (2000) Why IHE? Radiographics 20:1583–1584

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bernardini A, Alonzi M, Campioni P, Vecchioli A, Marano P (2003) IHE: integrating the healthcare enterprise, towards complete integration of healthcare information systems. Rays 28:83–93

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stranzinger E, Treumann TC, Dreier D, Allgayer B (2003) Teleradiology for emergency cranial computed tomography. RoFo 175:646–653

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bolte R, Walz M, Lehmann KJ, Hothorn T, Brill C, Hothorn L, Georgi M (1998) Teleradiology: results of a questionnaire of German radiologists. J Telemed Telecare 4(Suppl 1):69–71

    Google Scholar 

  13. Walz M, Klose K, Wein B (1999) Bericht zu Teleradiologie Aktivitäten- und Ergebnissen der ANARAD—Studie und AGIT. RoFo 170:M107–M110

    Google Scholar 

  14. Boehm T, Handgraetinger O, Link J, Ploner R, Voellmy DR, Marincek B, Wildermuth S (2004) Evaluation of radiological workstations and web-browser-based image distribution clients for a PACS project in hands-on workshops. Eur Radiol 14:908–914

    Google Scholar 

  15. Goh KY, Tsang KY, Poon WS (1997) Does teleradiology improve inter-hospital management of head-injury? Can J Neurol Sci 24:235–239

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kalyanpur A, Neklesa VP, Pham DT, Forman HP, Stein ST, Brink JA (2004) Implementation of an international teleradiology staffing model. Radiology 232:415–419

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kalyanpur A, Weinberg J, Neklesa V, Brink JA, Forman HP (2003) Emergency radiology coverage: technical and clinical feasibility of an international teleradiology model. Emerg Radiol 10:115–118

    Google Scholar 

  18. Weisser G, Walz M, Koester C, Dinter D, Duber C (2002) New concepts in teleradiology with Dicom e-mail. Biomed Tech (Berl) 47(Suppl 1 Pt 1):356–359

    Google Scholar 

  19. (2001) DICOM STANDARDS COMMITTEE Supp 54 Parts 11,12 DICOM MIME Content-Type. ftp://medical.nema.org/medical/dicom/final/sup54_ft.pdf, accessed 11.14.2004

  20. Caffery L, Manthey K (2004) Implementation of a Web-based teleradiology management system. J Telemed Telecare 10(Suppl 1):22–25

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nerlich M, Balas EA, Schall T, Stieglitz SP, Filzmaier R, Asbach P, Dierks C, Lacroix A, Watanabe M, Sanders JH, Doarn CR, Merrell RC (2002) Teleconsultation practice guidelines: report from G8 Global Health Applications Subproject 4. Telemed J E Health 8:411–418

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pickett SM, van der Heide GW (1999) Medicolegal risk in telemedicine: risk control in teleradiology. Med J Aust 171:563–565

    Google Scholar 

  23. White P (2002) Legal issues in teleradiology-distant thoughts! Br J Radiol 75:201–206

    Google Scholar 

  24. American College of Radiology. ACR Standard for teleradiology. http://www.acr.org/s_acr/bin.asp?CID=541&DID=12292&DOC=FILE.PDF

  25. Dalla Palma F, Tamburrini O, Capotondi C, Caramella D, De Ferrari F, Luca F, Moser E, Saccavini C, Sacco P, Vimercati F (2004) Teleradiology (document approved by the Directive Council SIRM 18.12.2003). Radiol Med (Torino) 107:419–425

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rigby M, Forsstrom J, Roberts R, Wyatt J (2001) Verifying quality and safety in health informatics services. BMJ 323:552–556

    Google Scholar 

  27. Walz M, Weisser G, Bolte R, Teubner J, Loose R, Duber C (2002) Quality assurance with teleradiology. Radiologe 42:101–108

    Google Scholar 

  28. Takada A, Kasahara T, Kinosada Y, Hosoba M, Nishimura T (2003) Economic impact of real-time teleradiology in thoracic CT examinations. Eur Radiol 13:1566–1570

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hayward T, Mitchell J (2000) The cost-effectiveness of teleradiology at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Adelaide. J Telemed Telecare 6(Suppl 1):S23–S25

    Google Scholar 

  30. Maass M, Kosonen M, Kormano M (2000) Transportation savings and medical benefits of a teleneuroradiological network. J Telemed Telecare 6:142–146

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bergh B, Schlaefke A, Pietsch M, Garcia I, Vogl TJ (2003) Evaluation of a “no-cost” internet technology-based system for teleradiology and co-operative work. Eur Radiol 13:425–434

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Orthopedic University Hospital Balgrist, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland

    Bernhard Lienemann, Juerg Hodler & Christian W. A. Pfirrmann

  2. Department of Radiology, Oberwalliser Kreisspital Brig, Überlandstrasse 14, 3900, Brig, Switzerland

    Bernhard Lienemann

  3. Department of Radiology, Rätisches Kantons- und Regionalspital, 7000, Chur, Switzerland

    Marcus Luetolf

Authors
  1. Bernhard Lienemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juerg Hodler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcus Luetolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian W. A. Pfirrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian W. A. Pfirrmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lienemann, B., Hodler, J., Luetolf, M. et al. Swiss teleradiology survey: present situation and future trends. Eur Radiol 15, 2157–2162 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2764-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2764-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation