A recent study by KLAS shows that RIS/PACS Integration is more important than functionality.
I have not read the actual report but based on the article I found online, the researcher for this study does not understand medical imaging informatics because RIS/PACS integration is a functionality.
To be bolder, RIS/PACS integration is a given! a must! a norm!
The reason? It is supposed to work as an entity, how can it not work as one?
If you didn’t understand the sentence above, then you do not understand medical imaging workflow but don’t worry, seems like the guys at KLAS didn’t either.
In the world of RIS/PACS, conventional wisdom often touts functionality over integration. But, according to a new report from KLAS, conventional wisdom is wrong.
The report, “Ambulatory RIS/PACS: Integrating Provider Needs,” KLAS researchers spoke to over 500 provider facilities about their RIS and PACS vendors. The upshot: providers are looking for vendors that offer not only functionality, but also smooth integration between a RIS and PACS, and to achieve integration, some providers are willing to sacrifice functionality.
Of the more than 20 vendors highlighted in the report, CoActiv, DR Systems, and Infinitt offer the perks of tight integration, including easy maintenance, consistent look and feel of the PACS and RIS, and even lower cost. CoActiv scored top in the PACS segment and Infinitt moved up seven spaces to take the number two spot. The researchers also found that those vendors that offer RIS and PACS on separate databases have more difficulty with integration—and, thus, a tougher time winning over customers. Agfa was the most vulnerable PACS vendor and GE the most vulnerable RIS vendor. Fuji, however, was able to buck this trend—scoring as the second place RIS and third place PACS vendor—with customers reporting that its separate databases perform similarly to a single-database system.
(Source: Press Release)
BinaryHealthCare (BNHC) 