市場調査レポート

心臓病学情報:現在/将来の心血管ITの戦略

2014 Cardiology Information Continuum: Present Access and Future Integration Strategies for Cardiovascular Information Technology

発行 IMV 商品コード 304717
出版日 ページ情報 英文 200+ Pages; 200+ Charts/Graphs
納期: 即日から翌営業日
価格
本日の銀行送金レート: 1USD=101.39円で換算しております。
Back to Top
心臓病学情報:現在/将来の心血管ITの戦略 2014 Cardiology Information Continuum: Present Access and Future Integration Strategies for Cardiovascular Information Technology
出版日: 2014年05月30日 ページ情報: 英文 200+ Pages; 200+ Charts/Graphs
概要

当レポートでは、190以上の病院の部門管理者(心臓・IT部門)を対象に実施した調査の結果に基づき、心血管関連ITの優先順位、インテグレーター情報、病院の満足度、モダリティ、画像データ、ベンダー情報などについて、体系的な情報を提供しています。

第1章 調査目的

第2章 エグゼクティブサマリー

第3章 調査手法

第4章 調査結果

  • 病院における心血管関連ITの利用に関する背景
  • 心臓PACS(CPACS)の現在/計画中の利用
  • 心血管IS(CVIS)の現在/計画中の利用
  • 放射線PACSの現在の導入
  • 心血管IT(CVIT)の今後3年間の将来計画
  • CVITシステムの将来発展に対する病院のビジョン
目次

Hospitals are continuing to integrate cardiac images with non-image data and are moving to integrate both of these with the patient EMR and EHR. Find out where hospitals are in this process today and learn how their IT systems are evolving to more effectively manage the challenges of this integration..

This report is based on primary market research with a sample of over 190 hospital department administrators who manage cardiology and IT departments. The responses were extrapolated to the universe of 2,044 U. S. hospitals with cardiac cath labs.

What you will learn in this report

Current Access to and Plans for CPACS and CVIS capabilities

  • What are the priorities when implement cardiovascular-related information technology?
  • What vendors are the key integrators for CPACS and/or CVIS ?
  • How satisfied are hospitals with their CPACS and CVIS vendors?
  • Which imaging modalities are included in the CPACS?
  • In addition to image data, what other cardiovascular data is included in the CVIIS?
  • To what extent is the CVIS vendor the same as the CPACS vendor?

Future Vision for CV-IT System Development What external issues are likely to impact funding for CV-IT projects over the next few years?

  • What product capabilities or services do CPACS and CVIS users desire in the future?
  • Who is managing the CV-IT budget & how much do they plan to spend in the next 3 years?
  • What are the current and planned uses of mobile devices?
  • How important is it that cardiology have its own department centric CVIS to support their workflow? Why?
  • How close do the respondents feel their current CV-IT implementations are to their ideal? Why?
  • What is the cardiology department's perspective on the importance of enterprise-wide archive solutions?

Table of Contents

I. Objectives

II. Executive Summary

III. Methodology

IV. Findings

  • A. Background on the Use of Cardiovascular-Related Information Technology in Hospitals
  • B. Current and Planned Use of Cardiology PACS (CPACS)
  • C. Current and Planned Use of Cardiovascular Information Systems (CVIS)
  • D. Current Radiology PACS Implementations
  • E. Future Plans for Cardiovascular Information Technology (CV-IT) Over the Next Three Years
  • F. Hospitals' Vision for Future CV-IT Systems Development

