Perceived Impact of Digital Imaging Workstations on Radiology Workflow Efficiency and Clinical Decision-Making: A Cross-Sectional Study at Al-Bayda Medical Center, Libya
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54361/LJMR.20.3.91Keywords:
digital imaging workstation, PACS; DICOM, radiology workflow, hospital workflow optimization, clinical decision-making, imaging informatics, LibyaAbstract
Background: The move from film-based radiology to digital imaging has changed how radiology departments acquire, view, store, and communicate imaging studies. Workstations integrated with Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS), Radiology Information Systems (RIS), and Hospital Information Systems (HIS), and using Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) standards, are now central to routine imaging practice. Their effect in developing healthcare settings depends on more than hardware availability; training, technical support, software reliability, and interoperability may all shape the benefit seen in daily work. Objective: This study examined how healthcare professionals at Al-Bayda Medical Center (AMC), Libya, perceived the effect of digital imaging workstations on workflow efficiency, manual workload, report-related processes, and clinical decision-making. Methods: A single-center cross-sectional survey was conducted among 51 healthcare professionals who routinely interacted with radiological imaging services. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire, supplemented by interviews and direct observation. Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and percentages. Exploratory associations between selected categorical variables were assessed using Fisher–Freeman–Halton exact tests, with Cramér’s V reported as a measure of association strength. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant for the exploratory inferential analyses. Descriptive findings were interpreted as participants’ reported perceptions and were not considered evidence of objectively demonstrated improvements in workflow or clinical outcomes. Results: Female participants represented 56.9% of the sample and male participants 43.1%. Clinicians represented 62.7% of respondents, radiology technicians 21.6%, and radiologists 15.7%. Nearly half of the participants had more than 10 years of professional experience (47.1%). The Basic PACS viewer was the most commonly reported workstation type (72.5%), followed by multimodality imaging workstations (21.6%). All respondents reported either moderate (54.9%) or slight (45.1%) workflow improvement. Decision-making was perceived to improve significantly by 56.9% of participants and slightly by 43.1%. Manual workload was reported to decrease significantly in 31.4% and slightly in 56.9%, although 11.8% reported increased manual work. The most frequent barriers were lack of training/support (43.1%) and software crashes (41.2%). Professional role was significantly associated with workstation type (p < 0.001, Cramér’s V = 0.568). Conclusion: Participants generally perceived digital imaging workstations as helpful for workflow and clinical decision-making at Al-Bayda Medical Center. Because the study relied mainly on user-reported outcomes, these findings should not be interpreted as direct proof of improved operational performance. Training, stable software, responsive technical support, and stronger interoperability remain practical priorities for improving workstation use.
Downloads
References
1. Strickland NH. PACS (picture archiving and communication systems): filmless radiology. Arch Dis Child. 2000;83(1):82–86. doi:10.1136/adc.83.1.82.
2. Bidgood WD Jr, Horii SC. Introduction to the ACR-NEMA DICOM standard. Radiographics. 1992;12(2):345–355. doi:10.1148/radiographics.12.2.1561424.
3. Mildenberger P, Eichelberg M, Martin E. Introduction to the DICOM standard. Eur Radiol. 2002;12(4):920–927. doi:10.1007/s003300101100.
4. Mansoori B, Erhard KK, Sunshine JL. Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) implementation, integration & benefits in an integrated health system. Acad Radiol. 2012;19(2):229–235. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2011.11.009.
5. Gale ME, Gale DR. DICOM Modality Worklist: an essential component in a PACS environment. J Digit Imaging. 2000;13(3):101–108. doi:10.1007/BF03168381.
6. Moise A, Atkins MS, Rohling R. Evaluating different radiology workstation interaction techniques with radiologists and laypersons. J Digit Imaging. 2005;18(2):116–130. doi:10.1007/s10278-004-2192-y.
7. Iannessi A, Marcy PY, Clatz O, Bertrand AS, Sugimoto M. A review of existing and potential computer user interfaces for modern radiology. Insights Imaging. 2018;9(4):599–609. doi:10.1007/s13244-018-0620-7.
8. Faggioni L, Neri E, Cerri F, Turini F, Bartolozzi C. Integrating image processing in PACS. Eur J Radiol. 2011;78(2):210–224. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.06.022.
9. Joshi V, Narra V, Joshi K, Lee K, Melson DL. PACS administrators’ and radiologists’ perspective on the importance of features for PACS selection. J Digit Imaging. 2014;27(4):486–495. doi:10.1007/s10278-014-9682-3.
10. Ganeshan D, Duong PAT, Probyn L, Lenchik L, McArthur TA, Retrouvey M, et al. Structured reporting in radiology. Acad Radiol. 2018;25(1):66–73. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2017.08.005.
11. Najjar R. Redefining radiology: a review of artificial intelligence integration in medical imaging. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13(17):2760. doi:10.3390/diagnostics13172760.
12. May GA, Deer DD, Dackiewicz D. Impact of digital radiography on clinical workflow. J Digit Imaging. 2000;13(2 Suppl 1):76–78. doi:10.1007/BF03167630.
13. Siegel EL, Reiner BI. Work flow redesign: the key to success when using PACS. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178(3):563–566. doi:10.2214/ajr.178.3.1780563.
14. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Carrino JA. Workflow optimization: current trends and future directions. J Digit Imaging. 2002;15(3):141–152. doi:10.1007/s10278-002-0022-7.
15. Redfern RO, Langlotz CP, Abbuhl SB, Polansky M, Horii SC, Kundel HL. The effect of PACS on the time required for technologists to produce radiographic images in the emergency department radiology suite. J Digit Imaging. 2002;15(3):153–160. doi:10.1007/s10278-002-0024-5.
16. Abbas R, Singh Y. PACS implementation challenges in a public healthcare institution: a South African vendor perspective. Healthc Inform Res. 2019;25(4):324–331. doi:10.4258/hir.2019.25.4.324.
17. Song JW, Mango MC, Museru LM, Kesselman A, Foryoung K, Kiloloma O, et al. Successful implementation of a PACS in Tanzania. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(5):710–713. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2017.01.009.
18. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453–1457. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X.
19. Carrino JA, Unkel PJ, Miller ID, Bowser CL, Freckleton MW, Johnson TG. Large-scale PACS implementation. J Digit Imaging. 1998;11(3 Suppl 1):3–7. doi:10.1007/BF03168246.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Libyan Journal of Medical Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Open Access Policy
Libyan journal of medical Research (LJMR).is an open journal, therefore there are no fees required for downloading any publication from the journal website by authors, readers, and institution.
The journal applies the license of CC BY (a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license). This license allows authors to keep ownership f the copyright of their papers. But this license permits any user to download , print out, extract, reuse, archive, and distribute the article, so long as appropriate credit is given to the authors and the source of the work.
The license ensures that the article will be available as widely as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific archive.
Editorial Policy
The publication of an article in a peer reviewed journal is an essential model for Libyan journal of medical Research (LJMR). It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editorial, the peer reviewer and the publisher.
Any manuscript or substantial parts of it, submitted to the journal must not be under consideration by any other journal. In general, the manuscript should not have already been published in any journal or other citable form, although it may have been deposited on a preprint server. Authors are required to ensure that no material submitted as part of a manuscript infringes existing copyrights, or the rights of a third party.
Authorship Policy
The manuscript authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution and intellectual input to the research submitted to the journal, including design, performance, interpretation of the reported study, and writing the manuscript. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the manuscript but without intellectual input should only be recognized in the acknowledgements section of the manuscript. Also, one of the authors should be selected as the corresponding author to communicate with the journal and approve the final version of the manuscript for publication in the LJMR.
Peer-review Policy
- All the manuscripts submitted to LJMR will be subjected to the double-blinded peer-review process;
- The manuscript will be reviewed by two suitable experts in the respective subject area.
- Reports of all the reviewers will be considered while deciding on acceptance/revision or rejection of a manuscript.
- Editor-In-Chief will make the final decision, based on the reviewer’s comments.
- Editor-In-Chief can ask one or more advisory board members for their suggestions upon a manuscript, before making the final decision.
- Associate editor and review editors provide administrative support to maintain the integrity of the peer-review process.
- In case, authors challenge the editor’s negative decision with suitable arguments, the manuscript can be sent to one more reviewer and the final decision will be made based upon his recommendations.
https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/2413-6069
