Workflow 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 (DR) 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 overall speed-of-service was calculated from the time of examination ordering as stamped in the radiology information system (RIS), to the time of image availability for reading. In a high volume ambulatory patient care center, a dedicated chest DR can provide improved workflow and technologist productivity over screen-film, and can increase the overall speed-of-service from examination ordering to interpretation available. The time saved with DR versus conventional screen-film for upright chest examinations may not currently justify the increased cost of DR in a low-volume environment.