Electronic imaging impact on image and report turnaround times
We prospectively compared image and report delivery times in our Urgent Care Center (UCC) during a film-based practice (1995) and after complete implementation of an electronic imaging practice in 1997. Before switching to a totally electronic and filmless practice, multiple time periods were consis...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of digital imaging 1999-05, Vol.12 (2 Suppl 1), p.155-159 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 159 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 Suppl 1 |
| container_start_page | 155 |
| container_title | Journal of digital imaging |
| container_volume | 12 |
| creator | Mattern, C W King, Jr, B F Hangiandreou, N J Swenson, A Jorgenson, L L Webbles, W E Okrzynski, T W Erickson, B J Williamson, Jr, B Forbes, G S |
| description | We prospectively compared image and report delivery times in our Urgent Care Center (UCC) during a film-based practice (1995) and after complete implementation of an electronic imaging practice in 1997. Before switching to a totally electronic and filmless practice, multiple time periods were consistently measured during a 1-week period in May 1995 and then again in a similar week in May 1997 after implementation of electronic imaging. All practice patterns were the same except for a film-based practice in 1995 versus a filmless practice in 1997. The following times were measured: (1) waiting room time, (2) technologist's time of examination, (3) time to quality control, (4) radiology interpretation times, (5) radiology image and report delivery time, (6) total radiology turn-around time, (7) time to room the patient back in the UCC, and (8) time until the ordering physician views the film. Waiting room time was longer in 1997 (average time, 26:47) versus 1995 (average time, 15:54). The technologist's examination completion time was approximately the same (1995 average time, 06:12; 1997 average time, 05:41). There was also a slight increase in the time of the technologist's electronic verification or quality control in 1997 (average time, 7:17) versus the film-based practice in 1995 (average time, 2:35). However, radiology interpretation times dramatically improved (average time, 49:38 in 1995 versus average time 13:50 in 1997). There was also a decrease in image delivery times to the clinicians in 1997 (median, 53 minutes) versus the film based practice of 1995 (1 hour and 40 minutes). Reports were available with the images immediately upon completion by the radiologist in 1997, compared with a median time of 27 minutes in 1995. Importantly, patients were roomed back into the UCC examination rooms faster after the radiologic procedure in 1997 (average time, 13:36) than they were in 1995 (29:38). Finally, the ordering physicians viewed the diagnostic images and reports in dramatically less time in 1997 (median, 26 minutes) versus 1995 (median, 1 hour and 5 minutes). In conclusion, a filmless electronic imaging practice within our UCC greatly improved radiology image and report delivery times, as well as improved clinical efficiency. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/bf03168787 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3452886</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>415294</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c529t-d28257ea58b2163f2b309b6944182fd3fc07733623387228c3591921fdf9f773</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU9LHTEUxUNpqU_bjR-gDF24EKbNzd-bjdCKtgWhGxfdhUwmeY7MmzyTGaHfvtGnYt24unDuj8O95xByCPQLUKq_dpFyUKhRvyErUICtZvrPW7KiaHQLiGaP7JdyTSloqcV7sgeUCwYGV-TkbAx-zmkafDNs3HqY1nVunZ-bNN0roXFT3-SwTXlu5iVPLqelKvOwCeUDeRfdWMLHh3lALs_PLk9_the_f_w6_XbResnM3PYMmdTBSewYKB5Zx6nplBECkMWeR0-15lwxzlEzhp5LA4ZB7KOJdXNATna226XbhN6Hac5utNtcD8x_bXKD_X8zDVd2nW4tF5Ihqmpw9GCQ080Symw3Q_FhHN0U0lKsMjU9YeBVkCsOyMXrIEgpUQhewc8vwOt0l-JYbM0CjdAKK3S8g3xOpeQQn34Dau9Ktt_PH0uu8KfnaTxDd63yf69LoDo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>216894768</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Electronic imaging impact on image and report turnaround times</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Mattern, C W ; King, Jr, B F ; Hangiandreou, N J ; Swenson, A ; Jorgenson, L L ; Webbles, W E ; Okrzynski, T W ; Erickson, B J ; Williamson, Jr, B ; Forbes, G S</creator><creatorcontrib>Mattern, C W ; King, Jr, B F ; Hangiandreou, N J ; Swenson, A ; Jorgenson, L L ; Webbles, W E ; Okrzynski, T W ; Erickson, B J ; Williamson, Jr, B ; Forbes, G S</creatorcontrib><description>We prospectively compared image and report delivery times in our Urgent Care Center (UCC) during a film-based practice (1995) and after complete implementation of an electronic imaging practice in 1997. Before switching to a totally electronic and filmless practice, multiple time periods were consistently measured during a 1-week period in May 1995 and then again in a similar week