This invention concerns a user configurable automated system for managing completion of a medical imaging study having one or more different reports associated with one or more different personnel.
Physicians performing medical imaging examinations using (modality) devices including MR, CT scan, X-ray and Ultrasound devices, for example, are required to produce imaging examination reports concerning particular patients. This is facilitated using an imaging examination reporting system. An imaging examination reporting system processes data representing an imaging study including multiple reports for a particular examination of a patient. Further, the determination of conditions upon which an imaging study is deemed completed may depend on the status of more than one of these reports.
In known systems an imaging study typically needs to be manually signed and indicated as being complete. A person performing this signoff needs to manually check the status of required image examination reports before signifying an examination comprising an imaging study and associated reports and documentation are complete. This manual signoff consumes substantial healthcare worker time and lacks reliability. A system according to invention principles addresses these deficiencies and related problems.
A system provides an optimized workflow enabling a worker (such as a physician) to signify completion (e.g., by electronic or other signature) of an imaging study that may comprise multiple different reports needing individual signature by different workers by automatically determining when criteria have been met enabling a user to signify completion of the imaging study. An automated system manages completion of a medical imaging study having one or more different reports associated with one or more different personnel and being produced during a patient imaging examination. A user interface provides multiple display images. A configuration processor enables a user, using a display image, to assign a predetermined completion status to a report. The predetermined completion status is used to indicate a report is complete as required for an associated imaging study to be designated complete. A monitoring processor monitors stored indicators indicating current status of corresponding reports associated with the imaging study. A decision processor, in response to the monitoring of the stored indicators, automatically determines whether a current status of a report matches a corresponding predetermined completion status of a report for individual reports associated with the imaging study and in response to a match for the individual report, initiates generation of a message indicating the imaging study is complete.
A processor, as used herein, operates under the control of an executable application to (a) receive information from an input information device, (b) process the information by manipulating, analyzing, modifying, converting and/or transmitting the information, and/or (c) route the information to an output information device. A processor may use, or comprise the capabilities of, a controller or microprocessor, for example. The processor may operate with a display processor or generator. A display processor or generator is a known element for generating signals representing display images or portions thereof. A processor and a display processor comprise any combination of, hardware, firmware, and/or software.
An executable application, as used herein, comprises code or machine readable instructions for conditioning the processor to implement predetermined functions, such as those of an operating system, a context acquisition system or other information processing system, for example, in response to user command or input. An executable procedure is a segment of code or machine readable instruction, sub-routine, or other distinct section of code or portion of an executable application for performing one or more particular processes. These processes may include receiving input data and/or parameters, performing operations on received input data and/or performing, functions in response to received input parameters, and providing resulting output data and/or parameters.
A user interface (UI), as used herein, comprises one or more display images, generated by a display processor and enabling user interaction with a processor or other device and associated data acquisition and processing functions. The UI also includes an executable procedure or executable application. The executable procedure or executable application conditions the display processor to generate signals representing the UI display images. These signals are supplied to a display device which displays the image for viewing by the user. The executable procedure or executable application further receives signals from user input devices, such as a keyboard, mouse, light pen, touch screen or any other means allowing a user to provide data to a processor. The processor, under control of an executable procedure or executable application manipulates the UI display images in response to the signals received from the input devices. In this way, the user interacts with the display image using the input devices, enabling user interaction with the processor or other device. The functions and process steps herein may be performed automatically or wholly or partially in response to user command. An activity (including a step) performed automatically is performed in response to executable instruction or device operation without user direct initiation of the activity. Workflow comprises a sequence of tasks performed by a device or worker or both. Further, the order of steps of
User interface 13 enables a specific user associated with a particular report to enter data for storage comprising an indicator indicating current status of the particular report using a display image. The specific user comprises a worker such as a physician, a radiologist or a nurse, performing a specific role predetermined using configuration processor 19. Monitoring processor 15 monitors stored indicators 27 indicating status of corresponding reports associated with an imaging study to detect a change in status. Decision processor 20 determines whether a current status of a report matches a corresponding predetermined completion status of a report for individual reports associated with the imaging study in response to detection of a change in status.
System 10 improves medical image processing reliability and provides an optimized workflow for imaging study completion and signoff by automatically determining when criteria have been met enabling a user to sign (e.g., by electronic or other signature) and designate an imaging study is complete. System 10 enables a site administrator, for example, to specify conditions 33 which if satisfied, initiate automatic designation of an image study as complete. This advantageously expedites triggering of further action by a healthcare facility including billing and payment processing, for example. There are potentially multiple reports associated with a single imaging study of a patient. A physician is responsible for reviewing and entering data to sign off and designate a physician report is complete. Nurses and technicians may be responsible for signing and designating that other reports associated with an imaging study are complete, for example.
A user employs image window 400 to establish rules for nurse, patient, physician and referring physician imaging study report types by selecting associated conditions automatically determining whether an imaging study is designated complete. A user may associate a “don't care” condition with a nurse report type, a “verified” condition with a physician report type, a “don't care” condition with a patient report type and a “completed” condition with a referring physician report type, for example. At execution time of decision processor 20 (
In another example of operation, a user employs image window 400 to establish rules for nurse, patient and physician imaging study report types. A user associates a “don't care” condition with a patient report type, a “verified” condition with a physician report type and a “verified” condition with a nurse report type. At execution time of decision processor 20 (
The one or more display images (also comprising a single display image in one embodiment) enable a user to select types of report associated with an imaging study from reports associated with, a physician, a referring physician, a patient, a nurse and a technician, for example. The display images also enable a user to associate a report of a particular type with a completion status such as, (a) being verified, (b) don't care and (c) being signed being completed. A completed status and uncompleted status comprise being signed and unsigned respectively. Monitoring processor 15 monitors stored indicators indicating status of associated reports of an imaging study to detect a change in status of the reports. Decision processor 20 determines whether a current status of a report matches a corresponding predetermined completion status of a report for individual reports associated with the imaging study in response to detection of a change in status. The process of
The system, processes and image displays of
This is a non-provisional application of provisional application Ser. No. 60/867,604 by P. J. Magsig et al. filed Nov. 29, 2006.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
7234064 | Menschik et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7464386 | Millington et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7532942 | Reiner | May 2009 | B2 |
7607079 | Reiner | Oct 2009 | B2 |
8150175 | Natanzon et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
20020046125 | Speicher et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20030167219 | Quraishi et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040034550 | Menschik et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040078231 | Wilkes et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20050027995 | Menschik et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050075544 | Shapiro et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20060109961 | Mahesh et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060212317 | Hahn et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060288011 | Gandhi et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070282912 | Reiner | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080077431 | Calder et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20090132281 | Lyshkow | May 2009 | A1 |
20100114610 | Schwalb et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Authentication of digital medical images with digital signature technology, JP Smith, 1995. |
W3C Note Nov. 6, 2000. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20080123917 A1 | May 2008 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60867604 | Nov 2006 | US |