Impact of digital radiography on clinical workflow.

It is commonly accepted that digital radiography (DR) improves workflow and patient throughput compared with traditional film radiography or computed radiography (CR). DR eliminates the film development step and the time to acquire the image from a CR reader. In addition, the wide dynamic range of DR is such that the technologist can perform the quality-control (QC) step directly at the modality in a few seconds, rather than having to transport the newly acquired image to a centralized QC station for review. Furthermore, additional workflow efficiencies can be achieved with DR by employing tight radiology information system (RIS) integration. In the DR imaging environment, this provides for patient demographic information to be automatically downloaded from the RIS to populate the DR Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) image header. To learn more about this workflow efficiency improvement, we performed a comparative study of workflow steps under three different conditions: traditional film/screen x-ray, DR without RIS integration (ie, manual entry of patient demographics), and DR with RIS integration. This study was performed at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (Cleveland, OH) using a newly acquired amorphous silicon flat-panel DR system from Canon Medical Systems (Irvine, CA). Our data show that DR without RIS results in substantial workflow savings over traditional film/screen practice. There is an additional 30% reduction in total examination time using DR with RIS integration.

Impact of digital radiography on clinical workflow and patient satisfaction.

Compared to traditional film radiography, digital radiography is believed to improve workflow and patient throughput. Digital radiography permits the technologist to immediately view the quality of the film directly at the modality. Additional workflow improvements, therefore, should be achieved with the integration of the radiology information system (RIS). To learn more about this proposed efficacy, a study was performed at The Cleveland Clinic Foundation (Cleveland, OH) comparing timings in three groups: traditional film radiography; digital radiography; and digital radiography with RIS integration. Our data validated a timesaving of digital radiography over traditional or standard films and an even greater timesaving in a digital radiography/RIS environment.