Interpreting CT studies from PACS workstations takes less time than using conventional film hung on a viewbox, according to research published in the April American Journal of Roentgenology.
Although the small size and digital nature of CT studies appears well-suited to soft-copy reading, prior research has reported unacceptably slow interpretation times for soft-copy vs. hard-copy interpretation, according to investigators from the department of radiology at Veterans Affairs Maryland Health Care System in Baltimore (AJR, April 2001, Vol.176:4, pp.861-864).
To determine if current PACS technology could enhance radiologists' productivity, Dr. Bruce Reiner and colleagues randomly selected 100 studies. The exams were reviewed by four board-certified radiologists experienced in soft-copy interpretation, who were aware of the nature of the study.
Time-motion analysis was performed to determine the total time required to display, interpret, and dictate the individual findings of CT using both conventional hard-copy interpretation (from films hung by the radiologist) and soft-copy diagnosis on a four-monitor high-resolution (2048 x 1536 pixel) workstation.
Total interpretation time was 16.2% less for soft-copy interpretation compared to hard-copy diagnosis. All four radiologists saved between 0.10 to 2.20 minutes using PACS, according to the researchers.
Without comparison images, the researchers found that interpretation of both chest and abdominal or pelvic CT scans revealed substantial time savings with soft-copy interpretation. PACS did not save time when used for interpreting CT scans of the brain, however, presumably due to the limited number of total images and window or level settings typically encountered.
When comparison images were used, however, the study found significantly greater time savings for each individual anatomic region with PACS, which saved even more time as scan complexity and the number of images increased.
PACS chest CT interpretations generated the greatest mean time savings: 1.79 minutes without a comparison study vs. 4.44 minutes with a comparison study. While brain CT-interpretation times for film and PACS were identical without comparison studies, the presence of comparison studies resulted in a mean time savings of 1.53 minutes with PACS, the study team reported.
"Additional hardware advances in monitor technology to improve radiologists' productivity include brighter high-resolution monitors; faster refresh rates to minimize flicker; and greater consistency of brightness, contrast, and tube color to help reduce radiologists' fatigue," the researchers concluded. "These proposed modifications will undoubtedly lead to further enhancements in the productivity of radiologists."
By Erik L. RidleyAuntMinnie.com staff writer
April 26, 2001
Related Reading
Big PACS may mean a bigger workload for radiologists, January 19, 2001
Baltimore VA survey says human factors count in soft-copy reading, August 29, 2000
Click here to post your comments about this story in our PACS Digital Community. Please include the headline of the article in your message.
Copyright © 2001 AuntMinnie.com
