Advertisement

Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 129–135 | Cite as

Establishing benchmarks for creation of a pro-forma economic model to evaluate filmless PACS operation

  • Bruce Reiner
  • Eliot Siegel
  • Douglas Bradham
  • Heather Saunders
  • Bruce Johnson
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to establish data points (benchmarks) to incorporate into a pro-forma cost analysis model, comparing film-based and filmless modes of operation. Prospective data were collected over a 6-year period at the Baltimore VA Medical Center (BVAMC) immediately before and after implementation of a hospital-wide PACS. These data were in turn compared with local and national VA centers during comparable time periods, to establish reference data between manual film-based (without PACS) and filmless operations (using PACS). Benchmarks utilized for the study fell into 2 broad categories: operational costs and revenues generated. Factors contributing to operational costs include space requirements, equipment, supplies, personnel, and maintenance. Factors contributing to revenues generated included examination volume, modality mix, and reimbursement rates. Collectively, these data points were incorporated into a pro-forma model that allows prospective PACS customers to compare total cost of ownership for film-based and filmless operations dependent on the unique variables of the respective institution.

Key Words

PACS medical economics model, filmless benchmark cost benefit 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hilsenrath PE, Smith WL, Berbaum KS, et al: Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of PACS. AJR 156:177–180, 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Der Loo RP, Van Gennip EMSJ: Evaluation of personnel savings through PACS: A modelling approach. Int J Biomed Comput 30:235–241, 1992CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Langer S, Wang J: Goal based cost-benefit analysis for film versus filmless radiology departments. J Digit Imaging 9:104–112, 1996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pratt HM, Langlotz CP, Feingold ER, et al: Incremental cost of department-wide implementation of a picture archiving and communication system and computed radiography. Radiology 206:245–252, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    King BF, Ward S, Bruesewitz R, et al: Cost of film: Purchasing, processing, packaging, storing, and disposal over the lifetime of a film examination in a large radiology department. 1996 SCAR Proceedings, pp 152–157Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siegel EL, Diaconis JN, Pomerantz S, et al: Making filmless radiology work. J Dig Imaging 8:151–155, 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Siegel EL, Pomerantz SM, Protopapas Z, et al: PACS in a “digital hospital”: Preliminary data from phase III evaluation of the experience with filmless operation at the Baltimore VA. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1996, pp 38–42.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper F, et al: Picture archiving and communication systems and vascular surgery: Clinical impressions and suggestions for improvement. J Digit Imaging 9:1–6, 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper F, et al: Impact of filmless imaging on the frequency of clinician review of radiology images. J Digit Imaging 11:149–150, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Protopapas Z, et al: Impact of filmless radiology on frequency of clinician consultations with radiologists. AJR 173:1169–1172, 1999PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reiner B, Siegel E, Flagle C, et al: Effect of filmless imaging on the utilization of radiology services. Radiology 215:163–167, 2000PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gay SB, Sobel AH, Young LQ, et al: Processes involved in reading imaging studies: Workflow analysis and implications for workstation development. J Digit Imaging 10:40–45, 1997CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reiner BI, Siegel EL: Understanding financing options for PACS implementation. J Digit Imaging 13:49–54, 2000PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bansal S, Sunshine JH: Hospital activities of radiology groups in the United States: Results of a 1992 ACR survey. AJR 165:453–465, 1995PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce Reiner
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Eliot Siegel
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Douglas Bradham
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Heather Saunders
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Bruce Johnson
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Radiology and GeriatricsVeterans Affairs Medical Healthcare System, American Radiology ServicesBaltimore
  2. 2.Department of Radiology and GeriatricsUniversity of Maryland School of MedicineBaltimore
  3. 3.Integrated Imaging SolutionsGeneral Electric Medical SystemsMt Prospect

Personalised recommendations