| Title |
Limitations in and Solutions for Improving the Functionality of Picture Archiving and Communication System: an Exploratory Study of PACS Professionals’ Perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-018-0127-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mona Alhajeri, Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah |
| Abstract |
Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) technology is evolving leading to improvements in the PACS functionality. However, the needs and expectations of PACS users are increasing to cope with the rising demands for improving the workflow and enhancing efficiency in healthcare. The aim was to study the limitations in the current generation of PACS and solutions for improving PACS functionality. This was a longitudinal online observational study of the perspectives of PACS professionals accessed through four online discussion groups on PACS using the LinkedIn network. In this exploratory study, the methodology involved a thematic analysis of qualitative data comprising 250 online posts/comments made by 124 unique PACS professionals collected between January 2014 and December 2015. Participants were mostly male (n = 119, 96%) from the North America (n = 88, 71%). Key themes on limitations in the current generation of PACS were image transmission problems, network and hardware issues, difficulties in changing specific settings, issues in hardcoded Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine attributes, and problems in implementing open source PACS. Main themes on solutions for improving PACS functionality were the integration of multisite PACS, multimedia for PACS, web-based PACS, medical image viewer, open source PACS, PACS on mobile phones, vendor neutral archives for PACS, speech recognition and integration in PACS, PACS backup and recovery, and connecting PACS with other hospital systems. Despite ongoing technological developments, the current generation of PACS has limitations that affect PACS functionality leading to unmet needs and requirements of PACS users, which could impact workflow and efficiency in healthcare. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 139 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 4% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 11% |
| Unknown | 70 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 13% |
| Unknown | 74 | 53% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2021.
All research outputs
#5,478,348
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#220
of 1,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,450
of 340,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#6
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,055 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.