Needs Assessment Using a Structured Prioritization Schema: An Open Letter to PACS Vendors

PURPOSE:The aim of this work was to prioritize in a quaternary academic environment necessary elements of a replacement PACS. METHODS:This quality improvement work was conducted at one academic medical center and was "not regulated" by the institutional review board. Three workgroups (10-15 members each) with unique resident, fellow, and attending radiologists; IT specialists; and departmental leaders convened in 2018 to prioritize elements for a PACS replacement project, including integrated IT tools. Each workgroup met two or three times and represented one of three missions (clinical, research, and education). Six elements assigned the highest priority were distilled from each workgroup. The resulting 18 elements were condensed into survey format and distributed to all department residents, fellows, and faculty members for 5-point Likert-type prioritization stratified by mission. Data were collected over 2 weeks. RESULTS:The survey response rate was 37% (71 of 192; 17 of 44 residents, 3 of 27 fellows, and 51 of 121 faculty members). Self-reported work effort was 63 ± 26% clinical, 14 ± 11% education, 15 ± 21% research, and 8 ± 14% administration. Aggregate priority ratings across all domains were highest for "stable system with predictable behavior" (mean, 4.51), "minimizes repetitive non-value-added work" (mean, 4.40), "interoperability" (mean, 4.12), and "near-instantaneous load times" (mean, 4.07). Clinical-specific ratings for these elements were even higher (means, 4.85-4.90). The lowest aggregate scores were mobile device compatibility (mean, 3.03), connectivity to nonaffiliated sites (mean, 3.01), and integrated instant messaging (mean, 2.87). CONCLUSIONS:The department prioritized a stable and interoperable system that minimized non-value-added work. In other words, participants wanted a functioning PACS. PACS vendors should prioritize a reliable experience over niche add-ons.