Imaging Informatics - PowerPoint Presentation Example

Imaging Informatics Presentation Number Department Opening Remarks We greet you all We recently conducted extensive research into the subject of Imaging Informatics and particularly delved on two different kinds of equipment useful in medical facilities especially during diagnosis, management and treatment of disease We have since devoted another significant part of the recent weeks compiling our findings concerning the research systematically in a separate thirty page contents handout We researched and discussed on the IMPAX 6 and the Synapse This presentation, which is split into six (6) distinct categories, gives but a brief synopsis of the compiled data These categories in order of presentation and documentation are: - The Introduction - Overview of the IMPAX 6 and Synapse - IMPAX 6 and Synapse General Features Comparison - IMPAX 6 and Synapse Technical Features Comparison - Conclusion with Case Study - References 1. Introduction - The PACS (an abbreviation for Picture Archiving and Communications System), according to Samei (2004) can simply be defined as a computer system integrated with a number of clinical data systems such as the HIS and the RIS which are used in medical images distribution all over the image centred bases and in electronic archiving - The definition set above partly highlights the main purpose of PACS which is the distribution and storage of medical data in the healthcare facilities and simply to aid in the general medical management and diagnosis procedures - There are a lot of things that potential buyers / users/ hospitals should check for when shopping for PACS. These include such things as the presence of advanced/ useful features, maintenance/ replacement costs, costs of operations and the convenience/ ease of use, and so on, as we will see in the consequent sections of this presentation 2. IMPAX 6 and Synapse Overview - The IMPAX 6, also commonly termed the Agfa, up to date has been installed in over 2,000 PACS systems in approximately 100 countries worldwide - The Agfa boasts over 20 years of existence and successful management and is regarded as the benchmark of a complete integrated system and the number one choice for most healthcare centres (Agfa Healthcare, 2012) - The Fuji Synapse, on the other hand, boasts the latest technological advances with a system capable of operating both multi-site and multi-server configurations - The Synapse poses off-site archiving capabilities and additionally has a highly flexible criterion for the work-list (Fujifilm, 2013) 3. IMPAX 6 and Synapse General Features Comparison (a) The Architecture - According to the Agfa Healthcare (2008) and the Fujifilm (2013), both the Fuji Synapse and the Agfa IMPAX 6 have a web-based architecture - The web-based system offers both equipments the merit of networking connectivity from the internet - It has a bandwidth that utilizes the web browser (HTML) in communication between an established core and the client with the possibility of access from remote locations too (Ballance, 2008) (b) Security Approach - In terms of security, both the Agfa and the Synapse have the function of authentication service, access control and auditing reports - However, the IMPAX 6 has two (2) additional security features namely data encryption and armouring which the Synapse lacks (Agfa Healthcare 2010; Fujifilm 2013) (c) Managing Large Volumes of Data - According to the Agfa Healthcare (2007), complex procedures like the CT Scans and the MRI may result in challenges of workflow - The Agfa IMPAX 6 gives the user a healthy selection headache with numerous server slides like the Display Wizards, server slide rendering and workflow manager - The IMPAX 6 additionally provides workflow components for navigation like the Auto link, Active Target and the Cross Study Link (Agfa Healthcare, 2007) - The Fuji Synapse in terms of the management large volumes of data offers the Synapse Web Administration Tool (SWAT) (Fujifilm, 2003) (d) Compression of Medical Images - As stated by Krupinski and Kallegri (2007), compressing medical images come with the merits of enhancing the accessibility of the images while equally increasing the capacity for storage - According to the Agfa Healthcare (2008) and the Fujifilm (2013), both the Agfa and the Synapse poses the Lossy, DICOM JPEG, the Lossless and the Wavelet for compression - The Synapse additionally has the Access over Networks (AON) utility for the same purpose (Fujifilm, 2013) (e) Teaching Files - Most hospitals, especially the large ones, usually double up as teaching hospitals for aspiring medical practitioners - Along the same vein, the Agfa IMPAX 6 offers integration of the teaching files into the PACS (Agfa Healthcare, 2010) whereas the Fuji Synapse, which has no separate components for teaching documents, uses the feature of the AON to realise this function (Fujifilm, 2013) 4. IMPAX 6 and Synapse Technical Features Comparison (a) Verification - Verification in this context refers to the determination of the equipment’s DICOM connectivity mainly between the main application