Abstract
Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS) make possible the viewing of radiographic images on computer workstations located where clinical care is delivered. By the nature of their work this feature is particularly useful for emergency physicians who view radiographic studies for information and use them to explain results to patients and their families. However, the high cost of PACS diagnostic workstations with fuller functionality places limits on the number of and therefore the accessibility to workstations in the emergency department. This study was undertaken to establish how well less expensive personal computer-based workstations would work to support these needs of emergency physicians. The study compared the outcome of observations by 5 emergency physicians on a series of radiographic studies containing subtle abnormalities displayed on both a PACS diagnostic workstation and on a PC-based workstation. The 73 digitized radiographic studies were randomly arranged on both types of workstation over four separate viewing sessions for each emergency physician. There was no statistical difference between a PACS diagnostic workstation and a PC-based workstation in this trial. The mean correct ratings were 59% on the PACS diagnostic workstations and 61% on the PC-based workstations. These findings also emphasize the need for prompt reporting by a radiologist.
Key Words: Digitized images, picture archiving, PC images, PACS, RVS, computers, radiology
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.0 MB).
References
- 1.MacMahon H, Metz CE, Doi K, et al. Digital chest radiography: Effect on diagnostic accuracy of hard copy, conventional video, and reversed grey scale video display formats. Radiology. 1988;168:669–673. doi: 10.1148/radiology.168.3.3406396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Goodman LR, Foley WD, Bolson CRT, et al. Digital and conventional chest images: observer performance with film digital radiography systems. Radiology. 1986;158:27–33. doi: 10.1148/radiology.158.1.3940392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Goodman LR, Wilson CR, Foley WD. Digital radiography of chest: promises and problems. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;150:1241–1252. doi: 10.2214/ajr.150.6.1241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Frank MS, Jost RG, Molina PL, et al. High resolution computer display of portable, digital, chest radiographs of adults: suitability for primary interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;160:473–477. doi: 10.2214/ajr.160.3.8430538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Taira RK, Mankovich NJ, Boechat MI, et al. Design and implementation of a picture archiving and communication system for paediatric radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;150:117–121. doi: 10.2214/ajr.150.5.1117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Arenson RL, Seshadri SB, Kundel HL, et al. Clinical evaluation of a medical image management system for chest images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;150:55–59. doi: 10.2214/ajr.150.1.55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Seeley CW, Fisher HD, Stempski MO, et al. Total digital radiology department: spatial resolution requirements. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987;148:421–426. doi: 10.2214/ajr.148.2.421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.MacMahon H, Vyborny CJ, Metz CE, et al. Digital radiology of subtle pulmonary abnormalities: ROC study of the effect of pixel size on observer performance. Radiology. 1986;158:27–33. doi: 10.1148/radiology.158.1.3940383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Foley WD, Jacobsen DR, Taylor AJ, et al. Display of Ct studies on a two screen electronic workstation versus a film panel alternator: Sensitivity and efficiency among radiologists. Radiology. 1990;174:769–773. doi: 10.1148/radiology.174.3.2305060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ravazi M, Sayre JW, Taira RK, et al. Receiver-Operating-Characteristic study of chest radiographs in children: Digital hard-copy film vs 2K*2K soft-copy images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158:443–448. doi: 10.2214/ajr.158.2.1729805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Steckel RJ, Batra P, Johnson S, et al. Comparison of hard- and soft-copy digital chest images with different matrix sizes for managing coronary care unit patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;164:837–841. doi: 10.2214/ajr.164.4.7726034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Chinn S, Burney PGJ. On measuring repeatability of data from self-administered questionnaires. Int J Epidemiol. 1997;15:121–127. doi: 10.1093/ije/16.1.121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Cochrane AL, Garland LH: Observer error in the interpretation of chest films—an international investigation. Lancet 505–508, (Sept 13) 1952 [DOI] [PubMed]