Large PACS projects

  • S. Peer
  • R. Peer
  • W. Jaschke


The first prototype PACS were installed in the late 1980s. These systems were mainly in house solutions established according to the local needs of the department and in close collaboration with a limited number of vendors like AT & T/Phillips, Vortech or Siemens [7]. Only a few dozen of these 1st generation systems were ever installed and almost none are still in active use, but the experience gained with these systems provided the basis for the next generation of PACS. These 2nd generation systems were installed by various manufacturers like Loral/ Siemens (now GE Medical Systems), Kodak, Siemens Medical Systems and AGFA among others. One typical feature of these systems was the use of standard computer hardware and standardised transmission protocols. Companies started to adhere to the ACR-NEMA and upcoming DICOM standard to allow for a higher level of interoperability with modalities, but still these systems allowed only for basic HIS/RIS-integration, limited network printing and used mostly proprietary solutions concerning their internal aspects. Some of these installations like the Hammersmith PACS in the United Kingdom [29,30], the Baltimore Veterans Affairs Medical Centre in the United States [28], the Hokkaido University Hospital in Japan [16] or the SMZO in Vienna [14] for example were quite successful pioneers in the field and a lot of them are still in use [3].


Software Requirement Specification Computer Assisted Radiology Hospital Wide Information System Nuclear Medicine Gamma Camera 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Arenson RL, Chakraborty DP, Seshadri SB et al (1990) The digital image workstation. Radiology 176: 303315Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Barneveld Binkhuysen FH (1992) Required fuctionality of PACS from clinical point of view. Int J Biomed Comput 30: 187–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bauman RA, Gell G, Dwyer SJ III (1996) Large picture archiving and communication systems of the world. Part 1. J Digit Imaging 9: 99–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Blaine GJ, Cox JR, Jost RG (1996) Networks for electronic radiology. The Radiologic Clinics of North America 34 (3): 505–524Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Breant CM, Taira RK, Huang HK (1993) Interfacing aspects between picture archiving and communication systems, radiology information systems and hospital information systems. J Digit Imaging 6: 88–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Chan HP, Vyborny CJ, MacMahon H et al (1987) Digital mammography: ROC studies of the effect of pixel size and unsharp mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications. Invest Radiol 22: 573–576Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Craig O (1993) Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), modern technology and universal health needs. In: Lemke HU, Inamura K, Jaffe CC, Felix R (eds) Computer assisted radiology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 9–18Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Digital Imaging Communication in Medicine (DICOM), NEMA Standards Publication PS 3 (1997) National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2101 L Street, NW, Washington DC 20037Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Fuhrmann CR, Gur D, Good BC et al (1988) Storage phosphor radiographs versus conventional film: Interpreters perceptions of diagnostic quality. Am J Roentgenol 150: 1011–1014Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Fuhrmann CR, Gur D, Schaetzing R (1990) High resolution digital imaging with storage phosphors. J Thoracic Imaging 5: 21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Garfagni H, Klipfel B (1995) Integrating HIS and PACS: The DICOM solution. In: Lemke HU, Inamura K, Jaffe CC, Vannier MW (eds) Computer assisted radiology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1287–1288Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Gur D, Fuhrmann CR, Thaete FL (1993) Computers for clinical practice and education in radiology. Radiographics 13: 457–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Horii SC, Horii HN, Mun SK et al (1989) Environmental design for reading from imaging workstations: ergonomic and architectural features. J Digit Imaging 2: 156–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Hruby W, Moser H, Urban M et al (1992) The vienna SMZO PACS project: the totally digital hospital. Eur J Radiol 16: 66–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    IEEE Standard 830–1998 Recommended practice for software requirements specificationsGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Irie G, Miyasaka K, Miyamoto K et al (1990) PACS experience at the University of Hokkaido Medical School. Proc SPIE 1234: 26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Kasaday LR (1986) Human factor considerations in PACS design. Proc SPIE 626: 581–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    König H, Klose KJ (1999) Anforderungsdefinition und spezifikation für PAC-Systeme. Ein Leistungsverzeichnis in Anlehnung an den Standard “IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications”. Radiologe 39: 269–275Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Meyer-Ebrecht D (1993) Digital image communication. Eur J Radiol 17: 47–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Meyer-Ebrecht D (1994) Picture archiving and communication systems for medical application. Int J Biomed Comput 35: 91–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Mildenberger P, Jensch P (1999) Verwendung des DICOM-Standard in heterogener Umgebung. Inkompatibilität oder Interoperabilität. Radiologe 39: 282285Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Nissen Meyer SA, Fink U, Pleier M, Becker C (1996) The full scale PACS-archive. A prerequisite for the filmless hospital. Acta Radiol 37: 838–846Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Peer S, Vogl R, Seykora P et al (1998) Erste Erfahrungen mit dem unfallradiologischen PACS-Projekt an der Innsbrucker Universitätsklinik für Radiodiagnostik. Fortschr Röntgenstr 169: 459–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Peer S, Vogl R, Peer R et al (1999) Sophisticated HIS RIS PACS integration in a large scale traumatology PACS. J Digit Imaging 12: 99–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Redfern R, Horii SC, Feingold E et al (1999) Experience with radiology workflow and PACS: effects on technologist and radiologist task times. Proc SPIE 3662: 307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Rogerts DC, Johnson RE, Brenton B et al (1985) Predicting PACS console requirements from radiologists reading habits. Proc SPIE 536: 88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Schneider RH (1982) The role of standards in the development of systems for communicating and archiving medical images. Proc SPIE 2163: 270–271Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Siegel EL (1994) PACS at the Baltimore Veterans Affaires Medical Centre Planning implementation strategies and preliminary experience. Proceedings of the Korean Society of Picture Archiving and Communication Systems: pp 1–8Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Strickland NH (1995) Default display arrangements of images on PACS monitors. Br J Radiol 68: 252–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Strickland NH (1996) Review article: some cost benefit considerations for PACS: a radiological perspective. Br J Radiol 69: 1089–1098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Washowich TL, Williams SC, Richardson LA, Simmons GE, Dao NV, Allen TW, Hammet GC, Morris MJ (1997) Detection of interstitial lung abnormalities on picture archiving and communication system video monitors. J Digit Imaging 10: 34–39Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Peer
    • 1
  • R. Peer
    • 1
  • W. Jaschke
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity Hospital InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations