Introduction:The field of healthcare informatics is rapidly evolving. The new models and protocols of medical information system (MIS) are developed. Despite obvious advantages and benefits, practical application of MIS in everyday practice is slow. Much progress has been made around the world in the field of digital imaging and virtual slides, but in Georgia telepathology is still in evolving stages. It revolves around static telepathology.Objective:Practical application of MIS has been started in Georgia. The architecture of the mentioned system and its usage for telepathology will be presented.Materials and Methods:The MIS has been created with .Net technology and structure query language (SQL) database architecture. It involves a multiuser Web-based approach. By this, local (intranet) and remote (Internet) access of the system and management of databases can be achieved. Two hundred electronic medical records illustrated by images were selected for telepathology consultations. These electronic medical records were written in Georgian. This predetermines organization of regional second opinion consultations. For security reasons all experts have been registered as users at MIS.Results:MIS has been launched in Georgia. Its primary goal is patient management. However, the system can be successfully applied for static telepathology purposes.Discussion:The ideal of healthcare in the information age must be to create a situation where healthcare professionals spend more time creating knowledge from medical information and less time managing medical information. The application of easily available and adaptable technology and improvement of the infrastructure conditions is the basis for telemedical applications. The usage of MIS holds the potential to realize telepathology in the effective and comprehensive mode.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ClampS, KeenJ. Electronic health records: Is the evidence base any use?Med Inf Internet Med, 2007; 32:5–10.
2.
HayrinenK, SarantoK, NykanenP. