Keywords:
Workforce, Efficacy studies, Comparative studies, Plain radiographic studies, Computer applications
Authors:
A. Chandrashekar1, A. Devaraj1, L. Dixon1, S. Copley1, C. A. Ridge2, S. P. G. Padley1; 1London/UK, 2Dublin/IE
Results
The results of both systems are summarised in Table 1.
Average wasted time per 5 CXRs was approximately 51% and 33% for the two systems.
For the radiologist reporting on both systems,
a substantial difference in average time taken to report five CXRs was noted between the two systems (9 minutes versus 2 minutes).
Average overall time taken to report 100 CXRs,
excluding breaks,
was more than double using one system (127.64 minutes) compared to the other (55.05 minutes).
|
System 1
|
System 2
|
Average time taken to read 5 x-rays (minutes)
|
6.38
|
2.75
|
Median time taken to read 5 x-rays (minutes)
|
5.22
|
2.80
|
Total time to read 100 X-Rays excluding breaks (minutes)
|
127.64
|
55.05
|
Average ‘useful’ time per consultation (%)
|
49.16
|
67.08
|
Average ‘wasted’ time per consultation (%)
|
50.84
|
32.92
|
Table 1: A summary of key results of reporting on both systems
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 illustrate the proportion of wasted and useful time per consultation using each system.