Abstract
A clinical viewing system was integrated with the Mayo Clinic Scottsdale picture archiving and communication system (PACS) for providing images and the report as part of the electronic medical record (EMR). Key attributes of the viewer include a single user log-on, an integrated patient centric EMR image access for all ordered examinations, prefetching of the most recent prior examination of the same modality, and the ability to provide comparison of current and past exams at the same time on the display. Other functions included preset windows, measurement tools, and multiformat display. Images for the prior 12 months are stored on the clinical server and are viewable in less than a second. Images available on the desktop include all computed radiography (CR), chest, magnetic resonance images (MRI), computed tomography (CT), ultrasound (U/S), nuclear, angiographic, gastrointestinal (GI) digital spots, and portable C-arm digital spots. Ad hoc queries of examinations from PACS are possible for those patients whose image may not be on the clinical server, but whose images reside on the PACS archive (10TB). Clinician satisfaction was reported to be high, especially for those staff heavily dependent on timely access to images, as well as those having heavy film usage. The desktop viewer is used for resident access to images. It is also useful for teaching conferences with large-screen projection without film. We report on the measurements of functionality, reliability, and speed of image display with this application.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.1 MB).
References
- 1.Erickson B, Ryan W, Gehring D, et al. Image display for clinicians on medical record workstations. J Digit Imaging. 1997;10(suppl):38–40. doi: 10.1007/BF03168653. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Pavlicek W, Zavalkovskiy B, Eversman W, et al. Performance and function of a multiple star topology image management system at Mayo Clinic Scottsdale. J Digit Imaging. 1999;12(suppl):168–174. doi: 10.1007/BF03168791. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Erickson B, Ryan W, Gehring D, et al. Clinician usage patterns of a desktop radiology information display application. J Digit Imaging. 1998;11(suppl):137–141. doi: 10.1007/BF03168285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Erickson B, Manduca A, Palisson P, et al. Wavelet compression of medical images. Radiology. 1998;206:599–607. doi: 10.1148/radiology.206.3.9494473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Williamson B. Picture archiving and communication system activities at the Mayo Clinic Rochester. J Digit Imaging. 1998;11(suppl):12–15. doi: 10.1007/BF03168171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Savcenko V, Erickson B, Palisson P, et al. Detection of subtle abnormalities on chest radiographs after irreversible compression. Radiology. 1998;206:609–616. doi: 10.1148/radiology.206.3.9494474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Erickson B, Manduca A, Persons K, et al. Evaluation of irreversible compression of digitized posterior-anterior chest radiographs. J Digit Imaging. 1997;10:97–102. doi: 10.1007/BF03168595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Digital Image Communication in Medicine (DICOM) Standards. Rosslyn, VA, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), 1998
- 9.Manduca A, Said A. Wavelet compression of medical images with set partitioning in hierarchical trees. Medical Imaging 1996, Image Display Proc SPIE. 1996;2707:192–200. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Otto D, Bernhardt T, Rappbernhardt U, et al. Subtle pulmonary abnormalities—Detection on monitors with varying spatial resolutions and maximum luminance levels compared with detection on storage phosphor radiographic hard copies. Radiology. 1998;207:237–242. doi: 10.1148/radiology.207.1.9530321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Parisi S, Mogel G, Dominguez R, et al. The effect of 10∶1 compression and soft copy interpretation on the chest radiographs of premature neonates with reference to their possible application in teleradiology. Eur Radiol. 1998;8:141–143. doi: 10.1007/s003300050355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Parasyn A, Hanson R, Peat J, et al. A comparison between digital images viewed on a picture archiving and communication system diagnostic workstation and on a PC-based remote viewing system by emergency physician. J Digit Imaging. 1998;11:45–49. doi: 10.1007/BF03168724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Honea R, Mccluggage C, Parker B, et al. Evaluation of commercial PC-based DIC OM image viewer. J Digit Imaging. 1998;11:151–155. doi: 10.1007/BF03168289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Pavlicek W, Owen JM, Peter MB. Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: Comparison with cathode ray tube displays. J Digit Imaging. 2000;13(suppl 1):155–161. doi: 10.1007/BF03167650. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]