PACS Administrators’ and Radiologists’ Perspective on the Importance of Features for PACS Selection

Abstract

Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) play a critical role in radiology. This paper presents the criteria important to PACS administrators for selecting a PACS. A set of criteria are identified and organized into an integrative hierarchical framework. Survey responses from 48 administrators are used to identify the relative weights of these criteria through an analytical hierarchy process. The five main dimensions for PACS selection in order of importance are system continuity and functionality, system performance and architecture, user interface for workflow management, user interface for image manipulation, and display quality. Among the subdimensions, the highest weights were assessed for security, backup, and continuity; tools for continuous performance monitoring; support for multispecialty images; and voice recognition/transcription. PACS administrators' preferences were generally in line with that of previously reported results for radiologists. Both groups assigned the highest priority to ensuring business continuity and preventing loss of data through features such as security, backup, downtime prevention, and tools for continuous PACS performance monitoring. PACS administrators' next high priorities were support for multispecialty images, image retrieval speeds from short-term and long-term storage, real-time monitoring, and architectural issues of compatibility and integration with other products. Thus, next to ensuring business continuity, administrators' focus was on issues that impact their ability to deliver services and support. On the other hand, radiologists gave high priorities to voice recognition, transcription, and reporting; structured reporting; and convenience and responsiveness in manipulation of images. Thus, radiologists' focus appears to be on issues that may impact their productivity, effort, and accuracy.

Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting

“…In order to do this, many studies relied on literature research [ 20 , 25 , 26 , 45 – 83 ]. In addition, many studies relied on expert interviews [ 20 , 45 – 49 , 51 , 54 , 56 – 58 , 61 , 66 – 71 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 78 , 81 – 97 ] or focus groups [ 26 , 51 , 69 , 82 , 87 , 98 ]. Almost all of the studies defined their criteria by analyzing more than one source of information, although five publications did not explain their process for this step [ 99 – 103 ].…”

“…Depending on the studies’ goal, the participants belonged to the following groups: hospital employees [ 49 , 92 ], patients [ 25 , 47 , 55 , 59 , 60 , 64 , 69 , 72 , 75 , 82 , 95 , 98 ], public/consumers [ 52 , 70 , 103 ], doctors or specialists [ 26 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 79 , 81 , 83 , 93 , 94 , 96 , 97 , 99 , 110 ], medical students [ 80 ] or teachers [ 77 ], biomedical engineers [ 94 ], technical experts [ 93 ], managers [ 93 ], administrators [ 20 ], and stakeholders [ 75 ]. Of the studies, 44 interviewed experts [ 20 , 26 , 45 , 46 , 48 – 51 , 54 , 56 – 58 , 61 , 62 , 66 – 68 , 71 , 74 , 76 – 79 , 81 , 83 – 94 , 96 , 97 , 99 , 104 – 107 , 110 ], 11 studies surveyed consumers or patients [ 25 …”

“…Liberatore and Nydick described the importance of applying the AHP as follows: “Health care and medical decision making has been an early and on-going application area for the AHP” [ 16 ]. The AHP method was applied to different contexts, for example, the development of clinical guidelines [ 17 , 18 ] or biomedical innovations and technology development [ 19 , 20 ].…”

Factors influencing the selection of a picture archiving and communication system: A qualitative study

“…It has been noted that appropriate user interface causes fewer errors and higher accuracy and efficiency by radiologists. In our study, usability had a high priority, while this factor in Joshi study had a low priority compared with other factors influencing the selection. This is not in line with the views of our interviewees.…”

“…For example, radiologists were more concerned about the system's “specialized capabilities for education and research.” IT professionals, on the other hand, were more interested in the system's “interoperability.” Similar to our study, Mancino and Russo found that formation of an appropriate team in PACS selection was important. Joshi et al pointed out that understanding the expectations of both managers and radiologists in the decision making process can be beneficial for a good selection. It seems that the share of each factor including price, work experience, and technical issues in selecting a PACS is affected by the composition of selection committee, the pressure of participating groups, and specific circumstances surrounding medical universities.…”