OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to compare workflow efficiency between a conventional computed radiography (CR) system and a novel, portable, cassette-sized, and wireless flat-panel digital radiography (DR) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational time-motion analyses were performed at one site at which CR and the new portable DR system are used concurrently. The workflow steps of both systems were identified and categorized to facilitate comparison. The times required for examination preparation, patient positioning, exposure, postacquisition processing, and the examination as a whole were recorded by a neutral observer. Timing differences between the CR and portable DR systems were compared, and all data were analyzed using commercially available statistical software. Nine general radiographic examination types were selected, with approximately 50 patients per examination type. RESULTS: A total of 941 examinations (CR, n = 474; portable DR, n = 467) were timed in this study. Total examination time differences between CR and portable DR system (mean, 26.44 seconds; median 26.99 seconds) were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.001), with DR proving faster than CR. The single largest contributor to the time difference between CR and portable DR was postacquisition processing (mean, 26.58 seconds; median, 25.91 seconds), which was a composite of multiple individual steps, including cassette transport (CR only, mean, 13.22 seconds; median, 12.74 seconds), cassette readout (mean, 10.15 seconds; median, 10.4 seconds), and postprocessing (mean, 3.21 seconds; median, 3.11 seconds). CONCLUSION: Overall radiographer time was significantly shorter when performing examination-related tasks with the novel, portable DR system than when performing comparable tasks with the CR system, a difference that appears to result largely from technology configuration.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to compare workflow efficiency between a conventional computed radiography (CR) system and a novel, portable, cassette-sized, and wireless flat-panel digital radiography (DR) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational time-motion analyses were performed at one site at which CR and the new portable DR system are used concurrently. The workflow steps of both systems were identified and categorized to facilitate comparison. The times required for examination preparation, patient positioning, exposure, postacquisition processing, and the examination as a whole were recorded by a neutral observer. Timing differences between the CR and portable DR systems were compared, and all data were analyzed using commercially available statistical software. Nine general radiographic examination types were selected, with approximately 50 patients per examination type. RESULTS: A total of 941 examinations (CR, n = 474; portable DR, n = 467) were timed in this study. Total examination time differences between CR and portable DR system (mean, 26.44 seconds; median 26.99 seconds) were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.001), with DR proving faster than CR. The single largest contributor to the time difference between CR and portable DR was postacquisition processing (mean, 26.58 seconds; median, 25.91 seconds), which was a composite of multiple individual steps, including cassette transport (CR only, mean, 13.22 seconds; median, 12.74 seconds), cassette readout (mean, 10.15 seconds; median, 10.4 seconds), and postprocessing (mean, 3.21 seconds; median, 3.11 seconds). CONCLUSION: Overall radiographer time was significantly shorter when performing examination-related tasks with the novel, portable DR system than when performing comparable tasks with the CR system, a difference that appears to result largely from technology configuration.
Authors: Soo Buem Cho; Hye Jin Baek; Sung Eun Park; Ho Cheol Choi; Sang Min Lee; Kyungsoo Bae; Kyung Nyeo Jeon; Kyeong Hwa Ryu; Jin Il Moon; Bo Hwa Choi; Ji Young Ha Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 1.817