Advertisement

The Imaging Department of the Modern Hospital

  • Zvi LefkovitzEmail author
  • Michael J. Seiler
  • Angelo Ortiz
Chapter

Abstract

In the modern hospital, imaging plays a seminal role in the diagnosis and treatment of a vast number of diseases. Recent breakthroughs in imaging technology particularly in CT, MRI, and ultrasound technology have profoundly changed the manner in which medicine is practiced. The imaging department in the modern hospital therefore functions as a key diagnostic hub that must provide safe, reliable, highly efficient, and advanced imaging services. Accordingly, the imaging department must be managed and organized in a manner that emphasizes teamwork and accountability. All members of the imaging team must focus on maintaining quality standards in every facet of the department and must assure optimal radiation safety, MRI safety, and equipment safety. The radiology IT infrastructure and its numerous components must be designed for optimal productivity and efficiency and maintained to the highest standards as required by the radiologists and referring physicians. Effective, continuous training of the imaging staff is necessary for the optimal operation of the highly advanced equipment of the modern imaging department.

The modern imaging department provides advanced imaging technology and services in three key locations that include the main imaging suite of the hospital, the emergency department, and the operating room. The main imaging suite features DR radiography and fluoroscopy, ultrasound, CT, MRI, SPECT imaging, and interventional radiology. An imaging suite in or immediately adjacent to the emergency department must provide DR radiography, CT, and ultrasound services around the clock. In the operating room, C-arm technology and when appropriate portable CT technology and even MRI are critically important for providing surgical imaging guidance for orthopedic surgeons, neurosurgeons, cardiovascular surgeons, general surgeons, and urologists. Portable bedside technology that is needed for the care of critically ill patients includes low-dose DR portable X-ray, ultrasound, and when appropriate portable CT.

Keywords

Radiology Imaging PACS Radiology information system (RIS) Ultrasound MRI CT Interventional radiology SPECT imaging ED imaging OR imaging 

