Each year, the Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine holds an annual meeting. It’s a three-day convention dedicated to the cutting edge of diagnostic imaging, featuring presentations from expert clinicians, scientists, and health IT providers.
SIIM 2016 included three packed days of valuable programming. We sat down with three health care experts who attended and between them covered all the key trends and takeaways:
1. Don Dennison, Director-at-Large on the SIIM Board of Directors
2. Tomer Levy, General Manager of Workflow and Infrastructure at McKesson
3. Ashish Sant, General Manager of Radiology at McKesson.
When it comes to clinical image exchange, different health care providers have different needs. There is no one size fits all solution since IT and image management environments vary so widely from provider to provider. But despite the differences in environments, a recent Peer60 Report states that providers agree on their top priority for image sharing:
Within a hospital network, images need to be moved directly, automatically and cost effectively to the point of care.
Sharing images out of network came in at number two, and sharing image data files with patients was a distant third.
Clearly defining the differences between peer review and peer feedback can be difficult, because these two concepts often overlap, and Radiology departments have unique workflows and standards that govern quality and collaboration.
A question to the UK Imaging Informatics Group about the differences between the two sparked a lively internal discussion. This particular discussion thread defined Peer Feedback as “the process to provide feedback for radiologists when an addendum is added to a previously dictated report,” and Peer Review as “a review of a reported exam, whether or not an addendum was added.”
The last few years have brought increasing numbers of hospital, imaging center and ambulatory care mergers and acquisitions (M&A), all of which has created a number of challenges for diagnostic imaging. According to Modern Healthcare: Mergers & Acquisitions Database, 95 US hospitals and 84 outpatient imaging centers were affected by M&A activity in 2015. Pressures that continue to drive M&A activity are declining imaging volume growth, reduction of reimbursements, and the ever-present shift to value-based care. This has all driven the need for cost efficiencies and the ability to better manage patient populations.
When investing in a cardiovascular information solution (CVIS), many organizations choose only the core modules they feel will be most impactful. They reduce the initial investment by focusing on a few key areas, then rely on third-party workarounds to cover the rest of the department.
This multi-vendor approach can lead to a higher lifetime cost of ownership. A patchwork system requires multiple points of integration with the EMR. This means more maintenance for IT and more possible points of failure. It can also be a drain on time and resources, requiring redundant human effort for tasks an integrated system can perform automatically.