The “National Integrated Medical Imaging System” [NIMIS]—friend, not nimesis!

  • Marc F. O’ ReillyEmail author
  • Oisin P. Breathnach
  • Khalid M. Mohamed
  • Eoin C. Sheehan
Original Article



The “National Integrated Medical Imaging System” or NIMIS went live in 2011 and allows the movement of patient radiology imaging throughout the Irish health system. At the time of its launch, NIMIS was not only going to allow the filmless passage of patient radiology imaging but it was also envisaged that it would act as a medical image archive. The aim of this study was to assess the awareness and use of non-consultant hospital doctors and hospital consultants with regard to this medical image archive/referral function of NIMIS.


A survey was carried out on 50 doctors across all specialities and grades at Tullamore Hospital looking at different aspects of the use of NIMIS.


Ninety-four percent of respondents use NIMIS on a daily basis and 6% use it on a weekly basis. The primary reason for using NIMIS was found to be “Viewing and Ordering Imaging” in 92% of those surveyed with 8% stating it was “Viewing imaging/reports”. Ninety-eight percent surveyed said they had never used NIMIS to send a referral form or clinical photograph and 82% were not aware of this potential function. The majority of those surveyed stated that they either agreed or strongly agreed NIMIS is user-friendly.


NIMIS allows the safe and confidential flow of patient images and clinical information in the Irish health system. It could provide definite potential in the areas of clinical conferencing, multidisciplinary meetings and remote patient assessment along with collaborative research and education.


Clinical conferencing Data protection National Integrated Medical Imaging System NIMIS 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


Ethical approval was not required for the study as it was an anonymised service evaluation.


  1. 1.
    What will NIMIS deliver for the health system? - Ireland's Health.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Smith J, Kok HK, Torreggiani WC (2016) Examining the end-user experience of the National Integrated Medical Imaging System (NIMIS). IMJ 109:1Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    National Integrated Medical Imaging System, Office of the Chief Information Officer, HSE, Nexus Building, Dublin 15, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mark D, Fitzmaurice G, Haughey K, O’Donnell M, Harty J (2011) Assessment of the quality of care and financial impact of a virtual renal clinic compared with the traditional outpatient service model. Int J Clin Pract 65(10):1100–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rathod D, Win T, Pickering S, Austin M (2008) Incorporation of a virtual assessment into a care pathway for initial glaucoma management: feasibility study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 36(6):543–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hunter J, Claridge A, James S, Chan D, Stacey B, Stroud M, Patel P, Fine D, Cummings JRF (2012) Improving outpatient services: the Southampton IBD virtual clinic. Frontline Gastroenterol 3(2):76–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Court J, Austin M (2015) Virtual glaucoma clinics: patient acceptance and quality of patient education compared to standard clinics. Clin Ophthalmol 9:745–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Trikha S, Macgregor C, Jeffery M, Kirwan J (2012) The Portsmouth-based glaucoma refinement scheme: a role for virtual clinics in the future? Eye 26(10):1288–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kotecha A, Brookes J, Foster P, Baldwin A (2015) Experiences with developing and implementing a virtual clinic for glaucoma care in an NHS setting. Clin Ophthalmol 9:1915–1923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kotecha A, Bonstein K, Cable R, Cammack J, Clipston J, Foster P (2015) Qualitative investigation of patients’ experience of a glaucoma virtual clinic in a specialist ophthalmic hospital in London, UK. BMJ Open 5(12):e009463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Logishetty K, Subramanyam S (2017) Adopting and sustaining a virtual fracture clinic model in the district hospital setting – a quality improvement approach. BMJ Qual Improv Rep 6(1):u220211.w7861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bellringer S, Brogan K, Cassidy L, Gibbs J (2017) Standardised virtual fracture clinic management of radiographically stable Weber B ankle fractures is safe, cost effective and reproducible. Injury 48(7):1670–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robinson P, Sim F, Latimer M, Mitchell P (2017) Paediatric fracture clinic re-design: Incorporating a virtual fracture clinic. Injury 48(10):2101–2105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brogan K, Bellringer S, Akehurst H, Gee C, Ibrahim N, Cassidy L, Rogers B, Gibbs J (2017) Virtual fracture clinic management of fifth metatarsal, including Jones’, fractures is safe and cost-effective. Injury 48(4):966–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bhattacharyya R, Jayaram P, Holliday R, Jenkins P, Anthony I, Rymaszewski L (2017) The virtual fracture clinic: reducing unnecessary review of clavicle fractures. Injury 48(3):720–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jayaram P, Bhattacharyya R, Jenkins P, Anthony I, Rymaszewski L (2014) A new “virtual” patient pathway for the management of radial head and neck fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg 23(3):297–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Sullivan D, O’Sullivan E, O’Connor M, Lyons D, McManus J (2017) WhatsApp Doc? BMJ Innov 3(4):238–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    EU GDPR Information Portal (2018) EU GDPR Portal. Available from:

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc F. O’ Reilly
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Oisin P. Breathnach
    • 1
  • Khalid M. Mohamed
    • 1
  • Eoin C. Sheehan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic SurgeryTullamore HospitalCo. OffalyIreland
  2. 2.Graduate Entry Medical SchoolUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations