The advantages to be expected of full-scale PACS implementation are widely described in the literature. In the decision to introduce such systems, costs will also play an important part. The benefits to be achieved should at least outbalance the costs. In this paper the set-up of a software package for cost assessment is described. The configuration requirements have to be determined based on the workload of the radiology department and a PACS model using results of simulation studies. Of course additional user requirements are important input parameters (e.g. number of workstations, screen resolution, etc.). Data on costs of the various configuration components and the expected future trends in these costs will be used to estimate the costs of a specific PACS configuration as a function of time. Savings to be achieved in the various categories of resources will be input (again with their trends) to lead to an overview of the total savings to be expected. The package will result in a graph of the net annual costs as a function of the timing of PACS introduction. In the package a critique module is foreseen that checks whether the data fed into the system are of reasonable agreement with expert opinions.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14639238809012095 | DOI Listing |
Bull World Health Organ
February 2025
Faculty of Bioethics, Universidad Anahuac México, Mexico City, Mexico.
The rising incidence of noncommunicable diseases, combined with the costs of mitigating climate change, sovereign debt and regional conflicts, is undermining global health security and threatening progress towards achieving the sustainable development goals of the United Nations. The negative impact of these polycrises is disproportionately borne by low- and middle-income countries, which have the highest disease burden and lowest health-care spending. Health digitalization is emerging as a promising countermeasure, accelerated by artificial intelligence (AI) software and quantum computing hardware.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFTrials
January 2025
London Centre for Primary Care, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Background: The aim of the SURECAN trial is to evaluate a person-centred intervention, based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT Plus ( +)), for people who have completed treatment for cancer with curative intent, but are experiencing poor quality of life. We present the statistical analysis plan for assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention in improving quality of life 1 year post randomisation.
Methods And Design: SURECAN is a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm, partially clustered randomised controlled superiority trial comparing the effectiveness of ACT + added to usual care with usual aftercare.
BMC Cancer
January 2025
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Background: People with malignancy of undefined primary origin (MUO) have a poor prognosis and may undergo a protracted diagnostic workup causing patient distress and high cancer related costs. Not having a primary diagnosis limits timely site-specific treatment and access to precision medicine. There is a need to improve the diagnostic process, and healthcare delivery and support for these patients.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPain Manag Nurs
January 2025
School of Nursing, Excelsior University, Albany, NY. Electronic address:
Objectives: This scoping review explores hybrid healthcare models combining telehealth and in-person visits for pain management. It examines their components, effectiveness compared to traditional care, advantages, and disadvantages of telehealth, and the influence of future technologies.
Design: The review followed the JBI scoping review methodology and used the PRISMA-ScR checklist.
Value Health
January 2025
Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders.
Objectives: To provide an overview of policy initiatives in high-income countries aimed at supporting the development and accessibility of treatments for rare diseases.
Methods: We examine how legislative, research, and pricing policies in high-income countries address barriers that have historically hindered innovation and access to rare disease treatments. By analysing examples from the EU, UK, US, Canada, Japan, and Australia, the article identifies ongoing initiatives, outlines current challenges, and explores proposed solutions to foster a sustainable, innovative, and accessible rare disease treatment ecosystem.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!