Biomedical subjects

Stephen M Moore

Publications and source records attributed to Stephen M Moore.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Image quality assurance in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial network of the National Lung Screening Trial.

The National Lung Screening Trial is evaluating the effectiveness of low-dose spiral CT and conventional chest X-ray as screening tests for persons who are at high risk for developing lung cancer. This multicenter trial requires quality assurance (QA) for the image quality and technical parameters of the scans. The electronic system described here helps manage the QA process. The system includes a workstation at each screening center that de-identifies the data, a DICOM storage service at the QA Coordinating Center, and Web-based systems for presenting images and QA evaluation forms to the QA radiologists. Quality assurance data are collated and analyzed by an independent statistical organization. We describe the design and implementation of this electronic QA system, emphasizing issues relating to data security and privacy, the various obstacles encountered in the installation of a common system at different participating screening centers, and the functional success of the system deployed.

CD-ROM↗

PubMed2003

Tools for managing image flow in the modality to clinical-image-review chain.

Web-based clinical-image viewing is commonplace in large medical centers. As demands for product and performance escalate, physicians, sold on the concept of "any image, anytime, anywhere," fret when image studies cannot be viewed in a time frame to which they are accustomed. Image delivery pathways in large medical centers are oftentimes complicated by multiple networks, multiple picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), and multiple groups responsible for image acquisition and delivery to multiple destinations. When studies are delayed, it may be difficult to rapidly pinpoint bottlenecks. Described here are the tools used to monitor likely failure points in our modality to clinical-image-viewing chain and tools for reporting volume and throughput trends. Though perhaps unique to our environment, we believe that tools of this type are essential for understanding and monitoring image-study flow, re-configuring resources to achieve better throughput, and planning for anticipated growth. Without such tools, quality clinical-image delivery may not be what it should.

Data Display↗

PubMed2003

IHE: a model for driving adoption of standards.

The development of communication standards in healthcare is a major ongoing engineering effort. While there is little doubt that this effort has made possible significant advances in the performance of healthcare information and imaging systems, overall levels of systems interoperability have not improved as dramatically as one might reasonably expect and the cost of implementing effectively integrated systems remains high. The lag between the development of information standards and their implementation in real systems and institutions is a genuine problem in healthcare. This paper describes an ongoing initiative that attempts to bring together healthcare professionals and industry experts to coordinate the implementation of standards in ways that enhance operational efficiency and the quality of patient care.

Computer Security↗

PubMed2002

Challenges in image acquisition and distribution for clinical image service.

We have developed a centralized application for acquiring images from multiple picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) and distributing images to a clinical image web server and other repositories. Our flexible strategy addresses a number of administrative challenges associated with delivering images into clinical, research, and test environments. DICOM images flow from PACSs and modalities to a UNIX-based "distributor" application, which relays them to one or more destinations. Image volume and transmission times were collected and analyzed. Three distributors receive an average of 34 gigabytes of image data per day. Images are sent concurrently to two web-based image servers, one used clinically by physicians and one used for testing. Transmission of certain classes of studies is prioritized for key physician groups. Delivery to research systems is also supported. Acquiring images from multi-vendor PACS for distribution to a web server for clinical image viewing is a challenging task. Centralizing the acquisition and distribution process reduces both the administrative effort and the impact on clinical operations associated with maintaining dynamic clinical, testing, and research environments.

Computer Communication Networks↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Using the IHE scheduled work flow integration profile to drive modality efficiency.

The IHE (Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise) Scheduled Work Flow integration profile describes a communication and work flow environment that provides benefits for radiology departments who want to standardize system software. The IHE technical framework defines this environment by specifying the systems involved and the messages exchanged by those systems. The Modality Worklist is a key component of the Scheduled Work Flow integration profile that allows an operator at each modality in the department to retrieve a list of scheduled procedure steps to perform and to automate the process of entering the correct patient identification information in all the images created with the modality. The IHE technical framework defines two transactions used by the modality to tell the Image Manager and Order Filler what was performed and how many images were acquired: the Modality Procedure Step in Progress and Modality Procedure Step Completed. Users who specify the Scheduled Work Flow integration profile will benefit immediately by achieving a certain baseline of functionality. However, users will derive further benefits of increased operational efficiency through negotiation with the providers of software solutions. The integration profile defines features that are optional; users should evaluate these features and request those that are determined to be beneficial.

Efficiency, Organizational↗