Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 1996; 35(03): 221-229
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634674
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Toward an Evaluation of an Integrated Clinical Imaging System: Identifying Clinical Benefits

B. Kaplan
1   Quinnipiac College, Hamden, CT, USA
,
H. P. Lundsgaarde
2   University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract:

Integrated clinical imaging systems can provide the foundation for future computer-based patient record systems as recommended by the Institute of Medicine. However, documenting the benefits of such systems is difficult. This paper reports an evaluation of a clinical imaging system that is integrated with an on-line electronic patient record. The evaluation used interviews and observations to identify what physicians thought were the benefits of this system. Reported benefits may be classified into patient care benefits, educational benefits, and productivity and cost-reduction benefits. Physicians said that the imaging system provided patient care benefits by: improving clinical communication and decision making, making care more patient-based, reducing the number of procedures and patient risks, and improving record keeping. Educational benefits they reported included: improving communication, providing broad “real” experience, and improving supervision. These benefits may be reflected in increased productivity and cost reduction by increasing time savings, reducing clerical work, improving morale, and reducing the costs of care. The approach described in this study was valuable in identifying potential benefits of a clinical information system. The findings point the way to realization of benefits for other systems, and, ultimately, for computer-based patient records.

Keywords:

Evaluation - Imaging - Computer-based Patient Record - Clinical Benefits - PACS - Organizational Aspects
 

