Challenges of Implementing Picture Archiving and Communication System in Multiple Hospitals: Perspectives of Involved Staff and Users

Factors That Affect Knowledge-Sharing Behaviors in Medical Imaging Departments in Cancer Centers: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Knowledge management plays a significant role in health care institutions. It consists of 4 processes: knowledge creation, knowledge capture, knowledge sharing, and knowledge application. The success of health care institutions relies on effective knowledge sharing among health care professionals, so the facilitators and barriers to knowledge sharing must be identified and understood. Medical imaging departments play a key role in cancer centers. Therefore, an understanding of the factors that affect knowledge sharing in medical imaging departments should be sought to increase patient outcomes and reduce medical errors.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the facilitators and barriers that affect knowledge-sharing behaviors in medical imaging departments and identify the differences between medical imaging departments in general hospitals and cancer centers.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search in PubMed Central, EBSCOhost (CINAHL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Elsevier (Scopus), ProQuest, and Clarivate (Web of Science) in December 2021. Relevant articles were identified by examining the titles and abstracts. In total, 2 reviewers independently screened the full texts of relevant papers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies that investigated the facilitators and barriers that affect knowledge sharing. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the included articles and narrative synthesis to report the results.

RESULTS

A total of 49 articles were selected for the full in-depth analysis, and 38 (78%) studies were included in the final review, with 1 article added from other selected databases. There were 31 facilitators and 10 barriers identified that affected knowledge-sharing practices in medical imaging departments. These facilitators were divided according to their characteristics into 3 categories: individual, departmental, and technological facilitators. The barriers that hindered knowledge sharing were divided into 4 categories: financial, administrative, technological, and geographical barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlighted the factors that influenced knowledge-sharing practices in medical imaging departments in cancer centers and general hospitals. In terms of the facilitators and barriers to knowledge sharing, this study shows that these are the same in medical imaging departments, whether in general hospitals or cancer centers. Our findings can be used as guidelines for medical imaging departments to support knowledge-sharing frameworks and enhance knowledge sharing by understanding the facilitators and barriers.

Design and Implementation of a Cloud PACS Architecture

The limitations of the classic PACS (picture archiving and communication system), such as the backward-compatible DICOM network architecture and poor security and maintenance, are well-known. They are challenged by various existing solutions employing cloud-related patterns and services. However, a full-scale cloud-native PACS has not yet been demonstrated. The paper introduces a vendor-neutral cloud PACS architecture. It is divided into two main components: a cloud platform and an access device. The cloud platform is responsible for nearline (long-term) image archive, data flow, and backend management. It operates in multi-tenant mode. The access device is responsible for the local DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) interface and serves as a gateway to cloud services. The cloud PACS was first implemented in an Amazon Web Services environment. It employs a number of general-purpose services designed or adapted for a cloud environment, including Kafka, OpenSearch, and Memcached. Custom services, such as a central PACS node, queue manager, or flow worker, also developed as cloud microservices, bring DICOM support, external integration, and a management layer. The PACS was verified using image traffic from, among others, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR), and computed radiography (CR) modalities. During the test, the system was reliably storing and accessing image data. In following tests, scaling behavior differences between the monolithic Dcm4chee server and the proposed solution are shown. The growing number of parallel connections did not influence the monolithic server's overall throughput, whereas the performance of cloud PACS noticeably increased. In the final test, different retrieval patterns were evaluated to assess performance under different scenarios. The current production environment stores over 450 TB of image data and handles over 4000 DICOM nodes.

Survey-based Evaluation of the Use of Picture Archiving and Communication Systems in an Eye Hospital-Ophthalmologists' Perspective

PURPOSE

Picture archiving and communication system (PACS) is a medical imaging system for sharing, storage, retrieval, and access of medical images stored. Our study aimed to identify ophthalmologists' views on PACS, with the comparison between 3 platforms, namely electronic patient record (ePR), HEYEX (Heidelberg Engineering, Switzerland), and FORUM (Zeiss, US), following their implementation in an eye hospital for common ophthalmic investigations [visual field, optical coherence tomography (OCT) of retinal nerve fiber layer and macula, and fluorescein/indocyanine green angiography (FA/ICG)].

METHODS

An online survey was distributed among ophthalmologists in a single center. Primary outcome included comparison of PACS with paper-based system. Secondary outcomes included pattern of use and comparison of different PACS platforms.

RESULTS

Survey response rate was 28/37 (75.7%). Images were most commonly accessed through ePR (median: 80% of time, interquartile range: 50 to 90%).All systems scored highly in information display items (median scores ≥7.5 out of 10) and in reducing patient identification error in investigation filing and retrieval during consultation compared to paper (score ≥7.0). However, ePR was inferior to paper in "facilitating comparison with previous results" in all investigation types (scores 3.0 to 4.5). ePR scored significantly higher in all system quality items than HEYEX ( P  < 0.001) and FORUM ( P  < 0.022), except login response time ( P  = 0.081). HEYEX scored significantly higher among vitreoretinaluveitis members (VRU) for information quality items for OCT macula and FA/ICG [VRU: 10.0 (8.0 to 10.0), non-VRU: 8.0 (6.75 to 9.25), P  = 0.042].

CONCLUSIONS

Overall feedback for PACS among ophthalmologists was positive, with limitations of inefficiency in use of information, for example, comparison with previous results. Subspecialty played an important role in evaluating PACS.

Investigating the satisfaction level of physicians in regards to implementing medical Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS)

Background

User satisfaction with PACS is considered as one of the important criteria for assessing success in using PACS. The objective of this study was to determine the level of user satisfaction with PACS and to compare its functional features with traditional film-based systems.

Methods

This study was conducted in 2017. Residents at three large university hospitals in Kerman filled-out a self-administered questionnaire consisting of three parts: demographic information of participants, user satisfaction with PACS, comparing features of the two digital and traditional imaging systems. The validity of this questionnaire was approved by five medical informatics, radiology, and health information management specialists and its reliability was confirmed by Cronbach’s alpha (86%). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Spearman, Mann Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis statistical tests.

Results

The mean of the participants’ ages was 31.4 (±4.4) years and 59% of the participants were females. The mean of physicians’ satisfaction with PACS’ had no significant relationship with their age (P = 0.611), experience of using PACS (P = 0.301), specialty (P = 0.093), and percent of interpretation of images with PACS (P = 0.762). It had a significant relationship with the participants’ computer skills (P = 0.022).

Conclusions

The mean of physicians’ satisfaction with PACS was at a moderate to a high level, yet there are still problems in the successful implementation of these systems and establishing interoperability between them. PACS has not fully met all the demands of physicians and has not achieved its predetermined objectives, such as all-access from different locations.