Cited by 41Electronic Health Records SystemsRadiology practices and educationInformation Technology Governance and Strategy

A balanced evaluation perspective: picture archiving and communication system impacts on hospital workflow

Open access
van de Wetering, Rogier, Batenburg, Ronald, Versendaal, Johan, Lederman, Reeva, Firth, Lucy·2006·Journal of Digital Imaging

Abstract

Around the world, hospitals are faced with both budget and regulatory pressures, forcing them to re-examine the way clinical practice is carried out. Proposed technologies that provide workflow enhancements include Picture Archiving and Communications Systems (PACS); however, is PACS really effective in improving hospital workflow and the flow onto patient care, and how should this be evaluated? An acknowledged and successful approach for organizational evaluation is the Balanced Scorecard (BSC), providing the fundamental features for assessing organizations from various perspectives. In this research, the impact of PACS on the workflow of a large public hospital in Melbourne, Australia, is examined using an adapted version of the BSC. Empirically, this model was applied as an evaluation instrument through a series of in-depth interviews with PACS users. Results show that PACS did improve hospital workflow considerably and that the organizational alignment of PACS in hospitals is an important critical success factor.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10278-006-0628-2

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van de Wetering, R., Batenburg, R., Versendaal, J., Lederman, R., & Firth, L.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Batenburg, Ronald
Venue
Journal of Digital Imaging
Published
2006-06-14
Volume
19
Issue
S1
Pages
10-17
ISSN
  • 0897-1889 (ISSN-L)
  • 1618-727X
OpenAlex
W2109290891
Cited by
41
References
23
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
Keywords
PACS, hospital workflow, balanced scorecard, organizational evaluation, success factors, organizational alignment, public hospitals
MeSH terms
Humans, New South Wales, Radiology Department, Hospital, Radiology Information Systems, Efficiency, Organizational, Systems Integration, Quality Indicators, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review