Abstract
This study was performed to evaluate the changes in workflow and efficiency in various clinical settings in the radiology department after the introduction of a picture archiving and communication system (PACS). Time and motion data were collected when conventional image management was used, and again after the introduction of a PACS. Changes in the elapsed time from examination request until the image dispatch to the radiologist, and from dispatch until report dictation, were evaluated. The relationship between patient volume and throughput was evaluated. The time from examination request until dispatch was significantly longer after the introduction of PACS for examinations taken on patients from the emergency department (ED) (pre-PACS, 20 minutes; post-PACS, 25 minutes;P<.0001), and for examinations taken on patients in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) (pre-PACS, 34 minutes; post-PACS, 42 minutes;P<.0001). The interval from image dispatch until report dictation shortened significantly after the introduction of PACS in the ED (pre-PACS, 38 minutes; post-PACS, 23 minutes;P<.0001) and in the outpatient department (OPD) (pre-PACS, 38 minutes; post-PACS, 20 minutes;P<.0001). Simple least squares regression showed a significant relationship between daily patient volume and the daily median time until report dictation (F=43.42,P<.001). PACS slowed technologists by prolonging the quality-control procedure. Radiologist workflow was shortened or not affected. Efficiency is dependent on patient volume, and workflow improvements are due to a shift from batch to on-line reading that is enabled by the ability of PACS to route enough examinations to keep radiologists fully occupied.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hori SC, Feingold E, Coleman B, et al: The use of a miniPACS technology in ultrasound: The potential for productivity improvement, in Jost RG, Dwyer SJ (eds): SPIE: Medical Imaging 1995. PACS Design and Evaluation: Engineering and Clinical Issues. Newport Beach, CA, 1995, 2435:257–262
Kato H, Kubota G, Kojima K, et al: Preliminary time flow study: Comparison of interpretation times between PACS work-stations and films. Comput Med Imaging Graphics 19:261–265, 1995
Redfern RO, Horii SC, Feingold, et al: Experience with radiology workflow and PACS: effects on technologist and radiologist task times in Horii SC, Blaine GJ (eds): SPIE: Medical Imaging 1999. PACS Design and Evaluation: Engineering and Clinical Issues. San Diego, CA, 1999, 3662:307–315
Siegel EL, Reiner BI, Protopapas Z, et al: Three and a half year experience with PACS at the Baltimore VA Medical Center, in Horii SC, Blaine GJ (eds): SPIE: Medical Imaging 1997. PACS Design and Evaluation: Engineering and Clinical Issues. Newport Beach, CA, 1997, 3035:15–18
Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ, et al: Effect of film-based versus filmless operation on the productivity of CT technologists. Radiology 207:481–485, 1998
Bryan S, Weatherburn G, Watkins J, et al: Impact on radiology service delivery. The evaluation of a hospital-wide picture archiving and communication system (PACS). Report to the Department of Health of the Brunel Evaluation of the Hammersmith PACS System: Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University; 1998, pp 181–192
Colin C, Vergnon P, Guibaud L, et al: Comparative assessment of digital and analog radiography: Diagnostic accuracy, cost analysis and quality of care. Eur J Radiol 26:226–234, 1998
Smedema K: From image management to workflow management, in Jost RG, Dwyer SJ (Eds): SPIE: Medical Imaging 1996. PACS Design and Evaluation: Engineering and Clinical Issues. Newport Beach, CA, 1996, 2711:137–143
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The research described here was performed at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, and was funded by Grant No. P01-CA53141 from the National Cancer Institute, NIH, USPHS, DHHS.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Redfern, R.O., Horii, S.C., Feingold, E. et al. Radiology workflow and patient volume: Effect of picture archiving and communication systems on technologists and radiologists. J Digit Imaging 13 (Suppl 1), 97–100 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03167635
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03167635