Literature DB >> 10342198

Electronic imaging impact on image and report turnaround times.

C W Mattern1, B F King, N J Hangiandreou, A Swenson, L L Jorgenson, W E Webbles, T W Okrzynski, B J Erickson, B Williamson, G S Forbes.   

Abstract

We prospectively compared image and report delivery times in our Urgent Care Center (UCC) during a film-based practice (1995) and after complete implementation of an electronic imaging practice in 1997. Before switching to a totally electronic and filmless practice, multiple time periods were consistently measured during a 1-week period in May 1995 and then again in a similar week in May 1997 after implementation of electronic imaging. All practice patterns were the same except for a film-based practice in 1995 versus a filmless practice in 1997. The following times were measured: (1) waiting room time, (2) technologist's time of examination, (3) time to quality control, (4) radiology interpretation times, (5) radiology image and report delivery time, (6) total radiology turn-around time, (7) time to room the patient back in the UCC, and (8) time until the ordering physician views the film. Waiting room time was longer in 1997 (average time, 26:47) versus 1995 (average time, 15:54). The technologist's examination completion time was approximately the same (1995 average time, 06:12; 1997 average time, 05:41). There was also a slight increase in the time of the technologist's electronic verification or quality control in 1997 (average time, 7:17) versus the film-based practice in 1995 (average time, 2:35). However, radiology interpretation times dramatically improved (average time, 49:38 in 1995 versus average time 13:50 in 1997). There was also a decrease in image delivery times to the clinicians in 1997 (median, 53 minutes) versus the film based practice of 1995 (1 hour and 40 minutes). Reports were available with the images immediately upon completion by the radiologist in 1997, compared with a median time of 27 minutes in 1995. Importantly, patients were roomed back into the UCC examination rooms faster after the radiologic procedure in 1997 (average time, 13:36) than they were in 1995 (29:38). Finally, the ordering physicians viewed the diagnostic images and reports in dramatically less time in 1997 (median, 26 minutes) versus 1995 (median, 1 hour and 5 minutes). In conclusion, a filmless electronic imaging practice within our UCC greatly improved radiology image and report delivery times, as well as improved clinical efficiency.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10342198      PMCID: PMC3452886          DOI: 10.1007/BF03168787

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  11 in total

1.  Clinical experience with PACS at the University of Pennsylvania.

Authors:  H L Kundel; S B Seshadri; R L Arenson
Journal:  Comput Med Imaging Graph       Date:  1991 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.790

2.  Preliminary time-flow study: comparison of interpretation times between PACS workstations and films.

Authors:  H Kato; G Kubota; K Kojima; N Hayashi; E Nishihara; H Kura; M Aizawa
Journal:  Comput Med Imaging Graph       Date:  1995 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.790

3.  Direct digital versus conventional film screen radiography of the musculoskeletal system.

Authors:  D W Piraino; W J Davros; M Lieber; B J Richmond; J P Schils; M P Recht; P N Grooff; G H Belhobek
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Prospective study of a PACS: information flow and clinical action in a medical intensive care unit.

Authors:  H L Kundel; S B Seshadri; C P Langlotz; P N Lanken; S C Horii; C F Nodine; M Polansky; E Feingold; I Brikman; M Bozzo; R Redfern
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Accuracy of bedside chest hard-copy screen-film versus hard- and soft-copy computed radiographs in a medical intensive care unit: receiver operating characteristic analysis.

Authors:  H L Kundel; W Gefter; J Aronchick; W Miller; H Hatabu; C H Whitfill; W Miller
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Radiology report times: impact of picture archiving and communication systems.

Authors:  S Bryan; G Weatherburn; J Watkins; M Roddie; J Keen; N Muris; M J Buxton
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Differences in time to interpretation for evaluation of bone radiographs with monitor and film viewing.

Authors:  E A Krupinski; P J Lund
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Comparison between conventional radiography and Thoravision in the study of the normal chest.

Authors:  C Procacci; S Minniti; P P Biondetti; F Moore; F Caumo; S Ternullo; G Carbognin; I A Bergamo-Andreis
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Effect of a digital imaging network on physician behavior in an intensive care unit.

Authors:  D N De Simone; H L Kundel; R L Arenson; S B Seshadri; I S Brikman; S S Khalsa; M J Davey; N E Brisbon
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Comparison of hard- and soft-copy digital chest images with different matrix sizes for managing coronary care unit patients.

Authors:  R J Steckel; P Batra; S Johnson; J Sayre; K Brown; K Haker; D Young; M Zucker
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  10 in total

1.  Impact of digital radiography on clinical workflow.

Authors:  G A May; D D Deer; D Dackiewicz
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Significant savings in radiologic report turnaround time after implementation of a complete picture archiving and communication system (PACS).

Authors:  A A Twair; W C Torreggiani; S M Mahmud; N Ramesh; B Hogan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Impact of electronic signature on radiology report turnaround time.

Authors:  Luigi Lepanto
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2003-12-15       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Surgical planning of total hip arthroplasty: accuracy of computer-assisted EndoMap software in predicting component size.

Authors:  Jesse A Davila; Mark J Kransdorf; Gavan P Duffy
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2006-03-30       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Picture, archiving and communication system in the Italian NHS: a primer on diffusion and evaluation analysis.

Authors:  Luca Buccoliero; Stefano Calciolari; Marta Marsilio; Elisa Mattavelli
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-02-22       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Introducing PACS to the late majority. A longitudinal study.

Authors:  Petter Hurlen; Truls Østbye; Arne Borthne; Pål Gulbrandsen
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-11-01       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Assessing task-technology fit in a PACS upgrade: do users' and developers' appraisals converge?

Authors:  Luigi Lepanto; Claude Sicotte; Pascale Lehoux
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Impact of electronic imaging on clinician behavior in the urgent care setting.

Authors:  C W Mattern; B J Erickson; B F King; T W Okryznski
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  A filmless radiology department in a full digital regional hospital: quantitative evaluation of the increased quality and efficiency.

Authors:  Andrea Nitrosi; Giovanni Borasi; Franco Nicoli; Gino Modigliani; Andrea Botti; Marco Bertolini; Pietro Notari
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-02-23       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 10.  The effectiveness of service delivery initiatives at improving patients' waiting times in clinical radiology departments: a systematic review.

Authors:  B Olisemeke; Y F Chen; K Hemming; A Girling
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.056

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.