Exhibits

A. Background on the Use of Cardiovascular-Related Information Technology in Hospitals

  • 1. Priorities for Managing CV-IT Over the Next Few Years (2014-2016).
  • 2. Priorities for Managing Cardiovascular-Related Information Technology for 2014-2016, by Hospital Bed Size
  • 3. Priorities for Managing Cardiovascular-Related Information Technology for 2014-2016, by Hospital Ownership Type
  • 4. Priorities for Managing Cardiovascular-Related Information Technology for 2014-2016, by Location Type.
  • 5. Other Priorities Related to Implementing Cardiovascular-Related Information Technology
  • 6. Cardiovascular-Related Imaging Modalities Offered by Respondent Hospitals, as of 2014 Study
  • 7. Cardiovascular-Related Imaging Modalities Offered by Respondent Hospitals, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 8. Number of Rooms with Fixed C-arms Primarily Used for Cardiac Procedures, by Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 9. Number of Rooms with Fixed C-arms Primarily Used for Non-Cardiac Procedures, by Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 10. Types of Cardiovascular Information Technology Used, as of 2014 Study
  • 11. Types of Cardiovascular Information Technology Used, by IMV Study Year, 2010 & 2014
  • 12. Whether Hospital has a CPACS vs. CVIS, by Type of Implementation, as of 2014 Study
  • 13. Type of Cardiovascular Information Technology Used, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 14. Type of Cardiovascular Information Technology Used, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 15. Type of Cardiovascular Information Technology Used, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study

B. Current and Planned Use of Cardiology PACS (CPACS)

  • 1. Whether Hospital Has a CPACS Implemented, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014
  • 2. Incidence of CPACS Implementation, by Hospital Bed Size, by IMV Study Year, 2007-2014
  • 3. Primary CPACS System Integrator, as of 2014 Study
  • 4. Primary CPACS System Integrator, by IMV Study Year, 2010 & 2014.
  • 5. Primary CPACS System Integrator, by IMV Study Year, 2007-2014
  • 6. Primary CPACS System Integrator, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study.
  • 7. Primary CPACS Provider, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 8. Primary CPACS Provider, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 9. Year of Original CPACS Implementation, as of 2014 Study
  • 10. Year CPACS Was First Implemented, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 11. Whether CPACS Provider is the Same Provider as Original Implementation, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 12. Whether CPACS System Integrator is the Same Provider as Original Implementation, as of 2014 Study.
  • 13. Prior CPACS Vendor Replaced
  • 14. CPACS Vendor Switched to, for Those who Replaced Prior Vendors, as of 2014 Study
  • 15. Current CPACS System Integrator, for those Who Have Changed Vendors, as of 2014 Study
  • 16. Year of Most Recent Change to Current CPACS System Integrator, as of 2014 Study
  • 17. Trend in Mix of First Buyer vs. Replacement CPACS, by Year of Implementation, as of 2014 Study
  • 18. Reasons for Changing from Previous CPACS System Integrator to Current Vendor
  • 19. Types of Images Currently Accessible and Planned for CPACS, as of 2014 Study
  • 20. Types of Images Currently Accessible on CPACS, by Whether the Hospital Currently Uses the Modality for Cardiovascular-Related Procedures, as of 2014 Study
  • 21. Types of Advanced Visualization Tools Currently Accessible and Planned for CPACS, as of 2014 Study
  • 22. Fractional Flow Reserve Analysis Tools: Current and Planned CPACS Access, as of 2014 Study.
  • 23. Advanced Valve Analysis Tools: Current and Planned CPACS Access, as of 2014 Study
  • 24. Invasive Peripheral Vascular 3D Tools: Current and Planned CPACS Access, as of 2014 Study
  • 25. Cardiac CT Analysis Tools: Current and Planned CPACS Access, as of 2014 Study
  • 26. Cardiac MR Analysis Tools: Current and Planned CPACS Access, as of 2014 Study
  • 27. Locations Outside of the Main Hospital with Access to CPACS, as of 2014 Study
  • 28. Locations Outside of the Main Hospital with Access to CPACS, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 StudyIV-
  • 29. Locations Outside of the Main Hospital with Access to CPACS, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 30. Locations Outside of the Main Hospital with Access to CPACS, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 31. Entity Managing CPACS Long-Term Data Archiving, as of 2014 Study.
  • 32. Trend in Entity Managing CPACS Long-Term Data Archiving, by IMV Study Year, 2007-2014
  • 33. Entity Managing CPACS Long-Term Data Archiving, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 34. Entity Managing CPACS Long-Term Data Archiving, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 35. Entity Managing CPACS Disaster Recovery Service, as of 2014 Study.
  • 36. Trend in Entity Managing CPACS Disaster Recovery Service, by IMV Study Year, 2007-2014
  • 37. Entity Managing CPACS Disaster Recovery Service, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 38. Entity Managing CPACS Disaster Recovery Service, by Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 39. Whether Current CPACS Archive Solution is Vendor Neutral, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 40. Whether Current CPACS Archive Solution is Vendor Neutral, as of 2014 Study
  • 41. Whether Hospital is Considering a Vendor Neutral Archive by the End of 2016
  • 42. Whether Hospital Has or is Considering a Vendor Neutral Archive by the End of 2016
  • 43. Whether Hospital Has or is Considering a Vendor Neutral Archive by the End of 2016, by Hospital Bed Size
  • 44. Whether Hospital Has or is Considering a Vendor Neutral Archive by the End of 2016, by CPACS Vendor Currently in Use
  • 45. Whether Current EMR/EHR is Image-Enabled, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 46. Whether Current EMR/EHR is Image-Enabled, as of 2014 Study.
  • 47. Whether Hospital is Considering Image-Enabling EMR/EHR by the End of 2016
  • 48. Whether Hospital Has or is Considering Image-Enabling their EMR/EHR by the End of 2016
  • 49. Whether Hospital Has or is Considering Image-Enabling their EMR/EHR by the End of 2016, by Hospital Bed Size
  • 50. Whether Hospital Has or is Considering Image-Enabling their EMR/EHR by the End of 2016, by CPACS Vendor Currently in Use
  • 51. Overall Satisfaction Level with Current CPACS Solution, as of 2014 Study
  • 52. Overall Satisfaction Level with Current CPACS Solution, by IMV Study Year, 2007-2014
  • 53. Overall Satisfaction Level with Current CPACS Solution, by CPACS Vendor, as of 2014 Study
  • 54. Reasons for Satisfaction Ratings with CPACS

