You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither SPIE nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the SPIE website.
7 August 2001Workflow comparison of DR- and screen-film-dedicated chest systems
In a medical center performing an average of 50 upright chest examinations per day, a digital radiography dedicated chest device (General Electric) was compared to a conventional screen-film dedicated chest unit (Picker), in terms of workflow, technologist productivity, and overall speed-of-service from examination ordering to interpretation available. An assessment of ease-of-use and workflow of each device was collected via a technologist opinion survey. Productivity was measured as the rate of patient throughput from normalized timing studies. Measurements were made throughout a typical workday and workweek covering periods of constant as well as spurious activity.
The alert did not successfully save. Please try again later.
Katherine P. Andriole, David M. Luth, Robert G. Gould, "Workflow comparison of DR- and screen-film-dedicated chest systems," Proc. SPIE 4323, Medical Imaging 2001: PACS and Integrated Medical Information Systems: Design and Evaluation, (7 August 2001); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.435477