Most radiologists would probably have no problem agreeing that the main issue PACS was built for was to tackle archiving. These same radiologists would probably agree that they are asking their PACS to do more than just archive today.
With Meaningful Use requirements approaching phase III and electronic health records becoming not only the norm, but part of every providers compliance focus, there is a move to bring in new PACS vendors that can live up to expectations. This data has to be migrated in the format that fits the new PACS, and it’s a process that is both time consuming and expensive (depending on which vendor you choose).
If you’ve been in radiology long enough you’ll remember a time when you had to have nearly all of your tech equipment provided by the same vendor, otherwise none of it would communicate. For instance, modalities wouldn’t communicate with other modalities and equipment unless the same vendor built them. This proved to be a problem rather quickly, especially when departments within the same organization utilized different vendors. Cardiology couldn’t communicate with oncology or radiology, etc.
Another issue that many organizations were having with their legacy system was related to archiving. Some radiology IT personnel believed that since their PACS conformed to the DICOM standard, there would be no interoperability problems. However, as we discussed earlier, most PACS are built with their own internal formats, which means archiving data also falls under the proprietary umbrella causing unique issues of its own.
There are differences between DICOM archive and VNA, which had to be addressed by PACS. For instance, VNA is able to offer up data in a format that is different from what was archived. Furthermore, VNA is able to interface with RIS and HIS whereas DICOM archive cannot. While DICOM archive only stores objects formatted as DICOM, VNA is capable of storing DICOM and non-DICOM data. This last bit is important to remember as many providers are focusing on archiving their HL7 data now as well as their medical imaging (DICOM) data.
Given the problem with communication and archiving with early PACS, it’s clear why VNA became a focus among medical IT personnel. However, what was sold as a VNA solution differed from vendor to vendor. A true VNA system will be able to find common ground between modality and PACS.
Open architecture is the key ingredient to a true VNA solution. Proprietary-free might be another way of saying it, but the end goal is to easily migrate data as needed. Today’s PACS have a lot more than just archiving in mind – they’re looking at storing images from many sources and sharing them with the appropriate professionals as needed – no roadblocks involved.
OffSite Image Management, Inc. has created true VNA solutions that not only offer a quality interface and industry-setting performance, but at a cost that even the most rural, resource-stressed providers can afford. Contact us today for more information about our view of PACS, VNA and how you should be a archiving and sharing your images.