PACS Development in Austria: A Discussion of Success Criteria and Success Factors^[*]

Summary

Objectives: The paper uses the example of PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System) in Austria (where some of the earliest large PACS projects were realised and led to a high penetration with state-wide networked PACS installations) to discuss success criteria and success factors of medical information systems.

Methods: The paper describes the development of digital imaging in medicine and classifies the impact of systems according to their first or second order effects on patient care. The historic goals of PACS and the technical infrastructure in the eighties are shortly described.

The paper then outlines the early PACS projects in Austria and their different approaches as well as the present state of PACS in Austria.

Results: After giving a definition of success, success criteria (which allow to decide whether a system is in fact a success or not) are discussed in general – the final criterion being routine use – and in detail and it is concluded that PACS in Austria was and is indeed successful.

Conclusion: The analysis of success factors shows a multitude of influences but the most decisive ones are the practical ability of the system to deliver a real service to health care and the ability to support the (key) users in their work and goals.

Keywords

PACS - success criteria - success factors - technology assessment

• References

• 1 Bauman RA, Gell G, Dwyer SJ. Large Picture Archiving and Communication Systems of the World – Part 1. J Digit Imaging 1996; 3 (09) 99-103.
• 2 Gell G. AURA: Routine Documentation of Medical Texts. Methods Inf Med 1983; 2 (22) 63-8.
• 3 Gell G, Schneider GH, Wiltgen M. PACS-RIS Interfacing: Experiences and Problems. In: Lemke HU, Rhodes ML, Jaffe CC, Felix R. Computer Assisted Radiology. Berlin – Heidelberg – New York:: Springer; 1989: 623-7.
• 4 Gell G. PACS-Graz, 1985–2000: From a scientific pilot to a state-wide multimedia radiological information system. In: Blaine GJ, Siegel EL. Medical Imaging 2000: PACS Design and Evaluation: Engineering and Clinical Issues. Proc. of SPIE, Feb. 15-17, 2000. San Diego: Vol. 3980 19-28.
• 5 Leodolter W, Gell G. PACS – RIS – HIS for 20 Hospitals. In: Niinimäki J, Ilkko E, Reponen J. EuroPACS 2002: From Local to Mobile; Proceeding of the 20th EuroPACS annual meeting; Sept. 5-7. 2002. Oulu/Finland; 2002 17-9.
• 6 Hruby W, Mosser H, Urban M, Rüger W. The Vienna SMZO-PACS project: the totally digital hospital. Eur J Radiol 1992; 16: 66
• 7 Mosser H, Urban M, Hruby W. Filmless digital radiology – feasibility and 20 month experience in clinical routine. Methods Inf Med 1994; 19 (02) 149-59.
• 8 Peer S, Vogl R, Peer R, Jaschke W. Sophisticated Hospital Information System/Radiology Information System/Picture Archiving and Communications System (PACS) Integration in a Large-Scale Traumatology PACS. Journal of Digital Imaging 1999; 12 (02) 99-102.
• 9 Stoeger A, Giaccomuzzi S, Strohmayr W, Dessl A, Buchberger W, Erckert B, Jaschke W. Experiences with Applied Teleradiology in Austria. In: Lemke HU. et al. Computer Assisted Radiology. Berlin – Heidelberg – New York:: Springer; 1996: 515-8.
• 10 Soegner P, Rettenbacher T, Smekal A, Zur Nedden D. Guidelines for teleradiology practice: results of the Tyrolean teleradiology pilot project. J Telemed Telecare 2003; 9 (01) 48-50.
• 11 Gambal J, Leixnering M, Pezzei C, Prokop R, Steiner H. The PACS Project of the AUVA. In: Lemke HU, Vannier MW, Inamura K, Farmann A. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium and Exhibition; June 24-27, 1998. Tokyo: 1998: 403-8.
• 12 Allen RE. The Concise Oxford Dictionary. Oxdorf: Clarendon Press.; 1990
• 13 Gell G. Side Effects and Responsibility of Medical Informatics. Int J Med Inform 2001; 64: 69-81.
• 14 Peters PE. Radiologie 2000. Radiologe 1991; 31: 153-7.