Limitations in and Solutions for Improving the Functionality of Picture Archiving and Communication System: an Exploratory Study of PACS Professionals’ Perspectives

Alhajeri, Mona; Shah, Syed Ghulam Sarwar

doi:10.1007/s10278-018-0127-2

Cited by 25 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These issues demonstrate that the use of PACS is not necessarily an indicator of how accessible images are across different hospitals, which has prompted improvements in PACS functionality. 43…”

Section: Pacs Accessibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It may not be suitable for patients with claustrophobia, those who cannot lie flat for prolonged periods, or those who are obese. [41][42][43] The magnetic fields and radiofrequencies used in MRI are incompatible with many common implantable medical devices, such as deep brain stimulators, cochlear implants, and pacemakers. 43,44 All patients undergoing an MRI exam must be screened beforehand to identify any potentially contraindicated devices or metallic foreign bodies.…”

Section: Magnetic Resonance Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…43,44 All patients undergoing an MRI exam must be screened beforehand to identify any potentially contraindicated devices or metallic foreign bodies. 43,44 Nuclear Medicine…”

Section: Magnetic Resonance Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…52,53 PET-MRI requires injection of radioisotope tracers and therefore requires the same riskbenefit assessment as other nuclear medicine imaging modalities for women of reproductive age and children. 43,44 Since the CT component is replaced by MRI, X-ray exposure is avoided; however, the hazards of magnetic fields remain. 43,44 The radioisotopes have a short half-life, requiring proximity to a cyclotron.…”

Section: Pet-mrimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Canadian Medical Imaging Inventory, 2019–2020

Chao¹,

Sinclair²,

Morrison³

et al. 2021

cjht

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context and Policy Issues The purpose of the CMII is to document current practices and developments in the supply, distribution, technical operations, and general clinical use of advanced imaging equipment across Canada. Medical imaging is a vital component of modern health care, playing a role in the diagnosis, staging, and monitoring of many diseases and conditions. As new medical imaging technologies become available and population needs change, it is important to keep track of where imaging capacity exists, how equipment is used, and the adoption of tools that may support appropriate imaging, system efficiencies, and wait-list reductions. Methods CADTH collected data on six advanced imaging modalities: CT, MRI, PET-CT, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), SPECT-CT, and PET-MRI using a web-based survey and a search of the literature. The data were reviewed by validators for accuracy and validators provided additional information of provincial and regional policies and practices. Summary of Evidence Of the modalities surveyed, CT is the most widely distributed, with the highest number of units, followed by MRI. All provinces and territories have at least one CT unit; all provinces and Yukon have at least one MRI unit; and all provinces have at least one SPECT and/or SPECT-CT unit. None of the territories have SPECT or SPECT-CT. Nine provinces have PET-CT in clinical use. Two provinces, Alberta and Ontario, have PET-MRI that is used for research purposes. Regarding the total volume of exams, CT is the most-used modality (5.41 million exams per year), followed by MRI (2.33 million exams per year), SPECT and SPECT-CT combined (1.2 million exams per year), and PET-CT (125,775 exams per year). Each imaging modality, apart from SPECT, experienced growth in the last decade in Canada in the number of units and the number of units per million people. CT experienced the slowest growth rate of all imaging modalities — at a 1.4% increase in units per million people over the last decade — compared with other imaging modalities (MRI 20%; PET-CT 25%; and SPECT-CT 70%). Over the last decade, the overall volume of exams increased by 32% and 62% for CT and MRI, respectively. Similarly, the number of exams per thousand population increased by 18% and 46%, respectively. Examination data for the other modalities were not available in 2010. Conclusions and Implications for Decision or Policy-Making The CMII data provides insight into the current context of medical imaging across Canada and raise questions related to how medical imaging is monitored and regulated, and how it is optimally used. As well, the data raise questions about how funding structures are organized, what the most cost-effective practices are, and whether access is equitable, especially in rural and remote areas. Overall, the findings of this report may help decision-makers identify gaps in service; inform medical imaging-related strategic planning on a national, provincial, or territorial basis; and help anticipate future growth and need for replacement. Additionally, the data can be used to identify system efficiencies and monitor the adoption of practices and tools that may support appropriate imaging and wait-list reductions.

show abstract

Section: Pacs Accessibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Magnetic Resonance Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…43,44 All patients undergoing an MRI exam must be screened beforehand to identify any potentially contraindicated devices or metallic foreign bodies. 43,44 Nuclear Medicine…”

Section: Magnetic Resonance Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pet-mrimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Canadian Medical Imaging Inventory, 2019–2020

Chao¹,

Sinclair²,

Morrison³

et al. 2021

cjht

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has the limitation of numerous applications pointing to the same data at the same time. Due to the increasing need of storage capacity, the PACS also have its own limitations [26] III. BACKGROUND A complete MRI scan image set is retrieved from the MRI scanner and used by a medical practitioner for medical diagnosis.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%