Abstract
This study reports the findings of a computed radiography (CR) imaging experience questionnaire sent to 35 emergency departments (ED) in North America. A total of 25 responses to the questionnaire were received corresponding to a return rate of 71%. The median daily workload was 71 patient examinations and the average number of films per patient examination for the 21 facilities was 3.0±0.8. A total of 91% of respondents printed to film all ED trauma images obtained with CR with only one ED claiming to be filmless. CR in the ED was easy to use and had significant benefits of reducing examination repeat rates, permitting a prompt availability of radiographic images, improving image quality, providing improved operational efficiency, and eliminating lost films. Major limitations of CR were deemed to be limited viewing stations, CR costs, and inefficient patient ID entry. Radiology departments were very happy with the introduction of CR into the ED setting with approximately half being highly satisfied and half somewhat satisfied. The degree of satisfaction by ED personnel was similar with about half being highly satisfied, 40% somewhat satisfied, and the remainder neutral. The fact that not a single respondent was in any way dissatisfied shows that CR can play a useful role in the ED setting.
Key words: PACS, emergency department, computed radiography, digital imaging
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (832.9 KB).
References
- 1.Schaeffer CM, Greene RE, Oestmann JW, et al. Improved control of image optical density with low-dose digital and conventional radiography in bedside imaging. Radiology. 1989;173:713–716. doi: 10.1148/radiology.173.3.2813775. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Niklason LT, Chan H-PC, Cascade PN, et al. Portable chest imaging: Comparison of storage phosphor digital, asymmetric screen-film, and conventional screen-film systems. Radiology. 1993;186:387–393. doi: 10.1148/radiology.186.2.8421740. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Schaefer CM, Prokrop M. Storage phosphor radiography of the chest. Radiology. 1993;186:314–315. doi: 10.1148/radiology.186.2.8421725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Wandke JC. Bedside chest radiograph. Radiology. 1994;190:1–10. doi: 10.1148/radiology.190.1.8043058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Honeyman JC, Frost MM, Huda W, et al. Picture archiving and communications systems (PACS) Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 1994;23:101–160. doi: 10.1016/0363-0188(94)90004-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Tucker DM, Barnes GT, Koehler RE. Picture archiving and communication systems in the intensive care unit. Radiology. 1995;196:297–304. doi: 10.1148/radiology.196.2.7617836. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Huang KH. Picture archiving and communications systems in biomedical imaging. New York, NY: VCH Publishers Inc; 1996. pp. 489–489. [Google Scholar]
- 8.DeCorato DR, Kagetsu NJ, Ablow RC. Off-hours interpretation of radiologic images of patients admitted to the emergency department. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:1293–1296. doi: 10.2214/ajr.165.5.7572522. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Scott WW, Bluemke DA, Mysko WK, et al. Interpretation of emergency department radiographs by radiologists and emergency medicine physicians: Teleradiology workstations versus radiograph readings. Radiology. 1995;195:223–229. doi: 10.1148/radiology.195.1.7892474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Gold RE, Winer-Muram HT, Baum SL, et al. Trauma center imaging problems: Proposed solutions with picture archiving communication systems. J Digit Imaging. 1991;4:79–86. doi: 10.1007/BF03170415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]