components (Pianykh, 2008) - According to the same source, presence of verification is important when purchasing the equipment to ascertain connectivity of the DICOM - Both the Agfa IMPAX 6 and the Fuji Synapse have verification (Noumeir, 2003) (b) Image Storage Similarities - According to the Agfa (2005) and the Fujifilm (2012), both the Agfa IMPAX 6 and the Synapse have storage for computed radiography, CT images, retired and new ultra sound multi-frame images, MR images, retired and new nuclear medicine images, retired and new ultra sound images, secondary capture images, x-ray angiographic images, x-ray radio fluoroscopic images, retired x-ray angiographic bi-plane images, digital x-ray images, digital mammography x-rays, , digital intra-oral x-ray images, positron emission tomography images, visible light endoscopic/ microscopic/ photographic/ slide coordinates microscopic images, basic texts, greyscale and colour softcopy, radiation therapy dose/ structure set/ beam treatment record/ plan/ brachy treatment/ image and radiation therapy treatment summary record (c) Image Storage Dissimilarities - The Agfa IMPAX 6 supports the structure report basic texts, enhanced and comprehensive SRs and the retired structured report text/ audio/ detail/ comprehensive storages (Agfa, 2005) whereas the Synapse only supports the structured report basic texts and the enhanced and comprehensive SRs and not the retired structure report text/ audio/ detail/ comprehensive storages (Fujifilm, 2012) (d) Query/ Retrieve - Both the Agfa IMPAX 6 and the Synapse have the patient root query/ retrieve information model – find, study root query/ retrieve information model – find, patient/ study only query/ retrieve information model – find, patient root query/ retrieve information model – move, study root query/ retrieve information model – move and the patient/ study only query/ retrieve information model – move, as per the Agfa (2005) and the Fujifilm (2012) (e) Transfer Syntax - Both the Agfa (Agfa, 2005) and the Synapse (Fujifilm, 2012) have the explicit VR big enndian, the explicit VR little endian, implicit VR big endian, RLE Lossless, pack-bits, JPEG process 2, 4, 12 bit extended lossy and the JPEG process 14, selection value 1, which the Synapse lacks (f) Print Management - For print management, the Agfa has the basic grayscale print management Meta, basic film box, basic colour image box, basic colour print management Meta and the basic annotation box, all SOP class (Agfa, 2005) whereas the Synapse only has the basic grayscale management Meta and the basic film box, also all SOP (Fujifilm, 2012) (g) Mammography CAD - According to Agfa (2005) and Fujifilm (2012), both the IMPAX and the Synapse have the mammography CAD SR for the storage of structured reports from the CAD program 5. Conclusion with Case Study - Our conclusion features the case study of one of Riyadh’s largest medical facilities, the King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre (KFSH&RC) - The KFSH&RC is also an education centre that boasts over 900 beds, 10,000 professional employees, 2,000 trainees and 20 radiology students - As indicated in the table of modalities below, this is a large medical and we set out to recommend the best PACS for the system - We recommended the Agfa IMPAX 6 over the Fuji Synapse because of its numerous and extra features (such as in print management, storage, syntax transfer, and so on) that greatly improve efficiency of work, ease operational costs, offer better security of data, saves on time and efficiently handles large amounts of data which are very important especially in such large facilities - And since the KFSH&RC is also a teaching facility the IMPAX is again the best option as it has superior teaching files features compared to the Synapse, as earlier deliberated 6. References AGFA HealthCare. 2007. ‘IMPAX Insights: Persona-Based Workflow Design.’ Issue 1.Accessed September 14, 2013.http://www.agfa.com/usa/en/he/knowledge_training/literature/impax_insights/index.jsp. AGFA HealthCare. 2008. ‘IMPAX Insights: Compression of Medical Images.’ Issue 9.Accessed September 15, 2013.http://cdn.medicexchange.com/images/whitepaper/agfa_e1dtq_compression_lr_tcm240-39706.pdf. AGFA HealthCare. 2010. ‘IMPAX Insights: IMPAX 6 Security Approach.’ Issue 5.Accessed September 16, 2013.http://www.agfahealthcare.com/he/global/en/internet/main/products_services/product-info/white_papers/IMPAX6_security_approach.jsp. AGFA HealthCare. 2010. ‘IMPAX Insights: IMPAX Teaching Files.’ Issue 6.Accessed September 15, 2013.http://www.agfahealthcare.com/he/global/en/internet/main/products_services/product-info/white_papers/teaching_files.jsp. AGFA HealthCare. 2010. ‘IMPAX Insights: Leveraging the Benefits of Service Oriented Architecture.’ Issue 8.Accessed 16 September 2013.http://www.agfahealthcare.com/he/global/en/internet/main/products_services/product-info/white_papers/impax_insights8.jsp. AGFA HealthCare. 2012. ‘IMPAX 6: Digital Imaging and Information Management.’ Accessed September 14, 2013.http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.agfahealthcare.com%2Fglobal%2Fen%2Fhe%2Flibrary%2Flibraryopen%3FID%3D32882925&ei=dC40UtqjN8a0iQeHiYCQCA&usg=AFQjCNErPCwOS8EyKdSQFIwffueeMcbztg. AGFA HealthCare. 2005. ‘DICOM Conformance Statement IMPAX 6.0 Solution.’ Accessed September 11, 2013.http://www.agfahealthcare.com/global/en/main/products_services/product-info/interoperability/dicom/conformance_statements/index.jsp. Ballance, D. 2008. ‘The network and Its Role in Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine Imaging.’Veterinary Radiology and Ultrasound 49 (SUPPL. 1).Accessed September 17, 2013.http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-38149095585&partnerID=40. Branstetter, B. F. 2007. ‘Basics of Imaging Informatics: Part 2.’Radiology 244(1):78–84.Accessed September 13, 2013.http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-34250793442&partnerID=40. “Clarify Uniqueness of Pixel Padding Value”. 2005. Accessed September 14, 2013. http://www.medical.nema.org/medical/dicom/final/cp414. Clunie, D. A. 2000. DICOM Structured Reporting. Bangor: PixelMed Publishing. Dreyer. K. J, Mehta. A, and Thrall. H. J. 2002. PACS (A Guide to the Digital Revolution).Springer.Accessed September 14, 2013.http://books.google.com.au/books?id=FCgOkeh2zf8C&pg=RA1-PT34&lpg=RA1-PT34&dq=Patient+root+query/retrieve+information+model-find&source=bl&ots=xp-xPc6r5e&sig=_6N5dBicnzNuok1zwCknUbsQyMI&hl=en&ei=tHzySp-iH4T66wPwmKgT&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CBkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%20query%2Fretrieve%20&f=false Fujifilm. 2003. ‘Managing Data with Synapse.’ USA: Fujifilm Medical Systems. Accessed September 14, 2013.http://www.fujimed.com/products-services/network-systems/synapse/doc/managing_data.pdf. Fujifilm. 2003. ‘System Administration with Synapse.’ USA: Fujifilm Medical Systems. Accessed September 13, 2013.http://www.fujimed.com/products-services/network-systems/synapse/doc/system_administration.pdf. Fujifilm. 2010. Architectural choices. FUJIFILM Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc. http://www.fujimed.com/products-services/network-systems/synapse/architecture.asp?location=1&area=5&id=5&subid=0 (accessed 15 September 2013). Fujifilm. 2012. ‘DICOM Conformance Statement.’ USA: Fujifilm Medical Systems.Accessed September 16, 2013.http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/medical/technical-documents/product-bulletins/pdf/index/Synapse_PACS_Version_4-1.pdf. Fujifilm. 2013. ‘Foundation Technologies: Synapse.’ Fujifilm Medical Systems.Accessed September 15, 2013.http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/medical/radiology/pacs/pdf/index/Synapse_4_2_Foundations_Data_Sheet.pdf. Fujifilm. 2013. Server Modules and Interfaces. FUJIFILM Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc.http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/medical/radiology/pacs/pdf/index/server-interface-321.pdf(accessed 15 September 2013). Huang. H. K. 2004. PACS and Imaging Informatics: Basic Principles and Application. London: John Wiley & Sons. Hussein, R., U. Engelmann, A. Schroeter, and H. Meinzer. 2004. ‘DICOM Structured Reporting.’ Radiographics 24:891–896. Accessed September 6, 2013.http://radiographics.rsna.org/content/24/3/891.full.pdf+html. Krupinski, E. A., and M. Kallergi. 2007. ‘Choosing a Radiology Workstation: Technical and Clinical Considerations.’Radiology 242(3):671–682.Accessed September 13, 2013.http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-33847206055&partnerID=40. Le, Anh HT, Brent Liu, and H. K. Huang. 2009. ‘Integration of Computer-Aided Diagnosis/Detection (CAD) Results in a PACS Environment Using CAD–PACS Toolkit and DICOM SR.’ International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 4(4):317–329. Lemke, Heinz U. 2011. ‘Short History of Pacs (Part II: Europe).’ European Journal of Radiology 78(2):177–183. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.05.031. Noumeir, R. 2003. ‘DICOM Structured Report Document Type Definition.’ IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 7(4):318–328. Accessed September 5, 2013.http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=01263904. Pianykh, O. S. 2008.DigitalImaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM): A Practical Introduction and Survival Guide. Berlin: Springer. Riesmeier, Jörg, Marco Eichelberg, Klaus Kleber, Dietrich HW Grönemeyer, Herman Oosterwijk, and Peter Jensch. 2001. ‘DICOM Image Display Consistency: A Test Environment.’ Proceedings of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation 4323:47–56. Robertson, I. D., and T. Saveraid. 2008. ‘Hospital, Radiology, and Picture Archiving and Communication Systems.’Veterinary Radiology and Ultrasound 49 (SUPPL. 1).Accessed November 1, 2009.http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-38149092367&partnerID=40. Samei, E., J. Seibert, K. Andriole, A. Badano, J. Crawford. B. Reiner, M. Flynn, and P. Chang. 2004. ‘AAPM/RSNA Tutorial on Equipment Selection: PACS Equipment Overview – Display Systems.’Radiographics 24(3):879–889.Accessed September 15, 2013.http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-2542602946&partnerID=40. Read More