07-14-2006, 11:00 PM
|
|
Developer & Designer, News Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,959
|
|
Global Care Quest Announces ICIS PocketPACS for Mobile Devices
"The next time your doctor reviews your X-rays don't be alarmed if he looks at his hand instead of a wall-mounted display. Chances are he is just using a new system that gives him the ability to see your images on his smartphone or PDA instead of a standard radiography display. ICIS PocketPACS, the newest member of healthcare software developer Global Care Quest, Inc.'s Integrated Clinical Information System (ICIS) line up, is an advanced viewing application that can take images from virtually any Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS) and send it to a handheld device or mobile smartphone via wireless Internet or high-speed cellular phone network. The system displays and manipulates chest X-rays, bone X-rays, CT scans, MRI scans, and most other medical imaging modalities."
With more mobile devices making their way into the medical industry, an application such as ICIS PocketPACS seems appropriate. It offers practitioners a vast number of viewing functions from zoom and pan to multi-slice scrolling and image inversion/rotation. We can expect it to surface in select hospitals and clinics from October onwards.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-14-2006, 11:08 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 150
|
|
I hate to be a party pooper, but I have to say that I can't imagine making medical decisions based on viewing a radiologic image (especially a CT scan) the size of a Treo screen. I don't care how much zooming and magnifying you can do, I think this software was made more for a malpractice lawyer than a clinician.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-15-2006, 06:25 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 251
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pdaholic
I hate to be a party pooper, but I have to say that I can't imagine making medical decisions based on viewing a radiologic image (especially a CT scan) the size of a Treo screen. I don't care how much zooming and magnifying you can do, I think this software was made more for a malpractice lawyer than a clinician.
|
Have to say, I agree completely.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-15-2006, 02:41 PM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7
|
|
As a doctor... its nice to be able to sometimes view an Xray (like a chest Xray, or a broken limb xray) and get a 'rough' idea of what it looks like. I would be thinking that radiologist would be reporting on their high def flat screens, but for somethings, it would be 'midly' useful.
But yes, it would probably leed to many errors if relied on soley (which is probably what would happen when you have the convenience there in the first place... why look at something twice, right?)
|
| |
|
|
|
07-15-2006, 03:04 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 13
|
|
I agree... with all the comments. I look at radiological imaging digitally at work and even with stockstandard LCD displays is still not good enough. We have high resolution large dedicated viewing stations for images. Often subtle changes can be masked or absent even on high resolutions!! you have to magnify it.
I can't see how a handheld device with its poor resolution can provide any meaningful data for interpretation.
However, if a radiologist's verbal or formal report can be transmitted, maybe then prove to be of some use.
__________________
Centurion
|
| |
|
|
|
07-16-2006, 04:45 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 12
|
|
As I radiologist, I can attest that the quality of this is insufficient for diagnostic purposes. Todays CT images in particular are standardized on either 512x512 or 1024x1024 matrix sizes, and are typically 12 bit grayscale images. Often the width of a subtle fracture line is around 1-2 pixels on full size displays, and when scaled to 320x320 the loss of image quality as a result of the averaging of pixel densities could easily lead to these pathologic findings being masked. In addition, the standard radiologic display in use today has very high luminence which helps to accentuate subtle differences of contrast, which again would be lost on this small scale poorly backlit display. The time and effort that would be required to actually pull up the image, zoom, pan, scroll, etc would undoubtably be sufficiently cumbersome that any physician who valued their time at all would simply pick up the phone, call the radiologist on call, and have them tell them over the phone if and where the abnormality existed.
There is a whole lot of technology developed, that simply makes life more complex than it needs to be, instead of simplifying and stream lining the process. Of greater utility would be to simply have the radiographic report seamlessly syncronized to your device, with an alert that there were abnormal findings.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-16-2006, 10:05 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 150
|
|
Good to hear a radiologist's input.
I'm in the ER, and I guess after thinking about it, the system might be useful to show patients their xrays at the bedside. Also, I could use the system so that I could legally check the box on my template that says "reviewed image." Aside from those two uses, I don't see much benefit from this likely very costly system.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-17-2006, 04:56 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 359
|
|
Quote:
|
Also, I could use the system so that I could legally check the box on my template that says "reviewed image."
|
Hrmmm makes me think they need to add the verbage... reviewed hi quality image on a hi quality display. Doctors... can't live with you can't live without you :devilboy:
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
