Enter Your Email Address to Receive a
Copy of MedicExhange Member Demograhpics

One of the biggest hurdles though likely is the vendors

thanks, ryan, this is a good explanation. i do hear cardiologists say that their workflow is "proprietary" and that they do not want any interference with how they do their job. to some extent I could understand their concerns given that the cardiovascular system is delicate and lawsuits related to any error are serious matters. I liked that you provided a way out of this based on equipment possibilities ...

From my experience, cardiology is a 'higher touch' speciality when compared with radiology. This interaction between physician and patient cannot be replace and might be providing a stumbling block for the rest of the workflow.

One of the biggest hurdles though likely is the vendors. When compared with Radiology and PACS, image capture and viewing stations are vendor specific for cardiology. A GE Cardiology Modality requires a GE Workstation to view versus most PACS will manage anything that is in DICOM format not matter the modality vendor. Average cost of a cardiology workstation is probably $30K.

Until that standard, cost effective platform is avaliable it will continue to a challenge.

-ryan

Recently i've read quite a bit about the reluctance of cardiologists to move towards electronics records. one rationale given is that the workflow in cardiology is very specific and would be disrupted, can anyone counter that concern?

Some reasons may include:
1 Turf war between cardiology and radiology
2 Reluctance to go to electronic format
3 Concerns over workflow changes in a very sensitive field