in May 1997 after implementation of electronic imaging. All practice patterns were the same except for a film-based practice in 1995 versus a filmless practice in 1997. The following times were measured: (1) waiting room time, (2) technologist's time of examination, (3) time to quality control, (4) radiology interpretation times, (5) radiology image and report delivery time, (6) total radiology turn-around time, (7) time to room the patient back in the UCC, and (8) time until the ordering physician views the film. Waiting room time was longer in 1997 (average time, 26:47) versus 1995 (average time, 15:54). The technologist's examination completion time was approximately the same (1995 average time, 06:12; 1997 average time, 05:41). There was also a slight increase in the time of the technologist's electronic verification or quality control in 1997 (average time, 7:17) versus the film-based practice in 1995 (average time, 2:35). However, radiology interpretation times dramatically improved (average time, 49:38 in 1995 versus average time 13:50 in 1997). There was also a decrease in image delivery times to the clinicians in 1997 (median, 53 minutes) versus the film based practice of 1995 (1 hour and 40 minutes). Reports were available with the images immediately upon completion by the radiologist in 1997, compared with a median time of 27 minutes in 1995. Importantly, patients were roomed back into the UCC examination rooms faster after the radiologic procedure in 1997 (average time, 13:36) than they were in 1995 (29:38). Finally, the ordering physicians viewed the diagnostic images and reports in dramatically less time in 1997 (median, 26 minutes) versus 1995 (median, 1 hour and 5 minutes). In conclusion, a filmless electronic imaging practice within our UCC greatly improved radiology image and report delivery times, as well as improved clinical efficiency.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0897-1889</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1618-727X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/bf03168787</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10342198</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Springer Nature B.V</publisher><subject>Adult ; Appointments and Schedules ; Approximation theory ; Efficiency, Organizational ; Female ; Health care ; Hospitals, Group Practice ; Humans ; Image analysis ; Image compression ; Male ; Outpatient Clinics, Hospital - organization & administration ; Prospective Studies ; Quality Control ; Radiology Information Systems ; Referral and Consultation ; Session VIII: Evaluating the Reengineering Effort ; Technology, Radiologic ; Time Factors ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Turnaround time ; X-Ray Film</subject><ispartof>Journal of digital imaging, 1999-05, Vol.12 (2 Suppl 1), p.155-159</ispartof><rights>Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 1999</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c529t-d28257ea58b2163f2b309b6944182fd3fc07733623387228c3591921fdf9f773</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c529t-d28257ea58b2163f2b309b6944182fd3fc07733623387228c3591921fdf9f773</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3452886/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3452886/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10342198$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mattern, C W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Jr, B F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hangiandreou, N J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swenson, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jorgenson, L L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Webbles, W E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okrzynski, T W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erickson, B J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williamson, Jr, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forbes, G S</creatorcontrib><title>Electronic imaging impact on image and report turnaround times</title><title>Journal of digital imaging</title><addtitle>J Digit Imaging</addtitle><description>We prospectively compared image and report delivery times in our Urgent Care Center (UCC) during a film-based practice (1995) and after complete implementation of an electronic imaging practice in 1997. Before switching to a totally electronic and filmless practice, multiple time periods were consistently measured during a 1-week period in May 1995 and then again in a similar week in May 1997 after implementation of electronic imaging. All practice patterns were the same except for a film-based practice in 1995 versus a filmless practice in 1997. The following times were measured: (1) waiting room time, (2) technologist's time of examination, (3) time to quality control, (4) radiology interpretation times, (5) radiology image and report delivery time, (6) total