Software development for imaging workstations has lagged behind hardware availability. To guide development and to analyze work flow involved in interpretation of cross-sectional imaging studies, we assessed the cognitive and physical processes. We observed the performance and interpretation of body computed tomography (CT scans and recorded the events that occurred during this process. We studied work flow using a bottleneck analysis. Twenty-four of a total of 54 cases (44%) involved comparing the images with those of prior scans. Forty-seven of 54 scans (87%) were viewed using windows other than soft tissue, or compared with precontrast scans. In 46 cases (85%), the interpretation stopped to return to a previous level for review. Measurement of lesions was performed in 24 of 54 (44%) cases, and in 15 (63%) of these cases, measurements were taken of lesions on old studies for comparison. Interpretation was interrupted in 14 of 54 cases (26%) by referring clinicians desiring consultation. The work flow analysis showed film folder retrieval by the film room to be the bottleneck for interpretation by film. For picture archiving and communication system (PACS) reading, the CT examination itself proved to be the bottleneck. We conclude that workstations for CT interpretation should facilitate movement within scans, comparison with prior examinations, and measuring lesions on these scans. Workstation design should consider means of optimizing time currently not used between interpretation sessions, minimizing interruptions and providing more automated functions currently requiring physician interaction.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gay, S., Sobel, A., Young, L. et al. Processes Involved in Reading Imaging Studies: Workflow Analysis and Implications for Workstation Development . J Digit Imaging 15, 171–177 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-002-6000-2
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-002-6000-2