C. Current and Planned Use of Cardiovascular Information Systems (CVIS)

  • 1. Whether Hospital Has a CVIS Implemented, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 2. Incidence of CVIS Use, by Hospital Bed Size, by IMV Study Year, 2010 & 2014
  • 3. Current CVIS Vendor, as of 2014 Study
  • 4. Primary CVIS Vendor, by IMV Study Year, 2010 & 2014.
  • 5. Current CVIS Vendor, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 6. Current CVIS Vendor, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 7. Current CVIS System Vendor, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 8. Whether CVIS Vendor is the Same as the Primary CPACS System Integrator, as of 2014 Study
  • 9. Whether CVIS Vendor is the Same as the Primary CPACS System Integrator, by IMV Study Year, 2010 & 2014.
  • 10. Whether CVIS Vendor is the Same as the Primary CPACS System Integrator, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 11. Whether CVIS System Vendor is the Same as the Primary CPACS System Integrator, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 12. Whether CVIS System Vendor is the Same as the Primary CPACS System Integrator, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study.
  • 13. Whether CVIS Vendor is the Same As the Primary CPACS System Integrator, by CVIS Vendor as of 2014 Study
  • 14. Current Vendor for Both CVIS and CPACS, as of 2014 Study
  • 15. Distribution of CVIS Vendors, when the Same As and Different from their CPACS Providers, as of 2014 Study
  • 16. Types of Patient Test Information Currently Accessible or Planned for CVIS Access by 2016, as of 2014 Study
  • 17. Whether Hemodynamic Monitoring is Currently Accessible or Planned for CVIS Access by 2016, as of 2014 Study
  • 18. Whether EKG/ECG is Currently Accessible or Planned for CVIS Access by 2016, as of 2014 Study
  • 19. Structured Reporting Capabilities Currently Accessible or Planned for CVIS by 2016, as of 2014 Study
  • 20. Structured Reporting Capabilities Currently Accessible or Planned for CVIS Access by 2016, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 21. Trend in Percentage of Cardiologists Routinely Using Cardiac Cath Structured Reporting Capabilities, by IMV Study Year, 2010 & 2014
  • 22. Percentage of Cardiologists Routinely Using Cardiac Cath Structured Reporting Capabilities, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 23. Percentage of Cardiologists Routinely Using Cardiac Cath Structured Reporting Capabilities, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 24. Percentage of Cardiologists Routinely Using Cardiac Cath Structured Reporting Capabilities, by Academic vs. Non-Academic Hospitals, as of 2014 Study
  • 25. Trend in Percentage of Cardiologists Routinely Using Echocardiography Structured Reporting Capabilities, by IMV Study Year, 2010 & 2014
  • 26. Percentage of Cardiologists Routinely Using Echocardiography Structured Reporting Capabilities, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 27. Percentage of Cardiologists Routinely Using Echocardiography Structured Reporting Capabilities, by Academic vs. Non-Academic Hospitals, as of 2014 Study
  • 28. Functional Capabilities Currently Accessible or Planned for CVIS Access by 2016, as of 2014 Study
  • 29. Functional Capabilities Currently Accessible or Planned for CVIS Access by 2016, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 30. Functional Capabilities Currently Accessible or Planned for CVIS Access by 2016, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study.
  • 31. Whether Components of CVIS and CPACS are Currently Integrated/Interfaced or Will Be by 2016, as of 2014 Study
  • 32. Components of CVIS and CPACS that are Currently Integrated/Interfaced, by IMV Study Year, 2010 & 2014
  • 33. Components of CVIS and CPACS that are Currently Integrated/Interfaced or Will Be by 2016, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 34. Components of CVIS and CPACS that are Currently Integrated/Interfaced or Will Be by 2016, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 35. Overall Satisfaction Level with Current CVIS Implementation, as of 2014 Study
  • 36. Overall Satisfaction Level with Current CVIS Implementation, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 37. Overall Satisfaction Level with Current CVIS Implementation, by CVIS Vendor, as of 2014 Study
  • 38. Reasons for Satisfaction Ratings with CVIS

