Guidelines for cost-effective implementation of Picture Archiving and Communication Systems. An approach building on practical experiences in three European hospitals.

This paper describes a comprehensive approach for the assessment of the impact of (partial) Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS). The approach is developed, based on actual clinical experience in three European hospitals and tested in these environments. The approach departs from a thorough analysis of the working procedures and information flows before implementation, both descriptive and quantitative. On the basis of this analysis, quantitative (and hence testable) objectives of the implementation are defined. The implementation strategy is defined after comparison of various scenarios, taking costs and effects for both the final and the transition phases into account. The approach is supported by a comprehensive evaluation protocol and a software package (PACER). The approach is demonstrated in this paper by applying it on a hypothetical PACS implementation for CT, ultrasound and for the part of the radiology department serving ICU. The objectives of this PACS are: (1)--to shorten the turn around time between the radiology department and ICU from 4 h to 30 min, (2)--to save 2000 m2 of film per year and (3)--to save personnel time. In this case the PACS is introduced in three phases and completed after three years. The cost analysis shows that, if started in 1995, a financial break even point is reached after 6 years, when comparing costs for the film-based system with those of the PACS. Experiences in the three sites show that the approach helps to harvest potential benefits, allowing a cost-effective implementation of PACS.

[1]  Joergen Joergensen,et al.  Clinical experience with PACS , 1994, Medical Imaging.

[2]  A. J. Achterberg,et al.  "PACS Efficiency : A Detailed Quantitative Study Of The Distribution Process Of Films In A Clinical Environment In The Utrecht University Hospital" , 1989, Medical Imaging.

[3]  A R Bakker,et al.  PACER: a software tool for PACS decision makers. , 1994, Medical informatics = Medecine et informatique.

[4]  Mike Meyer,et al.  Evaluation of a PACS for CT and MR: film system compared to PACS , 1995, Medical Imaging.

[5]  T Kozuka,et al.  Technology assessment of PACS in Osaka University Hospital. , 1994, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[6]  Suzy Smith,et al.  Lessons learned and two years clinical experience in implementing the Medical Diagnostic Imaging Support (MDIS) System at Madigan Army Medical Center , 1994, Medical Imaging.

[7]  John A. Vanden Brink,et al.  Review Of Experience With PACS Cost Analysis Model , 1989, Medical Imaging.

[8]  Regina O. Redfern,et al.  Prospective comparison of the usage of conventional film and PACS based computed radiography for portable chest x-ray imaging in a medical intensive care unit , 1995, Medical Imaging.

[9]  Regina O. Redfern,et al.  Incremental cost of PACS in a medical intensive care unit , 1995, Medical Imaging.

[10]  Bas M. van Poppel,et al.  Why do cost-benefit studies of PACS disagree? , 1990, Medical Imaging.

[11]  L J van Erning,et al.  Overview of CAPACITY data. , 1992, International journal of bio-medical computing.

[12]  Hans M. Mosser,et al.  Clinical routine operation of a filmless radiology department: three years experience , 1995, Medical Imaging.