radiology turn-around time, (7) time to room the patient back in the UCC, and (8) time until the ordering physician views the film. Waiting room time was longer in 1997 (average time, 26:47) versus 1995 (average time, 15:54). The technologist's examination completion time was approximately the same (1995 average time, 06:12; 1997 average time, 05:41). There was also a slight increase in the time of the technologist's electronic verification or quality control in 1997 (average time, 7:17) versus the film-based practice in 1995 (average time, 2:35). However, radiology interpretation times dramatically improved (average time, 49:38 in 1995 versus average time 13:50 in 1997). There was also a decrease in image delivery times to the clinicians in 1997 (median, 53 minutes) versus the film based practice of 1995 (1 hour and 40 minutes). Reports were available with the images immediately upon completion by the radiologist in 1997, compared with a median time of 27 minutes in 1995. Importantly, patients were roomed back into the UCC examination rooms faster after the radiologic procedure in 1997 (average time, 13:36) than they were in 1995 (29:38). Finally, the ordering physicians viewed the diagnostic images and reports in dramatically less time in 1997 (median, 26 minutes) versus 1995 (median, 1 hour and 5 minutes). In conclusion, a filmless electronic imaging practice within our UCC greatly improved radiology image and report delivery times, as well as improved clinical efficiency.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Appointments and Schedules</subject><subject>Approximation theory</subject><subject>Efficiency, Organizational</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Hospitals, Group Practice</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image analysis</subject><subject>Image compression</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Outpatient Clinics, Hospital - organization & administration</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Quality Control</subject><subject>Radiology Information Systems</subject><subject>Referral and Consultation</subject><subject>Session VIII: Evaluating the Reengineering Effort</subject><subject>Technology, Radiologic</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><subject>Turnaround time</subject><subject>X-Ray Film</subject><issn>0897-1889</issn><issn>1618-727X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU9LHTEUxUNpqU_bjR-gDF24EKbNzd-bjdCKtgWhGxfdhUwmeY7MmzyTGaHfvtGnYt24unDuj8O95xByCPQLUKq_dpFyUKhRvyErUICtZvrPW7KiaHQLiGaP7JdyTSloqcV7sgeUCwYGV-TkbAx-zmkafDNs3HqY1nVunZ-bNN0roXFT3-SwTXlu5iVPLqelKvOwCeUDeRfdWMLHh3lALs_PLk9_the_f_w6_XbResnM3PYMmdTBSewYKB5Zx6nplBECkMWeR0-15lwxzlEzhp5LA4ZB7KOJdXNATna226XbhN6Hac5utNtcD8x_bXKD_X8zDVd2nW4tF5Ihqmpw9GCQ080Symw3Q_FhHN0U0lKsMjU9YeBVkCsOyMXrIEgpUQhewc8vwOt0l-JYbM0CjdAKK3S8g3xOpeQQn34Dau9Ktt_PH0uu8KfnaTxDd63yf69LoDo</recordid><startdate>19990501</startdate><enddate>19990501</enddate><creator>Mattern, C W</creator><creator>King, Jr, B F</creator><creator>Hangiandreou, N J</creator><creator>Swenson, A</creator><creator>Jorgenson, L L</creator><creator>Webbles, W E</creator><creator>Okrzynski, T W</creator><creator>Erickson, B J</creator><creator>Williamson, Jr, B</creator><creator>Forbes, G S</creator><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>Springer-Verlag</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990501</creationdate><title>Electronic imaging impact on image and report turnaround times</title><author>Mattern, C W ; King, Jr, B F ; Hangiandreou, N J ; Swenson, A ; Jorgenson, L L ; Webbles, W E ; Okrzynski, T W ; Erickson, B J ; Williamson, Jr, B ; Forbes, G S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c529t-d28257ea58b2163f2b309b6944182fd3fc07733623387228c3591921fdf9f773</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Appointments and Schedules</topic><topic>Approximation theory</topic><topic>Efficiency, Organizational</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Hospitals, Group Practice</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image analysis</topic><topic>Image compression</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Outpatient Clinics, Hospital - organization & administration</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Quality Control</topic><topic>Radiology Information Systems</topic><topic>Referral and Consultation</topic><topic>Session VIII: Evaluating the Reengineering Effort</topic><topic>Technology, Radiologic</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><topic>Turnaround time</topic><topic>X-Ray Film</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mattern, C W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Jr, B F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hangiandreou, N J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swenson, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jorgenson, L