Radiologists' acceptance of teleradiology: responses to surveys in 1990 and 1994

Peter E. Shile; Jeffrey A. Friedland; Anthony J. Wilson

doi:10.1117/12.208774

12 May 1995 Radiologists' acceptance of teleradiology: responses to surveys in 1990 and 1994

Peter E. Shile, Jeffrey A. Friedland, Anthony J. Wilson

Proceedings Volume 2435, Medical Imaging 1995: PACS Design and Evaluation: Engineering and Clinical Issues; (1995) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.208774
Event: Medical Imaging 1995, 1995, San Diego, CA, United States

Abstract

This paper presents the results of surveys that were performed in 1990 and 1994 to assess radiologists' use and opinions of teleradiology. In the time between the two surveys, teleradiology use increased from 30% to 42% of surveyed radiologists. Practices using teleradiology tended to have more radiologists within the group and cover more locations than practices that did not. A number of reasons were cited for not using teleradiology. In 1990, some radiologists did not use teleradiology due to the objections of hospital administrators and/or referring physicians. This reason was not given in the 1994 survey. Eighty percent of users used teleradiology for on-call exams in both years. In each year, just over 50% of users also used teleradiology for the remote, daytime interpretation of exams. Computed tomography was the most common remotely interpreted exam modality in both years. Teleradiology use for remote interpretation of ultrasound, plain film, nuclear medicine and magnetic resonance images increased considerably in the time between the two surveys. By the time of the second survey, image quality was acceptable for all modalities except plain film. Use of laser film digitizers, frame-grabber boards and direct digital acquisition increased between 1990 and 1994.

Citation Download Citation

Peter E. Shile, Jeffrey A. Friedland, and Anthony J. Wilson "Radiologists' acceptance of teleradiology: responses to surveys in 1990 and 1994", Proc. SPIE 2435, Medical Imaging 1995: PACS Design and Evaluation: Engineering and Clinical Issues, (12 May 1995); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.208774

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available