Vendor Neutral Archives: A Comparison

2015-07-14
 

Vendor Neutral Archives : an industry comparison Enterprise-wide collaboration. Interoperability. Mobile accessibility.

Healthcare leaders typically want their enterprise medical imaging software to deliver results like these. If their organization is using a traditional PACS, however, they’ll be challenged to meet these goals..

A vendor neutral archive, on the other hand, is a solution designed to helps reduce the complexity of integrations and interfaces across the enterprise. A vendor neutral archive that is truly neutral is different from a traditional PACS in a number of crucial ways.

A vendor neutral archive takes enterprise-level image information and allows it to be shared among disparate systems, regardless of vendor. It facilitates efficient workflow, reduces image duplications and allows healthcare leaders to engage the entire care team where and when needed.

However all vendor neutral archives are not the same. When looking for a VNA, look for one with these features:

Vendor Neutral Archive Features

7.14 200 percent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See how Conserus™ measures up against other vendors in this free comparison chart at Imaging Technology News.

Know the Difference

As healthcare leaders determine whether to upgrade to a VNA, there are a number of key differences to know when comparing solutions. A VNA allows clinicians to share data regardless of vendor across the enterprise, is scalable as more images are stored in the system, allows health systems to use the best-of-breed solutions and facilitates the integration of images with patient health records.

Obtain helpful information about the Conserus suite of vendor neutral solutions by contacting the McKesson Imaging & Workflow Solutions team.

Subscribe to the Medical Imaging Talk blog

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Responses to “Vendor Neutral Archives: A Comparison”

  1. Marshall Watson says:

    Can you explain why support for storing BTO (Breast Tomosynthesis) objects is only included in Conserus if we purchase the McKesson Mammo Plus add-on to the PACS system? That makes it seem not so vendor neutral.

    • MedAdmin says:

      Hi Marshall,

      The restriction related to storing DICOM BTO in McKesson Radiology™ 12.0 and prior versions is related to the lack of regulatory clearance to display the objects in the viewer and the inability to restrict McKesson Radiology Station from displaying stored BTO objects in this un-cleared release. It is correct that this is a PACS limitation rather than a VNA limitation. However, the co-deployment of McKesson Radiology with McKesson Enterprise Image Repository on the same system requires us to comply with the regulations applicable to the PACS because of the viewers directly connected to this single system.

      We understand that in cases such as this, the co-deployment of McKesson Enterprise Image Repository with McKesson Radiology limits the “independence” of the VNA due to the additional PACS regulatory requirements. This discrepancy between the technical capability of McKesson Enterprise Image Repository and the regulatory obligations of a mixed-use system when co-deployed with McKesson Radiology is resolved with Conserus™ Image Repository 2.0, on track to be released this summer. Conserus Image Repository 2.0 will no longer provide the option to co-deploy the VNA with McKesson Radiology. It will be a stand-alone system.

Leave a Reply