D. Current Radiology PACS Implementations

  • 1. Current Radiology PACS System Integrator, as of 2014 Study
  • 2. Primary Radiology PACS System Integrator, by IMV Study Year, 2007-2014
  • 3. Current Radiology PACS System Integrator, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study.
  • 4. Current PACS System Integrator, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 5. Current PACS System Integrator, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 6. Radiology PACS Vendor Installed Base Share, by Current CPACS Vendor, as of 2014 Study
  • 7. CPACS Vendor Installed Base Share, by Current Radiology PACS Vendor, as of 2014 Study
  • 8. Whether PACS Vendor is the Same as Current CPACS Vendor, as of 2014 Study
  • 9. Comparison of CPACS Vendor Installed Base Share, when the Same As vs. Different from their PACS Providers, as of 2014 Study
  • 10. Comparison of CPACS Vendor Installed Base Share, when the Same As vs. Different from their PACS Providers, as of 2014 Study
  • 11. Components of Radiology PACS and CPACS that are Currently Integrated/Interfaced, as of 2014 Study
  • 12. Components of Radiology PACS and CPACS that are Currently Integrated/Interfaced, by IMV Study Year, 2010 & 2014
  • 13. Importance of Radiology PACS and CPACS Components Being Integrated/Interfaced, as of 2014 Study
  • 14. Importance of Radiology PACS and CPACS Components Being Integrated/Interfaced, by CPACS Vendor Currently in Use, as of 2014 Study

