No abstract

When initially evaluating picture archiving communication systems (PACS) many radiologists try to duplicate the film environment and believe that multiple monitors are required to maintain the productivity of the radiologist. The authors were under the same impression initially but found that they underwent a paradigm shift over a period of time. This report documents the evolution that the radiologists underwent. The author's department consists of 28 diagnostic radiologists and 21 residents who actively read cases on a PACS. The department has been filmless for 6 months, although they have been reading soft copy films for 2 years. All modalities except mammography are included. The authors conducted interviews with both attending radiologists and residents to evaluate the change in methodology from the preconceptions to initial use to current use. The number and kind of monitors preferred for plain films, ultrasound scan, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were recorded. Additionally, viewing methods of different modalities were discussed. The authors found that there was a decrease in the number of monitors from preconceptions to actual use. Furthermore, to a lesser degree, there is a reduction of monitors used initially to that which is currently being used. The style of viewing cross-sectional images has changed. There has been a decrease in the number of images displayed on each monitor. The use of the roller ball on the mouse has affected this viewing style. Changing from a film-based reading environment to PACS environment not only brings about change in the overall technology in image delivery but also in the viewing techniques by radiologists. At our institution we have evolved from initially expecting to use 4 monitors all the time to actually preferring 2 monitors and occasionally 1 monitor to view images. Presentation software and viewing aids such as the roller ball on a mouse for viewing CTs in stack mode are key contributions to this paradigm shift. The decrease in monitors makes PACS more affordable and will allow further penetration of filmless radiology. The authors have found that after using PACS, radiologists prefer using 2 monitors. The style of reading films has changed with experience. Hospitals that plan to purchase PACS should consider this and ensure that the vendor has presentation software that optimizes the 2 monitor system.

No abstract

As radiology departments become filmless, they are discovering that some areas are particularly difficult to deliver images. Many departments have found that the operating room is one such area. There are space constraints and difficulty in manipulating the images by a sterile surgeon. This report describes one method to overcome this obstacle. The author's institution has been using picture archiving and communication system (PACS) for approximately 3 years, and it has been a filmless department for 1 year. The PACS transfers images to a webserver for distribution throughout the hospital. It is accessed by Internet Explorer without any additional software. The authors recently started a pilot program in which they installed dual panel flat screen monitors in 6 operating rooms. The computers are connected to the hospital backbone by ethernet. Graphic cards installed in the computers allow the use of dual monitors. Because the surgeons were experienced in viewing cases on the enterprise web system, they had little difficulty in adapting to the operating room (OR) system. Initial reception of the system is positive. The use of the web system was found to be superior by the surgeons because of the flexibility and manipulation of the images compared with film. Images can be magnified to facilitate viewing from across the room. The ultimate goal of electronic radiology is to replace hardcopy film in all aspects. One area that PACS has difficulty in accomplishing this goal is in the operating room. Most institutions have continued to print film for the OR. The authors have initiated a project that may allow web viewing in the OR. Because of limited space in the OR, an additional computer was undesirable. The CPU tower, keyboard, and mouse were mounted on a frame on the wall. The images were displayed on 2 flat screen monitors, which simulated the viewboxes traditionally used by the surgeons. Interviews with the surgeons have found both positive and negative aspects of the system. Overall impression is good, but the timeliness of the intraoperative films needs to be improved. The author's pilot project of installing a web-based display system in the operating room still is being evaluated. Their initial results have been positive, and if there are no major problems that arise the project will be expanded. These results show that it is possible to provide image delivery to the OR over the intranet that is acceptable to the surgeons.