M P Rosen1, T S Mehta, R Bromberg, S L Kelly, D Levine. 1. Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the technical and clinical performance of remote sonographic interpretation using a laser printer network connecting a community-based imaging center and an academic medical center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: During a 3-month period, 161 consecutive sonographic examinations were performed at a community-based imaging center and all 161 patients were enrolled in the study. Seventy-one (44%) of 161 examinations were interpreted on-site at the community-based imaging center, and 90 (56%) of 161 were transmitted over a T-1 line to an academic medical center where the static images were interpreted remotely. For the purposes of this study, the examination time was defined as the interval from the time the technologist started to scan the patient to the time the patient was dismissed from the radiology department. Examination times were recorded for each patient. Follow-up was available for 92 (57%) of 161 studies. Sensitivity and specificity for studies interpreted at the community-based imaging center and at the academic medical center were calculated. RESULTS: The mean examination time for pelvic sonographic examinations interpreted at the academic medical center (43 min) was significantly longer than for scans interpreted at the community-based imaging center (31 min) (p < 0.01). However, no significant difference was noted in the examination time for abdominal sonography. For all examinations interpreted on-site at the community-based imaging center for which follow-up was available, the sensitivity and specificity were 95% and 100%, respectively. For all examinations interpreted remotely at the academic medical center for which follow-up was available, the sensitivity and specificity were 93% and 90%, respectively. No significant difference was seen in the sensitivity (p = 1.00) or specificity (p = 0.24) of studies interpreted on-site versus remotely. CONCLUSION: Static sonographic images can be interpreted remotely without loss of sensitivity, but with decreased specificity. However, more time must be allotted for performing pelvic sonography when these examinations are to be interpreted remotely.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the technical and clinical performance of remote sonographic interpretation using a laser printer network connecting a community-based imaging center and an academic medical center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: During a 3-month period, 161 consecutive sonographic examinations were performed at a community-based imaging center and all 161 patients were enrolled in the study. Seventy-one (44%) of 161 examinations were interpreted on-site at the community-based imaging center, and 90 (56%) of 161 were transmitted over a T-1 line to an academic medical center where the static images were interpreted remotely. For the purposes of this study, the examination time was defined as the interval from the time the technologist started to scan the patient to the time the patient was dismissed from the radiology department. Examination times were recorded for each patient. Follow-up was available for 92 (57%) of 161 studies. Sensitivity and specificity for studies interpreted at the community-based imaging center and at the academic medical center were calculated. RESULTS: The mean examination time for pelvic sonographic examinations interpreted at the academic medical center (43 min) was significantly longer than for scans interpreted at the community-based imaging center (31 min) (p < 0.01). However, no significant difference was noted in the examination time for abdominal sonography. For all examinations interpreted on-site at the community-based imaging center for which follow-up was available, the sensitivity and specificity were 95% and 100%, respectively. For all examinations interpreted remotely at the academic medical center for which follow-up was available, the sensitivity and specificity were 93% and 90%, respectively. No significant difference was seen in the sensitivity (p = 1.00) or specificity (p = 0.24) of studies interpreted on-site versus remotely. CONCLUSION: Static sonographic images can be interpreted remotely without loss of sensitivity, but with decreased specificity. However, more time must be allotted for performing pelvic sonography when these examinations are to be interpreted remotely.