E. Future Plans for Cardiovascular Information Technology (CV-IT) Over the Next Three Years

  • 1. Extent to Which Developments Will Affect Funding for CV-IT Projects, as of 2014 Study
  • 2. Extent to Which Developments Will Affect Funding for CV-IT Projects, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 3. Extent to Which Developments Will Affect Funding for CV-IT Projects, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 4. Extent to Which Developments Will Affect Funding for CV-IT Projects, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 5. Comments on Product Capabilities or Services CPACS/CVIS Vendors Should Offer to Help Department Manage in an Outcomes and Value-based Reimbursement Environment
  • 6. Department Managing the Budget for CV-IT Purchases, Upgrades, and Replacements, as of 2014 Study
  • 7. Department Managing the Budget for CV-IT Purchases, Upgrades, and Replacements, by IMV Study Year, 2010 & 2014
  • 8. Department Managing the Budget for CV-IT Purchases, Upgrades, and Replacements, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study.
  • 9. Department Managing the Budget for CV-IT Purchases, Upgrades, and Replacements, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 10. Department Managing the Budget for CV-IT Purchases, Upgrades, and Replacements, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study.
  • 11. Expected Spending on CV-IT Purchases or Upgrades, 2014-2016, as of 2014 Study
  • 12. Anticipated CV-IT Expenditures Over the Next Three Years, by IMV Study Year, 2007-2014
  • 13. Anticipated CV-IT Expenditures, 2014 to 2016, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 14. Distribution of Total Projected CV-IT Expenditures, 2014 to 2016, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 15. Anticipated CV-IT Expenditures, 2014 to 2016, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 16. Anticipated CV-IT Expenditures, 2014 to 2016, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study.
  • 17. Anticipated Distribution of CV-IT Expenditures from 2014 to 2016, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 18. Anticipated Mix of CV-IT Expenditures, by Hospital Bed Size, for 2014-2016, as of 2014 Study.
  • 19. Anticipated Distribution of CV-IT Expenditures from 2014 to 2016, by Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 20. Anticipated Annual Mix of CV-IT Expenditures, by Hospital Ownership Type, for 2014-2016, as of 2014 Study
  • 21. Anticipated Distribution of CV-IT Expenditures from 2014 to 2016, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 22. Anticipated Annual Mix of CV-IT Expenditures, by Location Type, 2014-2016, as of 2014 Study
  • 23. Decision Makers Involved in CV-IT Decision Process, as of 2014 Study
  • 24. Decision Makers Involved in CV-IT Decision Process, by IMV Study Year, 2010 & 2014
  • 25. Decision Makers Involved in CV-IT Decision Process, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 26. Decision Makers Involved in CV-IT Decision Process, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 27. Future CV-IT Plans, 2014-2016
  • 28. Future CV-IT Plans, 2014-2016, by Hospital Bed Size
  • 29. Future CV-IT Plans, 2014-2016, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 30. Future CV-IT Plans, 2014-2016, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 31. Future CV-IT Plans, 2014-2016, by Current CPACS/CVIS Capability, as of 2014 Study
  • 32. Anticipated CV-IT Expenditures, 2014-2016, by Current CPACS/CVIS Capability, as of 2014 Study.
  • 33. Vendors Being Considered for New or Replacement CV-IT, as of 2014 Study
  • 34. Vendors Being Considered for New or Replacement CV-IT, by IMV Study Year, 2010 & 2014.
  • 35. Reasons for Replacing Existing CV-IT Systems, as of 2014 Study
  • 36. Functional Capability Additions/Upgrades Planned for CV-IT, 2014-2016, as of 2014 Survey
  • 37. Functional Capabilities and/or Upgrades Planned for CV-IT, 2014-2016, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 38. Functional Capabilities and/or Upgrades Planned for CV-IT, 2014-2016, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study.
  • 39. Functional Capabilities and/or Upgrades Planned for CV-IT, 2014-2016, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 40. CV-IT Information Capabilities Currently Accessible or Planned for Mobile Devices, as of 2014 Study
  • 41. CV-IT Information Capabilities Currently Accessible or Planned for Mobile Devices, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 42. CV-IT Information Capabilities Currently Accessible or Planned for Mobile Devices, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 43. Current EMR/EHR Vendor, as of 2014 Study
  • 44. Current EMR/EHR Vendor, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 45. Current EMR/EHR Vendor, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 46. Current EMR/EHR Vendor, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 47. Current EMR/EHR Vendor, by CPACS Vendor Currently in Use, as of 2014 Study
  • 48. Whether Hospital Plans to Change EMR/EHR Vendors in the Next Three Years, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 49. Whether Hospital Plans to Change EMR/EHR Vendors in the Next Three Years, by Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study.
  • 50. Whether Hospital Plans to Change EMR/EHR Vendors in the Next Three Years, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study.
  • 51. Whether Hospital Plans to Change EMR/EHR Vendors in the Next Three Years, by Current EMR/EHR Vendor, as of 2014 Study
  • 52. Reasons for Switching EMR/EHR Providers Over Next Three Years Hospitals' Vision for Future CV-IT Systems Development

