H Hagiwara1, A Nemoto2, T Inoue3. 1. Department of Radiology, Yokohama City University Hospital , Yokohama, Japan. 2. Department of Medical Informatics, Yokohama City University Hospital , Yokohama, Japan. 3. Department of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama City University , Yokohama, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Portable Data for Imaging (PDI) is regularly used as a guideline for sharing medical imaging data between hospitals and other medical institutions. When a patient is referred to another location, the patient almost always brings PDI media on a CD or DVD. However, problems often occur when trying to view images on PDI discs inserted into computer terminals, and it is more efficient to view images on the hospitals' own picture archiving and communication system (PACS). On the request of doctors, it has become a routine practice to import PDI data to the PACS of the referred hospital. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the increase in PDI image importing and investigate methods for reducing the burden caused by importing images. METHODS: We compiled representative data on image importing over time and analyzed the test modalities, number of images, volume of data, and referring hospital or medical clinic from which the data originated. RESULTS: The amount of PDI images imported to the PACS has risen despite no large increase in the number of patients. Currently, images imported from PDI media make up 22.8% of the total number of images stored in the PACS. The images come from a diverse array of hospitals (184 hospitals) and 82% are essential for medical care. The total annual expenditure associated with PDI data management is estimated to be 98,300 USD. CONCLUSION: The spreading use of the PDI guideline has led to a dramatic increase in data image sharing in the field of healthcare. While this has great benefits for patients and doctors, it is also associated with a greater cost and an overall burden for hospitals. These results indicate the need for a system to enable many hospitals and clinics to participate in image sharing at a cheaper cost.
BACKGROUND: Portable Data for Imaging (PDI) is regularly used as a guideline for sharing medical imaging data between hospitals and other medical institutions. When a patient is referred to another location, the patient almost always brings PDI media on a CD or DVD. However, problems often occur when trying to view images on PDI discs inserted into computer terminals, and it is more efficient to view images on the hospitals' own picture archiving and communication system (PACS). On the request of doctors, it has become a routine practice to import PDI data to the PACS of the referred hospital. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the increase in PDI image importing and investigate methods for reducing the burden caused by importing images. METHODS: We compiled representative data on image importing over time and analyzed the test modalities, number of images, volume of data, and referring hospital or medical clinic from which the data originated. RESULTS: The amount of PDI images imported to the PACS has risen despite no large increase in the number of patients. Currently, images imported from PDI media make up 22.8% of the total number of images stored in the PACS. The images come from a diverse array of hospitals (184 hospitals) and 82% are essential for medical care. The total annual expenditure associated with PDI data management is estimated to be 98,300 USD. CONCLUSION: The spreading use of the PDI guideline has led to a dramatic increase in data image sharing in the field of healthcare. While this has great benefits for patients and doctors, it is also associated with a greater cost and an overall burden for hospitals. These results indicate the need for a system to enable many hospitals and clinics to participate in image sharing at a cheaper cost.
Entities:
Keywords:
PACS; PDI; Portable data for imaging; XDS-I; cross-enterprise document sharing-imaging
Authors: M Kimura; K Nakayasu; Y Ohshima; N Fujita; N Nakashima; H Jozaki; T Numano; T Shimizu; M Shimomura; F Sasaki; T Fujiki; T Nakashima; K Toyoda; H Hoshi; T Sakusabe; Y Naito; K Kawaguchi; H Watanabe; S Tani Journal: Methods Inf Med Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Peter M Kuzmak; Ruth E Dayhoff; Sergey Gavrilov; Greg Cebelinski; Maryann L Shovestul; Andrew Casertano Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Giampaolo Greco; Anand S Patel; Sara C Lewis; Wei Shi; Rehana Rasul; Mary Torosyan; Bradley J Erickson; Atheeth Hiremath; Alan J Moskowitz; Wyatt M Tellis; Eliot L Siegel; Ronald L Arenson; David S Mendelson Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 3.173