Radiologists' productivity in the interpretation of CT scans: a comparison of PACS with conventional film.

OBJECTIVE We compared radiologists' times in the interpretation of CT using hardcopy films with the interpretation using a soft-copy picture archiving and communication system (PACS) computer workstation. MATERIALS AND METHODS One hundred CT examinations were selected at random and reviewed by four board-certified radiologists experienced in soft-copy interpretation. We performed time-motion analysis to determine the total time required to display, interpret, and dictate the individual findings of CT using conventional hard-copy interpretation on a viewbox and soft-copy interpretation, using a four-monitor high-resolution (2048 x 1536 pixel) workstation. RESULTS Time-motion analysis showed a reduction of 16.2% in the overall time required for soft-copy interpretation of CT compared with that of film. Time savings with soft-copy interpretation were observed for all four participating radiologists. The benefit of soft-copy interpretation was increased for examinations in which there were comparison studies. CONCLUSION We found that soft-copy interpretation of CT using a PACS workstation requires less time than interpretation using conventional film hung on a viewbox. The transition to filmless imaging has the potential to improve radiologists' productivity and report-turnaround time.

[1]  V. Muse,et al.  An automated PACS workstation interface: a timesaving enhancement. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  B J Hillman,et al.  New imaging technology and cost containment. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  J R Perry,et al.  Interpretation of CT studies: single-screen workstation versus film alternator. , 1993, Radiology.

[4]  D Gur,et al.  Primary CT diagnosis of abdominal masses in a PACS environment. , 1991, Radiology.

[5]  E L Siegel,et al.  Effect of filmless imaging on the utilization of radiologic services. , 2000, Radiology.

[6]  W D Foley,et al.  Display of CT studies on a two-screen electronic workstation versus a film panel alternator: sensitivity and efficiency among radiologists. , 1990, Radiology.

[7]  N H Strickland,et al.  Interpretation of CT scans with PACS image display in stack mode. , 1997, Radiology.

[8]  L L Berland,et al.  CT of bowel obstruction: interpretation using cine-paging. , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  T Ishigaki,et al.  Clinical evaluation of newly developed CRT viewing station: CT reading and observer's performance. , 1995, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.

[10]  E Nishihara,et al.  Preliminary time-flow study: comparison of interpretation times between PACS workstations and films. , 1995, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.

[11]  Samuel J. Dwyer,et al.  Processes Involved in Reading Imaging Studies: Workflow Analysis and Implications for Workstation Development , 1997, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[12]  E L Siegel,et al.  Effect of film-based versus filmless operation on the productivity of CT technologists. , 1998, Radiology.

[13]  N H Strickland,et al.  Default display arrangements of images on PACS monitors. , 1995, The British journal of radiology.

[14]  K S Berbaum,et al.  Evaluation of a PACS workstation for assessment of body CT studies. , 1990, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[15]  D Gur,et al.  Requirements for PACS: users' perspective. , 1993, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.