  • References

  • 1 Dick RS, Steen EB. eds. The Computer-Based Patient Record: An Essential Technology for Health Care. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press; 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Gur D, Straub WH, Lieberman RH, Gennari RC. Clinicians’ access to diagnostic imaging information at an academic center: Perceived impact on patient management. Am J R 1992; 158: 893-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Dayhoff RE, Maloney DL. An integrated multidepartmental hospital imaging system: Usage of data across specialties. In: Frisse ME. eds. SCAMC 1992. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1992: 30-4.
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Lowe HJ, Buchanan BG, Cooper GF, Kaplan B, Vries JK. Image Engine: An integrated multimedia clinical information system. In: Greenes RA, Peterson HE, Protti DJ. eds. MEDINFO 95. Edmonton, Alberta: IMIA, Healthcare Computing and Communications Canada Inc.; 1995: 421-5.
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Englemann U, Jean FC, Meinzer JP. et al. Integrated image processing in clinical applications: The HELIOS approach. In: Greenes RA, Peterson HE, Protti DJ. eds. MEDINFO 95. Edmonton, Alberta: IMIA, Healthcare Computing and Communications Canada Inc.; 1995: 411-5.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 McNeill KM, Maloney K, Parra MV, Alsafadi Y. Digital distribution of chest radiographs to intensive care units. In: Greenes RA, Peterson HE, Protti DJ. eds. MEDINFO 95. Edmonton, Alberta: IMIA, Healthcare Computing and Communications Canada Inc.; 1995: 426-9.
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Kaplan B. Fitting system design to work practice: Using observation in evaluating a clinical imaging system. In: Ahuja MK, Galletta DF, Watson HJ. eds. American Conference on Information Systems, Vol. IV: Information Systems-Collaboration Systems and Technology, and Organizational Systems and Technology. Pittsburgh: Association for Information Systems; 1995: 86-8.
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Dayhoff RE. Integration of medical imaging into a multi-institutional hospital information system structure. In: Greenes RA, Peterson HE, Protti DJ. eds. MEDINFO 95. Edmonton, Alberta: IMIA, Healthcare Computing and Communications Canada Inc.; 1995: 407-410.
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Cannavo MJ. Integrated information and image management systems for the 90s. American Hospital Association Hosp Technol Ser August 1990; 9 (21) 1-11.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dwyer SJ, Templeton AW, Martin NL. et al. The cost of managing digital diagnostic images. Radiology 1982; 144: 313-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Drew PG. Picture archiving and communication systems. Hospitals November 1 1985; 59 (21) 78-86.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Vanden Brink J. What radiologists say about PACS. Am J R 1986; 146: 419-420.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bakker AR, van Gennip EMSJ. Workshop aims, outline of the program. Int J Biomed Comput 1992; 30 (03) 4: 165-71.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cannavo MJ. Low-risk strategy for PACS calls for modular phase-in. Diagn Imaging (San Franc) 1988; 10 (06) 135-45.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Straub WH, Gur D. The hidden costs of delayed access to diagnostic imaging information: Impact on PACS implementation. Am J R 1990; 155: 613-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Racoveanu NT. Benefits of coordinated action in PACS evaluation. Int J Biomed Comput 1992; 30 (03) 4: 295-300.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Barneveld Binkhuysen FH. Required functionality of PACS from clinical point of view. Int J Biomed Comput 1992; 30 (03) 4: 187-91.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kurdzeil JC, Kanz R. Administrative and organization impact of PACS and its effect on the quality of care. Int J Biomed Comput 1992; 30 (03) 4: 259-62.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Glass HI. The impact of PACS on the information flow. Int J Biomed Comput 1992; 30 (03) 4: 229-34.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 van Gennip EMSJ, Bakker AR, Greberman M. Int J Biomed Comput 1992; 30 (03) 4: 151-2.
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 21 Crowe BI. Overview of some methodological problems in assessment of PACS. Int J Biomed Comput 1992; 30 (03) 4: 181-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hindle R. Review of optical storage technology for archiving digital medical images. Radiology 1986; 161: 257-62.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bakker AR, Stut Jr WJJ, de Valk JPJ, Reijns GR. PACS costs: Modelling and simulation. Med Inform 1988; 13 (04) 307-13.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Nudelman S, Healy J, Capp MP. A study of photoelectronic-digital radiology – Part II: Cost analysis of a photoelectronic-digital versus film-based system for radiology. IEEE 1982; 70: 708-14.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Seeley GW, Ovitt T, Capp MP. The total digital radiology department: An alternative view. Am J R 1985; 144: 421-2.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lodwick GS. Pictorial information systems and radiology: Improving communications. Appl Radiol 1986; 15 (03) 18-32.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Stockburger WT, King WE. PACS: A financial analysis for economic viability. Appl Radiol 1990; 19 (01) 17-24.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Takeda H, Matsumura Y, Kondo H. et al. System design and implementation of HIS, RIS, and PC-based PACS at the Osaka University Hospital. In: Greenes RA, Peterson HE, Protti DJ. eds. MEDINFO 95. Edmonton, Alberta: IMIA, Healthcare Computing and Communications Canada Inc.; 1995: 430-3.
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Flagle CD. The influence of PACS on quality at the clinical level. Int J Biomed Comput 1992; 30 (03) 4: 255-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Seshardri SB, Arenson RL. The impact of PACS on Research and Education. Int J Biomed Comput 1992; 30 (03) 4: 263-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Hillman Bruce J. The value of imaging technology to patients’ health. Am J R 1988; 150: 1191-2.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cannavo MJ. Component costs still deter most potential PACS users. Diagn Imaging (San Franc) 1989; 11 (02) 163-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Gray JE, Karsell PR, Becker GP, Gehring DG. A skeptical look at a (digital) sacred cow. In: SPIE (Vol. 486). Medical Imaging and Instrumentation 84: 160-6 Slightly revised and reprinted in: Gray JE. Karsell PR, Becker GP. Gehring DG. Total digital radiology: Is it feasible? or desirable? Am J R 1984; 143: 1345-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Rowberg AH, Price TD. The need and user requirements for integrating images with radiology reports. In: Clayton PD. ed. SCAMC 1991. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991: 163-7.
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Humphrey LM, Fitzpatrick K, Paine S, Ravin CE. Extended experience with digital radiography and viewing in an ICU environment. In: SPIE (Vol 1654). Medical Imaging VI: PACS Design and Evaluation 1992; 408-14.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 DeSimone DN, Kundel HL, Arenson RL. et al. Effect of a digital imaging network on physician behavior in an intensive care unit. Radiology 1988; 169 (01) 41-4.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kaplan B. The influence of medical values and practices on medical computer applications. MEDCOMP 82. Silver Spring, MD: IEEE Computer Society Press; 1982: 83-8 Reprinted in: Anderson JG, Jay SJ, eds. Use and impact of Computers in Clinical Medicine. New York: Springer, 1987: 39-50.
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Young DW. What makes doctors use computers?: Discussion paper. J Roy Soc Med 1984; 77: 663-7 Reprinted in: Anderson JG, Jay SJ, eds. Use and Impact of Computers in Clinical Medicine. New York: Springer, 1987: 8-14.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kaplan B. The medical computing “lag”: Perceptions of barriers to the application of computers to medicine. Int JTechnol Assess Health Care 1987; 3 (01) 123-36.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Bryan S, Keen J, Buxton M, Weatherburn G. Evaluation of a hospital-wide PACS: Costs and benefits of the Hammersmith PACS installation. In: SPIE (Vol. 1654). Medical Imaging VI: PACS Design and Evaluation 1992; 573-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Kaplan B. A model comprehensive evaluation plan for complex information systems: Clinical imaging systems as an example. In: Brown A, Remenyi D. eds. European Conference on Information Technology Investment Evaluation. Birmingham. England: Operational Research Society; 1995: 174-81.
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Kaplan B. Organizational evaluation of medical information systems. In: Friedman CP, Wyatt JC. eds. Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics. New York: Springer; (in press).
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Dayhoff RE, Kuzmak P, Maloney D. Medical images as an integral part of the patient’s automated record. In: Symp Computer-Assisted Radiology. Baltimore, Md.: 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Dayhoff RE, Maloney DL, Kuzmak PM, Shepard BM. Integrating medical images into hospital information systems. J Digit Imaging 1991; 4: 87-93.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Dayhoff RE, Kuzmak PM, Maloney DL, Shepard BM. Experience with an architecture for integrating images into a hospital information system. In: Dunn RA. ed. IEEE Computer-Based Medical Sys-tems. Silver Spring, MD: IEEE Computer Society Press; 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 46 Kaplan B. An evaluation model for clinical information systems: Clinical Imaging Systems. In: Greenes RA, Peterson HE, Protti DJ. eds. MEDINFO 95. Edmonton, Alberta: IMIA, Healthcare Computing and Communications Canada, Inc.; 1995: 1087.
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Lundsgaarde HP, Gardner RM, Menlove RL. Using attitudinal questionnaires to achieve benefits optimization. In: Kingsland III LC. ed. SCAMC 1989. Silver Spring, MD: IEEE Computer Society Press; 1989: 703-7.
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Forsythe D, Buchanan BG. Broadening our approach to evaluating medical expert systems. In: Clayton PD. ed. SCAMC 1991. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991: 8-12.
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Kaplan B, Maxwell JA. Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems. In: Anderson JG, Aydin CE, Jay SJ. eds. Evaluating Health Care Information Systems: Methods and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994: 45-68.
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Ramey J, Rowberg AH, Robinson C. Adaptation of an ethnographic method for investigation of the task domain in diagnostic radiology. In: SPIE (Vol 1654). Medical Imaging VI: PACS Design and Evaluation 1992; 325-34.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Fafchamps D, Young CY, Tang PC. Modelling work practices: Input to the design of a physician’s workstation. In: Clayton PD. ed. SCAMC 1991. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991: 788-92.
    Google Scholar
  • 52 Tang PC, Jaworski MA, Feilencer CA. et al. Methods for assessing information needs of clinicians in ambulatory care. In: Gardner RM. ed. SCAMC 1995. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995: 630-4.
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Barley SR. Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Adm Sci Q 1986; 31: 78-108.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Forsythe DE, Buchanan BG, Osheroff JA, Miller RA. Expanding the concept of medical information: An observational study of physicians’ information needs. Comput Biomed Res 1992; 25: 181-200.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Osheroff JA, Forsythe D, Buchanan BG. et al. Physicians’ information needs: Analysis of clinical questions posed during patient care activity. Ann Intern Med 1991; 14: 576-81.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Forsythe DE. Using ethnography to build a working system: Rethinking basic design assumptions. In: Frisse ME. ed. SCAMC 1992. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1992: 505-9.
    Google Scholar
  • 57 Kaplan B. Impact of a clinical laboratory computer system: Users’ perceptions. In: Salamon R, Blum BI, Jörgensen MJ. eds. MEDINFO 86. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publ Comp; 1986: 1057-61.
    Google Scholar
  • 58 Kaplan B. Initial impact of a clinical laboratory computer system: Themes common to expectations and actualities. J Med Syst 1987; 11: 137-47.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Kaplan B, Duchon D. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in information systems research: A case study. MIS Q 1988; 12: 571-86.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Kaplan B, Duchon D. A job orientation model of impact on work seven months post implementation. In: Barber B. et al., eds. MEDINFO 89. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publ Comp; 1989: 1051-5.
    Google Scholar
  • 61 Fischer PJ, Stratmann WC, Lundsgaarde HP, Steele DJ. User reaction to PROMIS: Issues related to acceptability of medical innovations. In: O’Neill JT. ed. SCAMC 1980. Silver Spring, MD: IEEE Computer Society Press; 1980: 1722-1730 Reprinted in: Anderson JG and Jay SJ, eds. Use and Impact of Computers in Clinical Medicine. New York: Springer, 1987: 284-301.
    Google Scholar
  • 62 Lundsgaarde HP, Fischer PJ, Steele DJ. Human Problems in Computerized Medicine. Lawrence KS: University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology, No. 13; 1981
    Google Scholar
  • 63 Gardner RM, Lundsgaarde HP. Evaluation of user acceptance of a clinical expert system. JAMIA 1994; 1: 428-38.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Aydin C. Occupational adaptation to computerized medical information systems. J Health Soc Behav 1989; 30: 163-79.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Aydin C, Ischar R. The effects of computerized order entry on communication between pharmacy and nursing. In: Kingsland III LC. ed. SCAMC 1989. Silver Spring, MD: IEEE Computer Society Press; 1989: 796-801.
    Google Scholar
  • 66 Nyce JM, Graves III W. The construction of neurology: Implications for hypermedia system development. Artif Intell Med 1990; 2: 315-22.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Dayhoff RE, Maloney DL. Utilization of an integrated multidepartmental medical imaging system in a hospital environment. In: SPIE (Vol 1654). Medical Imaging VI: PACS Design and Evaluation. February 1992
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Goodman KW. Ethics and system evaluation. Physicians Comput 1994; 11 (11) 12-4.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine; 1967
    Google Scholar
  • 70 Kaplan B. Reducing barriers to physician data entry for computer-based patient records. Top Health Inf Manage 1994; 15: 24-34.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Kaplan B. Objectification and negotiation in interpreting clinical images: Implications for computer-based patient records. Artif Intell Med 1995; 7: 439-54.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar