White Papers

Many institutions might forego the use of a RIS RFP for the purchase of their RIS system. Because of the scale of the investment, the fact that you will be married to a vendor for several years, and the fact that the effectiveness of a certain RIS system could vary dramatically depending on the vendor, the use of a RIS RFP is strongly recommended.

By Joseph L. Marion, Principal, Healthcare Integration Strategies, LLC

In a previous discussion, we explored the composition of a Cardiovascular RFP. An RFP for cardiovascular information systems can be more complex than for other Picture Archive and Communications Systems (PACS) or information systems, in that cardiovascular services involve more than just imaging. Wave forms and procedure documentation are examples of additional relevant data that must be managed in addition to images. Physician reporting is also more complicated in that it is typically done with structured reporting templates instead of by dictation.

The Cardiovascular PACS RFP

Developing a cardiovascular Picture Archiving and Communications System (CPACS) Request for Proposal (RFP) is similar to efforts for radiology with the exception that cardiology can be far more extensive in terms of requirements. The purpose of any RFP is to secure consensus of the requirements for a system acquisition, and to solicit responses from vendors to determine who best meets those requirements.

Defining the RFP

I have found in my experience that there is a wide variation in the RFP process, and that it can be a daunting process for any organization. After all, most documents tend to follow similar outlines and content, and can result in multi-inch binder responses from the vendors. Who, in their right mind has the time to thoroughly review one of these documents, let alone multiple vendor responses! Ideally though, if one takes the time to prepare an extensive requirements document, and the vendor takes time to thoroughly respond to it, then shouldn’t the facility take the time to review the responses? After all, what is the point of the process if its objective is to aid in the selection of a vendor?

By Ken Compton and Herman Oosterwijk

The question of what monitor to use for diagnostic purposes with digital medical images has been a recurring theme ever since these images were first generated. Variations on this theme are: Can I use a commercial monitor for diagnosing medical images? Is a 3-megapixel (MP) display sufficient to look at chest radiographs? Related questions that we are often asked are: How should I calibrate these monitors? What is the impact of environmental light on the diagnostic capability of displays in the ER or the ICU?

This white paper provides practical guidelines for the selection of the right monitor for the right diagnostic application. We also will describe how to keep your monitor operating at diagnostic quality. In addition, we provide an introduction to the characteristics of displays and the key parameters that describe monitor performance.

This White Paper describes VNA (Vendor Neutral Archive) its use, and pros and cons in depth.  (VNA) is a medical storage management device that provides scalable image and information and life cycle management so that medical images and related information can be queried, stored, and retrieved in a manner that is defined by open standards such as DICOM, HL7, IHE, XDS and PIX/PDQ, at multiple department, enterprise, and regional level while maintaining patient privacy and security. Characteristic for a VNA is that it provides a patient-centric approach that transcends upgrades and changes of the different viewing, acquisition, and workflow management components as they should be interchangeable without having to migrate, convert, or change the data formats or interface of the VNA.

This White Paper about Vendor Neutral Archive was sponsored by TeraMedica Healthcare Technology. Please visit their site for further information on their Vendor Neutral Archive Solution: http://www.teramedica.info