Health Imaging & IT - May 2008 - (Page 48)

speCial seCTion praCTiCe managemenT By Sarah Lamberti b lu r ring th e lin eS The differences between interfaced and integrated RIS/PACS are no longer cut and dry as industry definitions are redefined and many vendors offer single, integrated solutions with clear benefits. Determining whether a solution is integrated or interfaced becomes mired in how the two terms are defined within the industry. For some, the difference lies with the inclusion of a broker, or interpreter, between the two systems, communicating Health Level 7 (HL7) messages from the RIS to the PACS. If a broker is involved, the system is interfaced. In this configuration, having an interface broker does serve a purpose, however it can add a level of complexity and cost, due to maintenance or upgrade of the broker. For others, the main difference is quite simply related to the number of databases used. Interfaced in this case would mean the RIS/PACS have two separate databases; they share one if integrated. In this scenario, the capability to understand DICOM is built into the RIS to manage both the radiology clinical and image workflow. The definition of an integrated system also has morphed for some into a system with a consistent user interface and a seamless flow of data between the databases—whether it is one or two—and a granular workflow consistency between the RIS and PACS. An interfaced system thus would have a limited exchange of data, not always be immediate. So what’s a facility to do? In looking for an integrated RIS/PACS, hospitals and imaging centers are looking beyond these differences in definitions and basic questions about brokers and DICOM and HL7, and focusing on systems that will facilitate a paperless environment, systems that improve document management and communication, and overall, improve workflow. a seamless flow of data “In the past, the difficulty was that one system was the driver and everything else just responded to those events,” says David Piraino, MD, imaging informatics officer at the imaging institute within the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “You simply did not have a consistent user interface.” With each system, including the EMR, having its own user interface and concepts, users had to learn all the peculiarities of each and transferring data from RIS to PACS could only be done at certain 8 Health Imaging & IT | May 2008 HealthImaging.com http://HealthImaging.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Health Imaging & IT - May 2008

Health Imaging & IT - May 2008 Contents On the Web The Enterprise News Update Convention Spotlight: SIIM 2008 Healthcare IT Salary Survey Survey Findings Inside the Transition to Next-Generation Image Management Blurring the Lines: Interfaced vs. Integrated RIS/PACS The Insider's Primer: Taming the Workflow Beast - Five Facilities Tell How Availability, Applications Drive New Archive Strategies Modality Review Managing Technology Inside Technology Reader's Resource Stat Sheet

Health Imaging & IT - May 2008

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.