UK Imaging Informatics Group
RIS systems PreviousNext
UK Imaging Informatics Group > Questions & Answers > PACS Integration & Standards >
Message/Author
 Link to this message Michael Sparks  posted on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 04:57 pm Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
We are about to start the long and laborious process of replacing our SMS RMSv21. Is anyone using Torex's Radcentre? Comments without expletives welcomed! Has anyone a burning desire to tell me that the RIS they are using is the best thing since sliced bread.
 Link to this message Rhidian Bramley  posted on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 06:34 pm Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Interestingly, in our user database we have 25 different RIS systems installed. Amersham/Torex has the most installations (12) with McKesson/HBOC second (7) and Misys/Sunquest third (4). This does not necessarily reflect popularity though as mergers and acquisitions play a key part in the numbers game.

http://www.pacsgroup.org.uk/cgi-bin/forum/allusers.cgi?sort=var2&period=0&simple =0&os=0&dsp=fullname%2fprofile%2fvar2%2fvar6%2fvar7%2fvar8&ml=20&sa=1&srch=var7& str=

It would be useful to have a proper national database of RIS & PACS installations. All trusts have recently completed the DIMP (Diagnostic Imaging Messaging Project) forms, which asked for this information in the questionnaire. I gather this will be added to an online tracking database in the near future.

Looking down our list it is also interesting that very few of us have gone for integrated RIS/PACS systems from the same vendor/parent company. I'm still undecided whether to go for 'best of breed' for each or compromise for the advantages of a truly integrated solution.
 Link to this message Alan Early  posted on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 12:01 pm Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
In Hull we have the Torex (ex-SMS) version 25 RIS which is not suited to us at all, and has led to major inefficiencies of operation. We believe there are only 3 installations of this in the UK (Hull, Hereford and Croydon). Now that Torex own Amersham, we are hopeful that we may get this as a replacement RIS, though the whole market will be surveyed at the time we consider our first PACS instalation, to ensure compatibility.
 Link to this message Keith Foord  posted on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 01:43 pm Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
I guess we all have to be a little careful about comments about products exchanged via this board, but it should be possible for members to access the users list and find others who have similar systems so that confidential exchanges of info can occur.

For members interest I attach some Powerpoint slides of the % company mix of PAS/HIS, RIS, PACS and Teleradiology systems installed at members sites extracted from our database.

The mix is many and varied !

application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
PASRISPACSTR.ppt (202.2 k)
 Link to this message Richard Harries  posted on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 03:14 pm Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
I'm not sure what you mean by Radcentre - we have the latest Torex RIS (ie Amersham as was) and it is excellent. Nothing is perfect but I wouldn't want to change it at the moment. Whether Torex will maintain the Amersham standards remains to be seen but so far no significant grouches.
 Link to this message Rhidian Bramley  posted on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 03:35 pm Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Richard, Amersham RMSW is now marketed as Torex RadCentre.
 Link to this message Simon Daniell  posted on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 01:20 am Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
If you are thinking of integrating an Amersham/Torex RIS to anything think twice and ask abouth the Bromley problems - specified in Nov 1999 and still not working! Their RIS is good but beware of making that the only criteria for your choice. Happy for you to contact us for more detail.
 Link to this message Simon Daniell  posted on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 01:43 am Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
I agree. I hope all comment posted here are true and can be substantiated.
 Link to this message Richard Harries  posted on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 03:09 am Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Thanks Rhydian. So that's what we're using! As I said, it's excellent and so far there has been no evidence of a change of attitude. We still have the same contacts from the Amersham side, with whom we have developed a good working relationship. Let's hope it stays that way.
 Link to this message Richard Harries  posted on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 08:02 am Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Keith, your attachment didn't arrive. Could you send it to me at Richard.Harries@nlg.nhs.uk?
 Link to this message Rhidian Bramley  posted on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 08:14 am Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Richard, attachments posted up to the discussion board are not sent with the notification email you receive. You will only get a reference to them and they can be downloaded by visiting the website by following the link at the bottom of the email notification message.

The attachments do not get sent out as some of them can be large > 1MB and would clog up the inbox of some members registered with the site.

I hope this helps for the future.
 Link to this message Keith Foord  posted on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 09:02 pm Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Here is my ppt file again as I understand some board users have not been able to download it.

To download visit www.pacsgroup.org.uk Q&A RIS systems. This will not be sent as an attachment to the email.

application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
PASRISPACSTR.ppt (202.2 k)
 Link to this message Rhidian Bramley  posted on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 09:11 am Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Here is Keith's powepoint presentation for those that couldn't download it.

application/vnd.ms-powerpointPACS Presentation
PASRISPACSTR.ppt (202.2 k)


Uploading tip: Do not have the presentation file open in PowerPoint on your desktop when you upload it. You must close it first. This is because Microsoft operatchanges the file when it is open and creates a temporary backup for disaster recovery.
 Link to this message Simon Daniell  posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 08:35 am Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Dear All,
Would anyone have an output-based specification for a new/replacement RIS that they would be prepared to share with us at Bromley? We would be extremely grateful as it will stop us reinventing the wheel.
Many thanks, Simon
 Link to this message David Payne  posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 09:17 am Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
[Simon, our EPR radiology sub group have recently produced a RIS specification both as a stand alone system and as part of an EPR OBS, as your near neighbours (Kent and Medway) we would certainly be willing to share this with you - I will e mail]
 Link to this message Arumugam Nalliah  posted on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 11:17 am Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Hi
We have problems with Usit ( Philips CR system) obtaining worklist from iSOFT (former Amersham). Philips and iSOFT blaming each other not setting their software right! Philips having problems importing the worklist from iSOFT to display in their Usit/PCR. When a patient registered on iSOFT only an entry shows up on Usit, no patient details displayed. Due to these problems we are running RIS and Usit/ CR separately to this CR room. thus cannot upload our images to Pacs server due to dicom conformance. Anyone had similar problems/ solutions?
 Link to this message Leith Vaughan  posted on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 11:52 am Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Hi Arumugam

There is a back door to the Philips Usit which we used here in Australia. We had no broker so Philips instructed the RIS provider to set up a FTP and perform an ASCII dump with a set given criteria (i.e Patient name, exam etc). Works perfectly.

You dont have the full integration, but it solved the workflow.

Contact Philips in Australia. I think the engineers name is Peter Koens.
 
Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: