Empirical investigation of radiologists' priorities for PACS selection: an analytical hierarchy process approach.
Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) are being widely adopted in radiology practice. The objective of this study was to find radiologists' perspective on the relative importance of the required features when selecting or developing a PACS. Important features for PACS were identified based on the literature and consultation/interviews with radiologists. These features were categorized and organized into a logical hierarchy consisting of the main dimensions and sub-dimensions. An online survey was conducted to obtain data from 58 radiologists about their relative preferences. Analytical hierarchy process methodology was used to determine the relative priority weights for different dimensions along with the consistency of responses. System continuity and functionality was found to be the most important dimension, followed by system performance and architecture, user interface for workflow management, user interface for image manipulation, and display quality. Among the sub-dimensions, the top two features were: security, backup, and downtime prevention; and voice recognition, transcription, and reporting. Structured reporting was also given very high priority. The results point to the dimensions that can be critical discriminators between different PACS and highlight the importance of faster integration of the emerging developments in radiology into PACS.
Joshi
Vivek
V
Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA. vjoshimd@gmail.com
Lee
Kyootai
K
Melson
David
D
Narra
Vamsi R
VR
D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D003626:Data Display; D003657:Decision Making; D004867:Equipment Design; D005568:Forms and Records Control; D006801:Humans; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians'; D011873:Radiology Information Systems / Q000458:organization & administration*; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013673:Technology Assessment, Biomedical; D014584:User-Computer Interface
Radiology. 2005 Oct;237(1):15-8
16183921
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998 Jan;170(1):23-5
9423591
J Digit Imaging. 2006;19 Suppl 1:10-7
16763932
J Digit Imaging. 2008 Mar;21(1):50-8
17334871
Med Phys. 2009 Aug;36(8):3682-92
19746801
IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2006 Apr;10(2):302-11
16617619
Radiol Manage. 2004 Jul-Aug;26(4):28-34
15377107
Acad Radiol. 2001 Nov;8(11):1127-33
11721812
J Digit Imaging. 2008 Dec;21(4):384-9
17554582
Radiology. 2007 Jun;243(3):656-67
17431128
J Digit Imaging. 2007 Jun;20(2):99-104
17505868
J Digit Imaging. 1998 Nov;11(4 Suppl 2):20-3
9848057
Rofo. 2006 Apr;178(4):400-9
16607588
J Digit Imaging. 2002 Jun;15(2):91-7
12297975
J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Apr;3(4):265-73
17412058
Eur J Radiol. 2011 Mar;77(3):457-61
19875260
Radiology. 2007 Mar;242(3):671-82
17229874
Radiology. 2007 Jul;244(1):78-84
17581896
Eur J Radiol. 2011 May;78(2):210-24
19619971
J Digit Imaging. 2009 Dec;22(6):562-8
19816742
J Am Coll Radiol. 2008 Feb;5(2):144-5
18242532
Radiology. 2009 Oct;253(1):9-16
19789250
Radiol Manage. 2004 May-Jun;26(3):16-24; quiz 25-7
15259683
J Digit Imaging. 2009 Mar;22(1):48-52
18449605