PURPOSE: The goal of the study was to evaluate the acceptance of a web-based picture archiving and communication system (PACS) by orthopedic surgeons 1 year after implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One year after the implementation of a web-based PACS all physicians were surveyed with a standardized questionnaire. Questions included: speed of PACS, quality of clinicoradiological meetings, quality of monitors, PACS training, and performance. Data were evaluated separately for the Department of Orthopedic Surgery and the reference group of all other physicians. RESULTS: Among the respondents, 92% of the orthopedic surgeons stated there was a reduction of time required to receive images, and 64% concluded that patient care was faster. Archived images were received in less than 5 min in 82% after PACS and in 8% before PACS. The clinicoradiological meetings improved with PACS in 100% due to beamer presentation. All would recommend a PACS. The equipment to view images in the operating theater was assessed as being good or very good by 83%; monitor quality was judged better for the outpatient clinics (100% good or very good). Conventional radiograms were missed at the ward rounds by 56%. Training for PACS was considered sufficient by 67%, and 15% asked for refresher courses. In the reference group 60% asked for refresher courses. In the comparison of orthopedic surgeons with the reference group PACS was judged better especially concerning the viewing software and quality of monitors. CONCLUSION: There is an over all acceptance of PACS by physicians outside the radiology department. The availability of images was not only facilitated it was faster as well. However, the quality of monitors in the operating theater should be improved. To achieve sustained success of PACS consistent training on PACS and its features is necessary. Conventional radiograms were often missed at the ward rounds.
PURPOSE: The goal of the study was to evaluate the acceptance of a web-based picture archiving and communication system (PACS) by orthopedic surgeons 1 year after implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One year after the implementation of a web-based PACS all physicians were surveyed with a standardized questionnaire. Questions included: speed of PACS, quality of clinicoradiological meetings, quality of monitors, PACS training, and performance. Data were evaluated separately for the Department of Orthopedic Surgery and the reference group of all other physicians. RESULTS: Among the respondents, 92% of the orthopedic surgeons stated there was a reduction of time required to receive images, and 64% concluded that patient care was faster. Archived images were received in less than 5 min in 82% after PACS and in 8% before PACS. The clinicoradiological meetings improved with PACS in 100% due to beamer presentation. All would recommend a PACS. The equipment to view images in the operating theater was assessed as being good or very good by 83%; monitor quality was judged better for the outpatient clinics (100% good or very good). Conventional radiograms were missed at the ward rounds by 56%. Training for PACS was considered sufficient by 67%, and 15% asked for refresher courses. In the reference group 60% asked for refresher courses. In the comparison of orthopedic surgeons with the reference group PACS was judged better especially concerning the viewing software and quality of monitors. CONCLUSION: There is an over all acceptance of PACS by physicians outside the radiology department. The availability of images was not only facilitated it was faster as well. However, the quality of monitors in the operating theater should be improved. To achieve sustained success of PACS consistent training on PACS and its features is necessary. Conventional radiograms were often missed at the ward rounds.