Skip to main content
Journal of Digital Imaging logoLink to Journal of Digital Imaging
. 2002 May 20;15(1):22–26. doi: 10.1007/s10278-002-0999-y

Changes in Technologist Productivity with Implementation of an Enterprisewide PACS

Bruce Reiner 1,, Eliot Siegel 1, Mary Scanlon 1
PMCID: PMC3946080  PMID: 12134211

Abstract

The purpose of this report is to determine what effect filmless operation has on technologist productivity when compared with traditional film-based operation. Retrospective data on technologist productivity was collected from the study institution before and after implementation of PACS using workload reports and payroll records. Departmentwide technologist productivity was defined as the number of examinations per full-time equivalent (exams/FTE) and correlated with local and nationwide standards operating in traditional film-based operations. During filmbased operation, technologist productivity was comparable between the study institution and nationwide standards, allowing for the unique examination volumes and modality mix. After implementation of a large-scale PACS, technologist productivity was found to increase 34% above that of national standards and 48% that of the local control site. Implementation of an enterprisewide PACS offers the potential to significantly improve departmentwide technologist productivity when compared with traditional film-based operation.

KEY WORDS: picture archival and communications system, technologist productivity

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (110.9 KB).

References

  • 1.Trisolini MG, Bzoswell SB, Johnson SK, et al. Radiology work-load measurements reflecting variables specific to hospital, patient and examination: results of a collaborative study. Radiology. 1988;166:247–253. doi: 10.1148/radiology.166.1.3275968. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ginzberg E. Is cost containment for real? JAMA. 1986;256:254–255. doi: 10.1001/jama.1986.03380020116035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Higgins CW, Meyers ED. The economic transformation of American health insurance: Implications for the hospital industry. Health Care Manage Rev. 1986;11:21–27. doi: 10.1097/00004010-198601140-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook 2001 www.bls.gov
  • 5.Costello MA. AHA News. 2001. More than a job. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.MacEwan DW. Radiology workload system for diagnostic radiology: productivity environment studies. J Can Assoc Radiol. 1982;33:182–196. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Janower ML. Productivity standards for technologists: How to use them. Radiology. 1988;166:276–277. doi: 10.1148/radiology.166.1.3336694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Clinton MG. Radworks Workload Measurement Standards. Sudbury, MA: American Healthcare Radiology Administrators; 1994. pp. 13–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hartwell LL, Conway JM. Utilization of Imaging Staff: Measuring Productivity. Sudbury, MA: American Healthcare Radiology Administrators; 1996. pp. 1–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Asante EO, Eberhart CS, Ising JJ, et al. Staff Utilization Survey. Sudbury, MA: American Healthcare Radiology Administrators; 2001. pp. 15–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ, et al. Effect of filmbased versus filmless operation on the productivity of CT technologists. Radiology. 1998;207:481–485. doi: 10.1148/radiology.207.2.9577498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Reiner BI, Siegel EL. PACS and productivity. In: Siegel EL, Kolodner RM, editors. Filmless Radiology. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1996. pp. 103–112. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Flagle C, et al. Effect of filmless imaging on the utilization of radiologic services. Radiology. 2000;215:163–167. doi: 10.1148/radiology.215.1.r00ap41163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Saarinen AO, Haymor DR, Loop JW, et al. Modeling the economics of PACS: What is important? Proc Med Im III Conf. 1989;1093:62–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Van der Loo RP, Gennip EMSJ. Evaluation of personnel savings through PACS: A modeling approach. Int J Biomed Comput. 1992;30:235–241. doi: 10.1016/0020-7101(92)90027-P. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Trisolini MG, Baswell SB, Johnson SK, et al. Radiology work-load measurements reflecting variables specific to hospital, patient, and examinations: Results of a collaborative study. Radiology. 1988;166:247–253. doi: 10.1148/radiology.166.1.3275968. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Siegel EL, Diaconis JN, Pomerantz S, et al. Making filmless radiology work. J Digit Imaging. 1995;8:151–155. doi: 10.1007/BF03168713. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Janower M. Productivity standards for technologists: How to use them. Radiology. 1988;166:276–277. doi: 10.1148/radiology.166.1.3336694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.McNeil BJ, Sapienza A, Van Gerpen J, et al. Radiology department management system: Technologists’ costs. Radiology. 1983;156:57–60. doi: 10.1148/radiology.156.1.3923558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Reiner B, Siegel E, Kuzmak P, et al. Transmission failure rate for computed tomography examinations in a filmless imaging department. J Digit Imaging. 2000;13:79–82. doi: 10.1007/BF03167631. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Digital Imaging are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES