Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Digital Imaging 6/2018

01-12-2018

Of Mice and Roentgen: Radiologist Satisfaction with a Non-conventional 13-Button Mouse—One Institution’s Experience

Authors: Kevin Denton, Irfanullah Haider, Jacqueline Hill, Suzanne L. Hunt, Ryan Ash

Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Increasing radiologic exam volume and complexity necessitates leveraging advanced hardware solutions to optimize workflow efficiency. We evaluated radiologist satisfaction of a programmable 13-button non-conventional mouse compared to a conventional three-button mouse in daily interpretation workflow following a brief 2-day trial period. A prospective study was conducted with radiology staff and residents in a tertiary care center from 2015 to 2016. A survey was distributed prior to and after a tutorial and a 2-day non-conventional mouse trial period. The post-survey evaluated usage time, device settings, satisfaction, preferences, and perceived efficiency of both mice. Descriptive analyses, correlations, the Sign test, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to evaluate responses. Fifty-nine participants completed pre- and post-surveys. Several (41%, n = 24) had prior experience with a non-conventional mouse. Prior to the trial, one third of all participants (35.6%, n = 21) reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their conventional mouse. After spending an average of 9.8 h using the non-conventional mouse, there were no statistically significant changes in overall satisfaction with either conventional or non-conventional mice (p = 0.84 and p = 0.39, respectively). However, 76.3% (n = 45) agreed/somewhat agreed they preferred to use the non-conventional mouse in their daily workflow as opposed to the conventional mouse. The non-conventional mouse was also perceived as more efficient (66.1%, n = 39), required less time (62.7%, n = 37) and effort (74.6%, n = 44) to view images, allowed for easier manipulation of windows/images (76.3%, n = 45), and was more comfortable to use (78.0%, n = 46). Although there were no statistically significant shifts in overall satisfaction, participants reported a higher level of satisfaction, perceived efficiency, and preference for a non-conventional 13-button mouse compared to a conventional three-button mouse following a brief, 2-day trial period.
Literature
3.
go back to reference Rubin GD, Leipsic J, Joseph Schoepf U, Fleischmann D, Napel S: CT angiography after 20 years: a transformation in cardiovascular disease characterization continues to advance. Radiology. 271(3):633–652, 2014 JunCrossRef Rubin GD, Leipsic J, Joseph Schoepf U, Fleischmann D, Napel S: CT angiography after 20 years: a transformation in cardiovascular disease characterization continues to advance. Radiology. 271(3):633–652, 2014 JunCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Brant WE, Helms CA. Fundamentals of Diagnostic Radiology. 4th ed. Philadelphia PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, c2012. Chapter 1 Diagnostic Imaging Methods; p4–5. Brant WE, Helms CA. Fundamentals of Diagnostic Radiology. 4th ed. Philadelphia PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, c2012. Chapter 1 Diagnostic Imaging Methods; p4–5.
5.
go back to reference Bailey JH, Roth TD, Kohli MD, Heitkamp DE: Real view radiology-impact on search patterns and confidence in radiology education. Academic Radiology. 21(7):859–868, 2014 JulCrossRef Bailey JH, Roth TD, Kohli MD, Heitkamp DE: Real view radiology-impact on search patterns and confidence in radiology education. Academic Radiology. 21(7):859–868, 2014 JulCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Sherry CS et al. ACR practice parameter for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. American College of Radiology Practice Parameter. Revision 2014 Oct;(Resolution 11):p2–4. Sherry CS et al. ACR practice parameter for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. American College of Radiology Practice Parameter. Revision 2014 Oct;(Resolution 11):p2–4.
8.
go back to reference Horii SC: Electronic imaging workstations: Ergonomic issues and the user Interface. Radiographics. 12(4):773–787, 1992 JulCrossRef Horii SC: Electronic imaging workstations: Ergonomic issues and the user Interface. Radiographics. 12(4):773–787, 1992 JulCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Weiss DL, Siddiqui KM, Scopelliti J: Radiologist assessment of PACS user interface devices. J Am Coll Radiol. 3(4):265–273, 2006 AprCrossRef Weiss DL, Siddiqui KM, Scopelliti J: Radiologist assessment of PACS user interface devices. J Am Coll Radiol. 3(4):265–273, 2006 AprCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Liden M, Andersson T, Geijer H: Alternative user interface devices for improved navigation of CT datasets. Journal of Digital Imaging. 24(1):126–134, 2011 FebCrossRef Liden M, Andersson T, Geijer H: Alternative user interface devices for improved navigation of CT datasets. Journal of Digital Imaging. 24(1):126–134, 2011 FebCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Atkins S, Fernquist J, Kirkpatrick AE, Forster BB: Evaluating interaction techniques for stack mode viewing. Journal of Digital Imaging. 22(4):369–382, 2009 AugCrossRef Atkins S, Fernquist J, Kirkpatrick AE, Forster BB: Evaluating interaction techniques for stack mode viewing. Journal of Digital Imaging. 22(4):369–382, 2009 AugCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Sherbondy AJ, Holmlund D, Rubin GD, Schraedley PK, Winograd T, Napel S: Alternative input devices for efficient navigation of large CT angiography data sets. Radiology. 234(2):391–398, 2005 FebCrossRef Sherbondy AJ, Holmlund D, Rubin GD, Schraedley PK, Winograd T, Napel S: Alternative input devices for efficient navigation of large CT angiography data sets. Radiology. 234(2):391–398, 2005 FebCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG: Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 42(2):377–381, 2009 AprCrossRef Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG: Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 42(2):377–381, 2009 AprCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Of Mice and Roentgen: Radiologist Satisfaction with a Non-conventional 13-Button Mouse—One Institution’s Experience
Authors
Kevin Denton
Irfanullah Haider
Jacqueline Hill
Suzanne L. Hunt
Ryan Ash
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Electronic ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-018-0094-7

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

Journal of Digital Imaging 6/2018 Go to the issue