F. Hospitals' Vision for Future CV-IT Systems Development

  • 1. Importance of Cardiology Having a Department-Centric CVIS, by Current CPACS/CVIS Capability, as of 2014 Study
  • 2. Importance of Cardiology Having a Department-Centric CVIS, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study3. Importance of Cardiology Having a Department-Centric CVIS, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 StudyIV-
  • 4. Importance of Cardiology Having a Department-Centric CVIS, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 5. Features/Capabilities Respondents Consider Unique to a Department-Centric CVIS
  • 6. Other Information Systems Currently Integrated/Interfaced with CPACS and/or CVIS as of 2014 Study
  • 7. Importance of CPACS and/or CVIS Being Integrated/Interfaced with Information Systems, as of 2014 Study
  • 8. Importance of CPACS and/or CVIS Being Integrated/Interfaced with Other Types of Information Systems, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 9. Importance of CPACS and/or CVIS Being Integrated/Interfaced with Other Types of Information Systems, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study.
  • 10. Importance of CPACS and/or CVIS Being Integrated/Interfaced with Other Types of Information Systems, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 11. Percentage Completion of Current CV-IT System Compared to Ideal, by Current CPACS/CVIS Capability, as of 2014 Study
  • 12. Percentage Completion of Current CV-IT System Compared to Ideal, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 13. Percentage Completion of Current CV-IT System Compared to Ideal, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 14. Percentage Completion of Current CV-IT System Compared to Ideal, by Location Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 15. Comments on Greatest Unmet Need in Current CV-IT System IV-
  • 16. Importance of Whether Ideal CV-IT Solution Should be Integrated by Current CPACS, CVIS, PACS, or EMR/EHR Vendor, as of 2014 Study
  • 17. Importance of Vendor Integration Status Compared to Ideal CV-IT Solution, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 18. Importance of Vendor Integration Status Compared to Ideal CV-IT Solution, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 StudyIV-
  • 19. Importance to Ideal CV-IT Solution that System is the Same Vendor as Current CPACS Vendor, by Current CPACS Vendor, as of 2014 Study
  • 20. Importance to Ideal CV-IT Solution that System is the Same Vendor as Current CPACS Vendor, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 21. Importance to Ideal CV-IT Solution that System is the Same Vendor as Current CPACS Vendor, by Ownership Type, as of 2014 StudyIV-
  • 22. Importance to Ideal CV-IT Solution that System is the Same Vendor as Current CVIS Vendor, by Current CVIS Vendor, as of 2014 Study
  • 23. Importance to Ideal CV-IT Solution that System is the Same Vendor as Current CVIS Vendor, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 24. Importance to Ideal CV-IT Solution that System is the Same Vendor as Current CVIS Vendor, by Ownership Type, as of 2014 StudyI
  • 25. Importance to Ideal CV-IT Solution that System is the Same Vendor as Current Radiology PACS Vendor, by Current Radiology PACS Vendor, as of 2014 Study.
  • 26. Importance to Ideal CV-IT Solution that System is the Same Vendor as Radiology PACS Vendor, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 27. Importance to Ideal CV-IT Solution that System is the Same Vendor as Radiology PACS Vendor, by Ownership Type, as of 2014 StudyIV-
  • 28. Importance to Ideal CV-IT Solution that System is the Same Vendor as Current EMR/EHR Vendor, by Current EMR/EHR Vendor, as of 2014 Study
  • 29. Importance to Ideal CV-IT Solution that System is the Same Vendor as Current EMR/EHR Vendor, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 StudyIV-
  • 30. Importance to Ideal CV-IT Solution that System is the Same Vendor as Current EMR/EHR Vendor, by Ownership Type, as of 2014 StudyI
  • 31. Comments on Preferences for Ideal Vendor for CV-IT System vs. Current Vendors IV-
  • 32. Importance of Organization Developing Enterprise-Wide Archive Solutions, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 33. Importance of Organization Developing Enterprise-Wide Archive Solutions, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
  • 34. Comments on Importance of Enterprise-Wide Archive Solutions
  • 35. Hospital Departments Most Likely to be Included in an Enterprise-Wide Archive Solution Over the Next Five Years, as of 2014 Study
  • 36. Hospital Departments Most Likely to be Included in an Enterprise-Wide Archive Solution, by Hospital Bed Size, as of 2014 Study
  • 37. Hospital Departments Most Likely to be Included in an Enterprise-Wide Archive Solution, by Hospital Ownership Type, as of 2014 Study
Back to Top