Why Is Digitalisation a Need? Chosen Disadvantages of Non-Digital Radiology Systems

Nowadays using modern technologies is a must. Each of us – scientists, doctors, teachers, students, ordinary people – cannot exist without smartphones, tablets and other electronic devices and, most of all, the Internet. Digitalisation is also indeed present in the field of medicine and it is used by doctors day by day. Radiology is undoubtedly the fastest growing domain in this field, so the implementation of digital systems and digital imaging is required to ensure the proper existence of X-ray laboratories. RIS and PACS are the most essential tools in the work of radiologists, both doctors and technicians these days. Using too old, obsolete methods of imaging may cause a lot of problems, such as environment contamination, using too much space for the non-digital, paper archives in hospitals, very high costs of non-digital system maintenance, too weak quality of analogue images, time-consuming access to previous studies and many, many more. This is why they should be reduced to a minimum and doctors should use and work only with digital tools. The aim of this paper is to show some chosen disadvantages of non-digital radiology systems that have been used by some Digital Imaging Laboratories so far. A questionnaire survey was conducted among radiologists and X-ray technicians in all the hospitals in Lublin that have implemented RIS and PACS. For the statistical analysis a total of 169 questionnaires were correctly completed, 88 by electro-radiology technicians and 81 by radiologists. The questionnaires for both technicians and physicians comprised 17 open and closed questions and demographic data. The tables and graphs of this paper show the disadvantages that can be faced in hospitals. In the comparison of analogue and digital systems that operate simultaneously in X-ray laboratories, environmental pollution, high service costs and spare parts of old equipment have been identified as the biggest defects in classical radiology. Difficult and time-consuming access to previous studies has been identified as a drawback of paper archives. Poor image quality and a lack of an ability to differentiate soft tissues at the doctor’s work are not considered faults.