Imaging Technology News - January/February 2009 - (Page 9)

Picture Archiving & Communication Systems (PACS) COMPARISON CHART I n PACS, there is a No. 1, a No. 5 and a No. 20 player in the market. Even small players are increasingly important in defining and shaping PACS, with the bigger players having to rely, more often that not, on the strength of their global relationship with the client, not on the strength of their PACS. PACS RFPs are a cry for help from hospitals, yet vendors are unsure of what the client needs because many clients fail to adequately articulate their needs. What each vendor does in cases like this is output a templated Find out if the PACS response, hoping they will be at Web-enabled. least close to what the client wants. Finding the uniqueness between systems becomes even more of a challenge because hospitals do not understand the differences between the templated responses, and vendors themselves often do not understand what really makes their system unique. From a hardware perspective the key differentiators remain the operational and functional feature sets and their impact on workflow rather than the hardware itself. Software, specifically that related to the graphical user interface (GUI) on the radiologist’s diagnostic workstation, remains one of the key components to evaluate. How it works is much more important than the feature sets that almost every vendor replicates. PACS still needs to be looked at as the sum of all parts, not just hardware and software. Starting with company background is a given, because you need to know who you are dealing with and a little about them. With hardware basically a commodity, we have to look at things that make a difference from an implementation standpoint. Not all companies offer software-only solutions, although many who have not are starting to. Understanding the capabilities of the software, including upgrades (added features), and how this has evolved also remains important. Including how it fits in the enterprisewide view of PACS promoted by many CIOs, is important as well. The large and small PACS providers featured on this chart may offer RIS, HIS, EMR/CPR, digital dictation, voice/speech recognition (VR/SR), cardiology PACS, orthopedic PACS, digital mammography and other solutions integrated with the PACS. It is important is Web-based or to know whether the package offers a brokered or broker-less RIS interface and what the cost of a standard RIS interface runs. For connectivity across an enterprise, a PACS should support the IHE (Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise) standard. Also, be sure to find out if the PACS is Webbased or Web-enabled. There are many archives/storage options available, especially for off-site storage and disaster recovery. Buyers should know if the images are stored compressed or uncompressed, and if storage is provided locally (at the server level), at the archive level and at the disaster recovery level. This can save the hospital hundreds of thousands of dollars in hardware and ongoing support. The bottom line is that selecting a PACS vendor still remains an inexact art, not a science. Better than 90 percent of PACS selections still are based largely on the customer’s relationship with the vendor and not the vendor’s technical superiority or what they responded to in an RFP. That relationship is still a much larger part of the picture than what can ever be gleaned from a quotation. Experience with sales, service and existing equipment all help form a basis for an opinion on how that vendor’s PACS product will work in their facility. Technically, at least with the core components, when all is said and done, nearly every vendor will have a virtually identical score. Input from the radiologists, radiology technologists and IT considerations are crucial. Above all, the vendor’s demonstrated experience with a facility of similar size, volume and clinical systems interfaces, referenced against a solution that will meet your facility’s specific goals and objectives, is crucial. Michael J. Cannavo is president of Image Management Consultants, a Florida-based PACS consulting firm. He can be contacted at 407.359.6575, e-mailed at pacsman.ix.netcom or via IMC’s Web site at www.pacsman.com. PARTICIPANTS Agfa Healthcare American Medical Sales Amicas Aspyra Brit Systems Candelis Carestream Health Cerner CoActiv Medical DR Systems Inc. Emageon Inc. eRAD FUJIFILM Medical Systems USA Inc. GE Healthcare iCRco IMSImed Infinitt North America Intelerad Medical Systems McKesson MedWeb Merge Healthcare NovaRad ODS Medical Philips Healthcare Radinfo Systems RamSoft Sage Healthcare ScImage Sectra Siemens Healthcare Toshiba America Medical Systems Viztek Voyager Imaging The editors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and expertise provided by Michael Cannavo in providing the chart introduction and outline. Responses to the outline were obtained by Reilly Communications Group from the manufacturers. This chart is available on our Web site. Key considerations for PACS: • What is the company background? • Implementation – does the company offer softwareonly solutions? • Is it Web-based or Web-enabled? • What are the upgrades or added features? • How have the upgrades evolved? • How does it fit in the enterprisewide view of PACS? • Storage – does it offer off-site storage and disaster recovery? Editor’s Note: Due to space constraints, Imaging Technology News was not able to include all submitted product information in the printed version of this chart. However, all submitted information appears on our Web site at www.ITNonline.net. The “+” at the end of entries signifies more information is available online. Comparison Chart Conducted by Reilly Communications Group Reilly Communications Group assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in this chart. Open and fold out or remove for wall display Please direct all chart inquiries to: charts@rcgpubs.com ITNonline.net | Jan/Feb 2009 | ITN | 9 http://www.pacsman.com http://www.ITNonline.net http://www.ITNonline.net

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Imaging Technology News - January/February 2009

Imaging Technology News - January/February 2009 Contents IMRT Imaging RT Solutions for Troublesome Tumors PACS Radiology to Close the Imaging Loop Will Web-Based PACS Take Over? Is CT Dose Under Control? The Best in Digital Mammography Breast Biopsy Systems MX Series Monitors Provide University of Pennsylvania Quality Assurance Reduce Waste to Raise Revenue

Imaging Technology News - January/February 2009

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.