Multi-institutional analysis of computed and direct radiography. Part I. Technologist productivity

Radiology

Volumn 236, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 413-419

  Reiner, Bruce I ^a,b,e   Siegel, Eliot L ^a,b   Hooper, Frank J ^a   Siddiqui, Khan M ^a   Musk, Amy ^a   Walker, Larry ^c   Chacko, Anna ^d  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^d LAHEY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DIRECT RADIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; INFORMATION SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; JOB PERFORMANCE; MEASUREMENT; PATIENT POSITIONING; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOGRAPHY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TECHNIQUE; TECHNOLOGY;

EFFICIENCY; HUMANS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 22544442738     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2362040671     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Hendee WR, Brown EF, Stanley RJ, et al. Colliding forces in radiology: technologic imperative, resource limitations, and accountability demands. RadioGraphics 1994; 14:647-653.
2. Sachdeva RC. Measuring the impact of new technology: an outcomes-based approach. Crit Care Med 2001; 29(8 suppl):190-195.
3. Reiner B, Siegel E, Bradham D, et al. Establishing benchmarks for creation of a pro forma economic model for a filmless PACS operation. J Digit Imaging 2000; 13:129-135.
4. Radiologic technologists and technicians. In: Occupational outlook handbook. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site, http://www.bls.gov/oco/ ocos105.htm. Accessed July 10, 2004.
5. Reiner B, Siegel E, Carrino J, McElveny C. SCAR radiologic technologist survey: analysis of technologist workforce and staffing. J Digit Imaging 2002; 15:121-131.
6. Asante EO, Eberhart CS, Ising JJ, et al, eds. Staff utilization survey. Sudbury, Mass: American Healthcare Radiology Administrators, 2001.
7. Reiner B, Siegel E, Flagle C, et al. Impact of filmless imaging on utilization of radiology services. Radiology 2000; 215:163-167.
8. Reiner BI, Siegel EL. Technologists' productivity when using PACS: comparison of film-based versus filmless radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:33-37.
9. Siegel EL, Diaconis JN, Pomerantz S, et al. Making filmless radiology work. J Digit Imaging 1995; 8:151-155.
10. Reiner B, Siegel E, Scanlon M. Changes in technologist productivity with implementation of an enterprise-wide PACS. J Digit Imaging 2002; 15:22-26.
11. Redfern RO, Langlotz CP, Abbuhl SB, et al. The effect of PACS on the time required for technologists to produce radiographic images in the emergency department radiology suite. J Digit Imaging 2002; 15:153-160.
12. May GA, Deer DD, Dackiewicz D. Impact of digital radiography on clinical work-flow. J Digit Imaging 2000; 13(2 suppl 1):76-78.
13. Mehta M, Lee T. A comparison of film-screen, CR and DR: a community hospital time-motion study. Radiol Manage 2003; 25:38-42.
14. Wade FA, Oliver CW. Living with digital imaging. Clin Orthop 2004; 421:25-28.
15. Andriole KP, Luth DM, Gould RG. Workflow assessment of digital versus computed radiography and screen-film in the outpatient environment. J Digit Imaging 2002; 15(suppl 1):124-126.
16. Andriole KP. Productivity and cost assessment of CR, DR, and screen-film for outpatient chest exams. J Digit Imaging 2002; 15:161-169.
17. Reiner BI, Salkever D, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ, Siddiqui KM, Musk A. Multi-institutional analysis of computed and direct radiography. II. Economic analysis. Radiology 2005; 236:420-426.