Cited by 77Electronic Health Records SystemsTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourRadiology practices and education

Monitoring the PACS Implementation Process in a Large University Hospital—Discrepancies Between Radiologists and Physicians

Open access
Duyck, Philippe, Pynoo, Bram, Devolder, Pieter, Voet, Tony, Adang, Luc, Ovaere, Dries, Vercruysse, Jan·2010·Journal of Digital Imaging

Abstract

Successfully introducing a new technology in a health-care setting is not a walk in the park. Many barriers need to be overcome, not only technical and financial but also human barriers. In this study, we focus on the human barriers to health-care information systems' implementation. We monitored the acceptance of a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) by radiologists and hospital physicians in a large Belgian university hospital. Hereto, questionnaires were taken pre-implementation (T1) and 1 year after the radiology department stopped printing film (T2). The framework we used to perform the study was the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Main findings were that both groups were positive toward PACS prior to the introduction and that each group was even more positive at T2 with extensive PACS experience. In general, the ratings of the radiologists were higher than those of the physicians, as the radiologists experienced more of the benefits of PACS and had to use PACS throughout the day. Two factors were salient for predicting users' intention to use PACS: the usefulness of PACS (performance expectancy) and the availability of support of any kind (facilitating conditions). The results show that our approach was successful. Both radiologists and physicians give evidence of an excellent level of user acceptance. We can conclude that the implementation of PACS into our hospital has succeeded.

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/s10278-008-9163-7

Cites

24 of 24 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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kohli R, Kettinger WJ. Informating the clan: Controlling physicians' costs and outcomes. Mis Quarterly. 2004;28(3):363-94.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duyck, P., Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Voet, T., Adang, L., Ovaere, D., & Vercruysse, J.
Affiliations
Ghent University Hospital (BE)
Corresponding author
Pynoo, Bram
Venue
Journal of Digital Imaging
Published
2008-10-28
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
73-80
ISSN
  • 0897-1889 (ISSN-L)
  • 1618-727X
OpenAlex
W1977965796
Cited by
77
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
Keywords
PACS, PACS implementation, health information systems, technology acceptance, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, radiologists, hospital physicians, user acceptance, performance expectancy, facilitating conditions, university hospital
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Computers, Belgium, Hospitals, University, Humans, Organizational Innovation, Organizational Objectives, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires, Radiology Information Systems

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