L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Webbles, W E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okrzynski, T W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erickson, B J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williamson, Jr, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forbes, G S</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of digital imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mattern, C W</au><au>King, Jr, B F</au><au>Hangiandreou, N J</au><au>Swenson, A</au><au>Jorgenson, L L</au><au>Webbles, W E</au><au>Okrzynski, T W</au><au>Erickson, B J</au><au>Williamson, Jr, B</au><au>Forbes, G S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Electronic imaging impact on image and report turnaround times</atitle><jtitle>Journal of digital imaging</jtitle><addtitle>J Digit Imaging</addtitle><date>1999-05-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>2 Suppl 1</issue><spage>155</spage><epage>159</epage><pages>155-159</pages><issn>0897-1889</issn><eissn>1618-727X</eissn><abstract>We prospectively compared image and report delivery times in our Urgent Care Center (UCC) during a film-based practice (1995) and after complete implementation of an electronic imaging practice in 1997. Before switching to a totally electronic and filmless practice, multiple time periods were consistently measured during a 1-week period in May 1995 and then again in a similar week in May 1997 after implementation of electronic imaging. All practice patterns were the same except for a film-based practice in 1995 versus a filmless practice in 1997. The following times were measured: (1) waiting room time, (2) technologist's time of examination, (3) time to quality control, (4) radiology interpretation times, (5) radiology image and report delivery time, (6) total radiology turn-around time, (7) time to room the patient back in the UCC, and (8) time until the ordering physician views the film. Waiting room time was longer in 1997 (average time, 26:47) versus 1995 (average time, 15:54). The technologist's examination completion time was approximately the same (1995 average time, 06:12; 1997 average time, 05:41). There was also a slight increase in the time of the technologist's electronic verification or quality control in 1997 (average time, 7:17) versus the film-based practice in 1995 (average time, 2:35). However, radiology interpretation times dramatically improved (average time, 49:38 in 1995 versus average time 13:50 in 1997). There was also a decrease in image delivery times to the clinicians in 1997 (median, 53 minutes) versus the film based practice of 1995 (1 hour and 40 minutes). Reports were available with the images immediately upon completion by the radiologist in 1997, compared with a median time of 27 minutes in 1995. Importantly, patients were roomed back into the UCC examination rooms faster after the radiologic procedure in 1997 (average time, 13:36) than they were in 1995 (29:38). Finally, the ordering physicians viewed the diagnostic images and reports in dramatically less time in 1997 (median, 26 minutes) versus 1995 (median, 1 hour and 5 minutes). In conclusion, a filmless electronic imaging practice within our UCC greatly improved radiology image and report delivery times, as well as improved clinical efficiency.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Springer Nature B.V</pub><pmid>10342198</pmid><doi>10.1007/bf03168787</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0897-1889 |
| ispartof | Journal of digital imaging, 1999-05, Vol.12 (2 Suppl 1), p.155-159 |
| issn | 0897-1889 1618-727X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3452886 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Adult Appointments and Schedules Approximation theory Efficiency, Organizational Female Health care Hospitals, Group Practice Humans Image analysis Image compression Male Outpatient Clinics, Hospital - organization & administration Prospective Studies Quality Control Radiology Information Systems Referral and Consultation Session VIII: Evaluating the Reengineering Effort Technology, Radiologic Time Factors Tomography, X-Ray Computed Turnaround time X-Ray Film |
| title | Electronic imaging impact on image and report turnaround times |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T07%3A28%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Electronic%20imaging%20impact%20on%20image%20and%20report%20turnaround%20times&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20digital%20imaging&rft.au=Mattern,%20C%20W&rft.date=1999-05-01&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=2%20Suppl%201&rft.spage=155&rft.epage=159&rft.pages=155-159&rft.issn=0897-1889&rft.eissn=1618-727X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/bf03168787&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E415294%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=216894768&rft_id=info:pmid/10342198&rfr_iscdi=true |