By law, each time changes are made to
patient scan protocols they must be
accompanied by a new order from the referring
physician. In order to maintain policy, laws
and procedures, a great deal of paper
documentation is still used throughout
radiology practice. Progress towards paperless
radiology in the new age of digital
environments can be an up-hill battle,
especially for outpatient imaging centers.
Though still representing the depth and
complexity of illnesses seen within a tertiary
care environment, outpatients being scanned
away from the overwhelming hustle and bustle
of inpatient imaging suites no longer
encounter delays due to 'emergency add-ons'.
Instead they are greeted by new facilities,
expertly trained technologists, and
state-of-the-art imaging equipment. However,
the management and protocoling of received
orders have proven to be a laborious process.
Dr. Matthew Bassignani, Assistant Professor
of Radiology and Director for Radiology
Information Systems for UVAHSC, described how
his team developed a totally paper free
process in which protocoling is accomplished
through scanning of documents into their PACS
system.
Utilizing the commonly available
worklisting features found on most commercial
PACS, Bassignani and colleagues detailed and
employed exact steps to create an environment
of paperless protocoling. One of the key
features in this development was the detailed
attention paid to the clinical workflow of
both radiologists and technologists. In this
informatics age, Bassignani states, "it's not
only important to migrate workflow from the
paper to the paperless environment, but it
should be done with an eye to improving the
workflow process."
Just when we thought the paper chase was
coming to an end, the challenges of
integration rear their ugly heads. "Whether we
are faxing or scanning [orders], we are still
required to handle paper," says Bassignani. As
we work to trim costs, improve patient care
and increase quality and efficiency, PACS may
offer several advantages to radiology
practice. However, on the other hand, "in a
complete paperless world, RIS may be the one
to suffer and not be able to handle the work
load," he adds.
In an industry with shrinking margins,
limited resources and increasing complexities,
being highly efficient is critical and quality
should not have to suffer.
The quality of images accepted for
interpretation in our digital radiology
environments are often described as inferior
to say the least.
QA is a critical function, says Dr. W.
James Sehnert, Carestream Health Inc. "It
holds ramifications on diagnostic accuracy,
department workflow, productivity and, more
importantly, patient safety." Often driven to
increase productivity and workflow,
radiographers may not be entirely objective
when assessing the quality of their own work.
Utilizing a large database of radiographs
and associated metadata collected over a
five-month period, Sehnert and researchers
investigated the differences in the quality of
radiographs that were produced in dissimilar
workflow environments. Both QA-accepted and
QA-rejected radiographs were included. Nine
board-certified radiologists participated as
readers in the study.
Of the QA-accepted radiographs included in
the study, there were a total of 216 PA chest
exams and 426 portable chest exams.
Radiologists determined that 18 (8.3 per cent)
of the PA chest radiographs and 122 (28.6 per
cent) of the portable radiographs were
sub-diagnostic, indicating that radiographers
are more likely to accept subdiagnostic
radiographs for interpretation for portable
relative to in-department chest radiography.
Researchers note that because of the wide
variations in tissue attenuation within the
thorax thus limiting one's ability to
simultaneously assess the lung fields,
mediastinum, and chest wall, chest radiography
can be technically challenging. As a result of
such challenges portable chest radiography has
been cited as the single radiographic
examination with the greatest variability in
image quality. However, while there is a need
to improve image quality, little has been done
to standardize the QA process for portable
chest radiography.
In this study researchers confirmed that
QA, as practiced in portable chest
radiography, is inadequate. In addition, it
also indicated the quality of radiographs
attained within in-department PA chest
radiography is significantly better than
portable chest radiography.
Bassignani suggests, "One way to address
this problem would be to create a system that
would facilitate immediate review of the
portable studies."