K. DeStigter, S. Horton, O. Atalabi, R. García-Mónaco, H. Gharbi, L. T. Hlabangana, H. Nisenbaum, C. Nolsøe, J. Mendel
{"title":"全球放射环境下的设备:我们为什么失败,我们如何成功","authors":"K. DeStigter, S. Horton, O. Atalabi, R. García-Mónaco, H. Gharbi, L. T. Hlabangana, H. Nisenbaum, C. Nolsøe, J. Mendel","doi":"10.7191/jgr.2019.1079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Results: Radiologists surveyed came from both public and private sectors and were drawn from Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) members who, according to the survey results, appear to represent sites with more advanced technology. Virtually all the radiologists worked at sites where both X-ray and ultrasound were available, and the overwhelming majority (93%) had access to CT. Digital technology has gone worldwide: radiologists in all countries reported that digital radiography was either equally or more available than analog technologies. Sixty percent of radiologists said that they were “always” or “often” involved in the purchasing decisions in their institutions, but only 35% reported that they had the final say. According to the radiologists surveyed, the era of donated equipment is ending. Ninety-five percent felt that the disadvantages of donated equipment outweighed the cost savings. Training was a key concern both for radiologists and vendors. Radiologists felt that training was insufficient, materials left behind too complicated, online materials too limited, and follow-up from vendors insufficient. Vendors pointed out that the bidding process often excluded the cost of training and support and that many purchases are made through local distributors and they lack direct contact with vendors.","PeriodicalId":92855,"journal":{"name":"The journal of global radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Equipment in the Global Radiology Environment: Why We Fail, How We Could Succeed\",\"authors\":\"K. DeStigter, S. Horton, O. Atalabi, R. García-Mónaco, H. Gharbi, L. T. Hlabangana, H. Nisenbaum, C. Nolsøe, J. Mendel\",\"doi\":\"10.7191/jgr.2019.1079\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Results: Radiologists surveyed came from both public and private sectors and were drawn from Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) members who, according to the survey results, appear to represent sites with more advanced technology. Virtually all the radiologists worked at sites where both X-ray and ultrasound were available, and the overwhelming majority (93%) had access to CT. Digital technology has gone worldwide: radiologists in all countries reported that digital radiography was either equally or more available than analog technologies. Sixty percent of radiologists said that they were “always” or “often” involved in the purchasing decisions in their institutions, but only 35% reported that they had the final say. According to the radiologists surveyed, the era of donated equipment is ending. Ninety-five percent felt that the disadvantages of donated equipment outweighed the cost savings. Training was a key concern both for radiologists and vendors. Radiologists felt that training was insufficient, materials left behind too complicated, online materials too limited, and follow-up from vendors insufficient. Vendors pointed out that the bidding process often excluded the cost of training and support and that many purchases are made through local distributors and they lack direct contact with vendors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92855,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The journal of global radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The journal of global radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7191/jgr.2019.1079\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of global radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7191/jgr.2019.1079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Equipment in the Global Radiology Environment: Why We Fail, How We Could Succeed
Results: Radiologists surveyed came from both public and private sectors and were drawn from Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) members who, according to the survey results, appear to represent sites with more advanced technology. Virtually all the radiologists worked at sites where both X-ray and ultrasound were available, and the overwhelming majority (93%) had access to CT. Digital technology has gone worldwide: radiologists in all countries reported that digital radiography was either equally or more available than analog technologies. Sixty percent of radiologists said that they were “always” or “often” involved in the purchasing decisions in their institutions, but only 35% reported that they had the final say. According to the radiologists surveyed, the era of donated equipment is ending. Ninety-five percent felt that the disadvantages of donated equipment outweighed the cost savings. Training was a key concern both for radiologists and vendors. Radiologists felt that training was insufficient, materials left behind too complicated, online materials too limited, and follow-up from vendors insufficient. Vendors pointed out that the bidding process often excluded the cost of training and support and that many purchases are made through local distributors and they lack direct contact with vendors.