work conducted and offer the possibility to react quickly when obstacles occur.
Sharing information within an enterprise
could increase the quality of healthcare
outcomes. When information is shared,
there is nothing to hide within the enterprise; thus the integrity of units must be
considered as well as patient integrity. A
certain level of surveillance can be tolerated, but there are personal limits that
must be considered and openly discussed.
Results from this study illustrate that
investing in a new MRI and a reduction
of the number of rooms used could be
done without additional staff, and that
that there was only a 0.5 difference
between the real life production against
the simulated future production one year
after the simulation were performed.
However, larger differences could be
found on individual examination types
(eg, fluoroscopy) where this type of examination is replaced by other examinations types (eg, ultrasound and CT). The
trauma rooms also showed a large case
mix change, mainly due to use of new,
more effective technology. In summary,
this study has not just planned future
changes in the radiology department at
AH through simulation technology, it
has also validated the results from the
real life changes through a two year follow up on the effects, comparing those
with the simulated and predicted effects.
Simulation could support departments, hospitals, and regions in understanding changes in the healthcare
process prior to changes being made by
illustrating different future scenarios and
their predicted outcomes.
This study concludes that access to
quality reference data from an enter-
prise architecture is a key feature when
simulating the outcome of planned
changes in work changes, eg, patient
flow, workflow, resources needed, pre-
diction of production, planning of equip-
ment, and spaces needed in radiology.
Simulation opens up new ways of plan-
ning and carrying out changes in the
healthcare organization. It presents op-
portunities for cutting costs and increas-
ing business value.
1Lindskold L, et al. The use of simulation in
radiology. Radiol Manage, 2008. 30( 3):
2Lindskold L, Wintell M, Lundberg N. Interop-
erability in healthcare: major challenges in
the creation of the enterprise environment. in
Medical Imaging 2009: Advanced PACS-
based Imaging Informatics and Therapeutic
Applications . 2009. Florida, USA: SPIE.
3Lindskold L, Wintell M, Lundberg N. Pitfalls
in radiology informatics when deploying an
enterprise solution in Medical Imaging 2010:
Advanced PACS-based Imaging Informatics
and Therapeutic Applications. 2010. San
Diego, USA: SPIE.
4Weill P. Innovating with Infomation Systems:
What do the most agile firms in the world do,
in Sixth e-Business 2007: Barcelona, Spain.
5Forum, E.A.R. Enterprise Architecture Defini-
tion 2009 [cited 2010 sep 23].
6Garcia HG, Ronald. Using Experts to Develop a
Supply Chain Maturity Model in Mexico.
Supply Chain Management: An Interna-
tional Journal, 2010.
7Lundberg N, Wintell M, Lindskold L. The
future progress of teleradiology-an empirical
study in Sweden. Eur J Radiol, 2010.
73( 1): 10-9.
8Bakker AR, et al. PACS costs: modelling and
simulation. Med Inform (Lond), 1988.
9Centeno M, Carrillo A. Simulation in practice:
challenges of introducing simulation as a deci-
sion making tool, in Proceedings of the 33nd
conference on Winter simulation. 2001, IEEE
Computer Society: Arlington, Virginia.
10Centeno MA, et al. A simulation study of the
radiologcal department at JMH. in Winter
Simulation Conference 2000.
11Jeans WD, Berger SR, Gill R. Computer simu-
lation model of an x-ray department. Br
Med J. 1972. 1(801):675-679.
12Kennedy OG. The use of computer simulation
in health care facility design, in Proceedings
of the 06th conference on Winter simulation.
1973, ACM Press: San Francisco, CA.
13O´Kane PC. A Simulation model of a diagnos-
tic radiology department. European Journal
of Operational Research. 1981;6: 38-45.
14 Wang R Y. A product perspective on total data
quality management. Commun. ACM.
1998; 41( 2):58-65.
15 Wang RY, Strong DM. Beyond accuracy: what
data quality means to data consumers.
J Manage Inf Syst. 1996; 12( 4): 5-33.
Lars Lindsköld is a PhD student at Karolinska
Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. His interest lies in
technology changes within radiology and whether it
can be utilized to predict the future of the profession.
His thesis work is focusing on information
infrastructures and standards as well as simulation.
He can be contacted at Lars. Lindskold@ki.se.
Mikael Wintell work as a CIO for the radiology
enterprise architecture at the department of health
care, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. He is
responsible for implementation of healthcare
standards into the region.
Peter Aspelin is a professor of radiology at Karolinska
Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. His research has been
focused on the development of non-ionic contrast media
and its effect on medical imaging and patient safety.
He has also taken part in health informatics research.
Nina Lundberg is an associate professor in health
informatics at Karolinska Institute. Her research has
focused on applied research with a focus on
information infrastructures, standards, and medical