Abstract
Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS) make possible the viewing of radiographic images on computer workstations located where clinical care is delivered. By the nature of their work this feature is particularly useful for emergency physicians who view radiographic studies for information and use them to explain results to patients and their families. However, the high cost of PACS diagnostic workstations with fuller functionality places limits on the number of and therefore the accessibility to workstations in the emergency department. This study was undertaken to establish how well less expensive personal computer-based workstations would work to support these needs of emergency physicians. The study compared the outcome of observations by 5 emergency physicians on a series of radiographic studies containing subtle abnormalities displayed on both a PACS diagnostic workstation and on a PC-based workstation. The 73 digitized radiographic studies were randomly arranged on both types of workstation over four separate viewing sessions for each emergency physician. There was no statistical difference between a PACS diagnostic workstation and a PC-based workstation in this trial. The mean correct ratings were 59% on the PACS diagnostic workstations and 61% on the PC-based workstations. These findings also emphasize the need for prompt reporting by a radiologist.