References

  1. 1.
    European Society of Radiology 2009. The future role of radiology in healthcare. Insights Imaging. 2010;1(1):2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sharpe RE, Mehta TS, Eisenberg RL, Kruskal JB. Strategic planning and radiology practice management in the new health care environment. Radiographics. 2015;35(1):239–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muroff LR. Implementing an effective organization and governance structure for a radiology practice. J Am Coll Radiol. 2004;1(1):26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krestin GP. Maintaining identity in a changing environment: the professional and organizational future of radiology. Radiology. 2009;250:612–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coburn AF, Croll ZT. Improving hospital patient safety through teamwork: the use of teamstepps in critical access hospitals. Portland: Flex Monitoring Team; 2011. (Policy Brief #21).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baker DP, Day R, Salas E. Teamwork as an essential component of high-Reliability organizations. Health Serv Res. 2006;41:1576–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Royal College of Radiologists and the Society and College of Radiographers. Team Working in Clinical Imaging. London: The Royal College of Radiologists and the Society and College of Radiographers, 2012.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kruskal JB, Eisenberg R, Sosna J, Yam CS, Kruskal JD, Boiselle PM. Quality improvement in radiology: basic principles and tools required to achieve success. Radiographics. 2011;31(6):1499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnson CD, Krecke KN, Miranda R, Roberts CC, Denham C. Developing a radiology quality and safety program: a primer. Radiographics. 2009;29(4):951–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ploussi A, Efstathopoulos EP. Importance of establishing radiation protection culture in radiology department. World J Radiol. 2016;8(2):142–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crisp S, Dawdy K. Building a magnetic resonance imaging safety culture from the ground Up. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2018;49:18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walz-Flannigan A, Kotsenas AL, Hein S, et al. Implementing a radiology-information technology project: mobile imaging viewing use case and a general guideline for radiologist-information technology team collaboration. AJR. 2015;204:721–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Youssem DM, Beauchamp NJ. Radiology business practice: how to Succeed: Philadelphia, Elsevier; 2008.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaplan RS, Norton DP. The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harv Bus Rev. 1992;70(1):71–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaplan RS, Norton DP. Putting the balanced scorecard to work. Harv Bus Rev. 1993;71(5):134–47.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Donnelly LF, Gessner KE, Dickerson JM, et al. Department scorecard: a tool to help drive imaging care delivery performance. Radiographics. 2010;30(7):2029–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Branstetter IV. BF: basics of imaging informatics. part 1. Radiology. 2007;243(3):656–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Branstetter BF IV. Basics of imaging informatics: part 2. Radiology. 2007;244(1):78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Joshi V, Narra VR, Joshi K, et al. PACS administrators’ and radiologists’ perspective on the importance of features for PACS selection. J Digit Imaging. 2014;27:486–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mehta A, Dreyer KJ, Schweitzer A, Couris J, Rosenthal D. Voice recognition—an emerging necessity within radiology: experiences of the massachusetts general hospital. J Digit Imaging. 1998;11(4 Suppl 2):20–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boland GWL. Voice recognition technology for radiology reporting: transforming the radiologist’s value proposition. JACR. 2007;4(12):865–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Krishnaraj A, Lee JKT, Laws SA, et al. Voice recognition software: effect of radiology report turnaround time at an academic medical center. AJR. 2010;195:194–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Benedikt RA, Boatsman JE, Swann CA, et al. Concurrent computer-aided detection improves reading time of digital breast tomosynthesis and maintains interpretation performance in a multireader multicase study. AJR. 2018;210(3):685–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Choi W, Choi T. Automated pulmonary nodule detection based on three-dimensional shape-based feature descriptor. Comput Meth Prog Bio. 2014;133(1):37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Robinson C, Halligan S, IInuma G, et al. CT colonography: computer assisted detection of colorectal cancer. Br J Radiol. 2011;84:435–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thrall JH, Li X, Li Q, et al. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in radiology: opportunities, challenges, pitfalls, and criteria for success. JACR. 2018;15)3:504–8.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boo D, Wber M, Deurloo EE, et al. Computed radiography versus mobile direct radiography for bedside chest radiographs: impact of dose on image quality and reader agreement. Clin Radiol. 2011;66(9):826–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Palmer JB, Drennan JC. Evaluation and treatment of swallowing impairments. Am Fam Physician. 2000;61(8):2453–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Loria K. Imaging adaptability: a look at the latest advancements in ultrasound. Radiology Today. 2017;18(3):12.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pinto A, Pinto F, Faggian A, et al. Sources of error in emergency ultrasonography. Crit Ultrasound J. 2013;5(Suppl 1):S1.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Patil P, Dasgupta B. Role of Diagnostic ultrasound in the assessment of musculoskeletal diseases. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2012;4(5):341–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Practice Parameters. 2017.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kitami M. Ultrasonography of pediatric urogenital emergencies: review of classic and new techniques. Ultrasonography. 2017;36(3):222–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lal H, Neyaz Z, Nath A, Borah S. CT-Guided Percutaneous Biopsy of Intrathoracic Lesions. Korean J Radiol. 2012;13(2):210–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Smith SL, Jennings PE. Lung radiofrequency and microwave ablation: a review of indications, techniques and post-procedural imaging appearances. Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1046):article 20140598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Danad I, Fayad ZA, Willemink MJ, Min JK. Recent advances in cardiac computed tomography: dual energy, spectral and molecular CT imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(6):710–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tsang DS, Merchant TE, Merchant SE, et al. Quantifying potential reduction in contrast dose with monoenergetic images synthesized from dual layer detector spectral CT. Br J Radiol. 2017;90:1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Baliyan V, Das CJ, Sharma R, Gupta AK. Diffusion weighted imaging: technique and applications. World J Radiol. 2016;8(9):785–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chalela JA, Kidwell CS, Nentwich LM, Luby M, Butman JA, Demchuk AM, Hill MD, Patronas N, Latour L, Warach S. Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in emergency assessment of patients with suspected acute stroke: a prospective comparison. Lancet. 2007;369:293–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Glover GH. Overview of functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2011;22(2):133–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kinner S, Pickhardt PJ, Riedesel EL, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI versus CT for the evaluation of acute appendicitis in children and young adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(4):911–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bekiesińska-Figatowska M, Romaniuk-Doroszewska A, Szkudlińska-Pawlak S, et al. Diagnostic imaging of pregnant women – the role of magnetic resonance imaging. Pol J Radiol. 2017;82:220–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sammet S. Magnetic resonance safety. Abdom Radiol (New York). 2016;41(3):444–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bybel B, Brunken RC, DiFillipo FP, et al. SPECT/CT imaging: clinical utility of an emerging technology. Radiographics. 2008;28:1097–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jacobs SA. 90Yttrium ibritumomab tiuxetan in the treatment of non-hodgkin’s lymphoma: current status and future prospects. Biologics Targets Ther. 2007;1(3):215–27.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kallini JR, Gabr A, Salem R, Lewandowski RJ. Transarterial Radioembolization with Yttrium-90 for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Adv Ther. 2016;33:699–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Abi-Jaoudeh N, Kobeiter H, Xu S, Wood BJ. Image Fusion During Vascular and Nonvascular Image-Guided Procedures. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;16(3):168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Baerlocher MO, Kennedy SA, Ward TJ, et al. Society of interventional radiology: resource and environment recommended standards for IR. JVIR. 2017;28(4):513–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kandarpa K, Machan L. Handbook of interventional radiologic procedures. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 2011.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Whitson MR, Mayo PH. Ultrasonography in the emergency department. Crit Care. 2016;20:227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cohen HL, Langer J, McGahan JP, et al. American institute of ultrasound in medicine. AIUM practice guideline for the performance of the focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) examination. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33(11):2047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pandharipande PV, Reisner AT, Biner WD, et al. CT in the emergency department: a real-time study of changes in physician decision making. Radiology. 2016;278(3):812–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Raja AS, Ip IK, Sodickson AD, et al. Radiology utilization in the emergency department: trends of the last two decades. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(2):355–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Soto JS, Anderson SW. Multidetector CT of blunt abdominal trauma. Radiology. 2012;265(3):678–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hinzpeter R, Boehm T, Boll D, et al. Imaging algorithms and CT protocols in trauma patients: survey of swiss emergency centers. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(5):1922–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Davies RM, Scrimshire AB, Sweetman L. A decision tool for whole body CT in major trauma that safely reduces unnecessary scanning and associated radiation risks: an initial exploratory analysis. Injury. 2016;47(1):43–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Silva AC, Morse BG, Hara AK, et al. Dual-energy (Spectral) CT: applications in abdominal imaging. Radiographics. 2011;31:1031–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rajiah P, Abbara S, Halliburton SS. Spectral detector CT for cardiovascular applications. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2017;23(3):187–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Conley DB, Tan B, Bendok BR, et al. Comparison of intraoperative portable CT scanners in skull base and endoscopic sinus surgery: single center case series. Skull Base. 2011;21(4):261–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mislow JMK, Golby AJ, Black PM. Origins of intraoperative MRI. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2009;20(2):137–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zvi Lefkovitz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael J. Seiler
    • 1
  • Angelo Ortiz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyWestchester Medical CenterValhallaUSA

Personalised recommendations