Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-2pp2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T08:39:41.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a multidimensional assessment of picture archiving and communication system success

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2005

Guy Paré ,
Luigi Lepanto ,
David Aubry  and
Claude Sicotte
Guy Paré
Affiliation:
HEC Montréal
Luigi Lepanto
Affiliation:
Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal
David Aubry
Affiliation:
HEC Montréal
Claude Sicotte
Affiliation:
University of Montreal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Based on a prevalent framework in the information systems field, this study proposes and describes an integrated model for evaluating picture archiving and communication system (PACS) success from multiple users' perspectives.

Methods: Our study details the validation process of the proposed model at a large tertiary-care teaching hospital in Canada. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected to assess the psychometric properties of the measurement instrument and test the research hypotheses.

Results: Our findings clearly reveal that radiologists, technologists, and clinicians have different views regarding the factors influencing PACS success. For instance, the results for radiologists show that their concern with efficiency and productivity is best guaranteed by a system that is reliable and easy to use. Furthermore, that only perceived system usefulness influenced clinicians' satisfaction with PACS is a reflection of the primary impact that technology has on their work, namely, the ability to have instant access to images from any point in the hospital. Even though, overall, all three groups view the adoption of PACS positively, the mean scores indicate that radiologists and technologists seem to be more satisfied and their expectations to be met at a higher level than clinicians.

Conclusions: We believe the measurement instruments developed in this study can be used as a diagnostic tool by project managers interested in better understanding the extent to which different groups of stakeholders perceive the deployment of PACS as being successful and how factors influencing perceptions of PACS success vary across user types.

Keywords

PACSSuccess modelEvaluation study

Information

Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , October 2005 , pp. 471 - 479
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Battacherjee A. 2001 Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quart. 25: 351– 370.Google Scholar
Bauman RA, Gell G. 2000 The reality of PACS: A survey. J Digit Imaging. 13: 157– 169.Google Scholar
Blado ME, Tomlinson AB. 2002 Monitoring the accuracy of a PACS image database. J Digit Imaging. 15 (Suppl 1): 87– 95.Google Scholar
Bryan S, Weatherburn GC, Watkins JR, et al. 1999 The benefits of hospital-wide PACS: A survey of clinical users or radiology services. Br J Radiol. 72: 469– 478.Google Scholar
Cox B, Dawe N. 1999 Evaluation of a PACS system on an intensive care unit. J Manag Med. 16: 199– 205.Google Scholar
DeLone WH, McLean ER. 1992 Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Inform Syst Res. 3: 60– 95.Google Scholar
DeLone WH, McLean ER. 2003 The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. J Manage Inform Syst. 19: 9– 30.Google Scholar
Huang HK. 1999. PACS—Basic principles and applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons;
Igbaria M, Tan M. 1997 The consequences of the IT acceptance on subsequent individual performance. Inform Manage. 32: 113– 121.Google Scholar
Kato H, Kubota G, Kojima K, et al. 1995 Preliminary time-flow study: Comparison of interpretation times between PACS workstations and films. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 19: 261– 265.Google Scholar
Lou SL. 1997 An automated PACS image acquisition and recovery scheme for image integrity based on the DICOM standard. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 21: 209– 218.Google Scholar
McGill T, Hobbs V, Klobas J. 2003 User-developed applications and information systems success: A test of DeLone and McLean's model. Inform Res Manage J. 16: 24– 45.Google Scholar
Nunally J. 1978. Psychometric methods. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill;
Oliver RL. 1980 A cognitive model for the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction. J Market Res. 17: 460– 469.Google Scholar
Pavlicek W. 1999 Quality of service improvement from coupling a digital chest unit with integrated speech recognition, information, and PACS. J Digit Imaging. 12: 191– 197.Google Scholar
Pilling JR. 2003 Picture archiving and communication systems: The users' view. Br J Radiol. 76: 519– 524.Google Scholar
Rai A, Lang SS, Welker RB. 2002 Assessing the validity of IS success models: An empirical test and theoretical analysis. Inform Syst Res. 13: 50– 69.Google Scholar
Ralston MD, Coleman R. 2000 Sharing of a single arching and communications system among disparate institutions: Barriers to success. J Digit Imaging. 15 (Suppl 1): 3– 6.Google Scholar
Reiner BI, Siegel EL. 2002 Technologists' productivity when using PACS: Comparison of film-based versus filmless radiography. Am J Radiol. 179: 33– 37.Google Scholar
Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Sidiqqui K. 2003 Evolution of the digital revolution: A radiologist perspective. J Digit Imaging. 16: 324– 330.Google Scholar
Seddon P. 1997 A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Inform Syst Res. 8: 240 253.Google Scholar
Seddon PB, Kiew MY. A partial test and development of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems. 1994: 99– 110.
Torkzadeh G, Doll WJ. 1997 The development of a tool for measuring the perceived impact of IT on work. Omega. 27: 327– 339.Google Scholar
Trudel MC, Paré G. 2004 Barrières à l'innovation technologique dans les hôpitaux: étude du premier cas d'adoption du PACS au Québec. Gestion. 29: 36– 45.Google Scholar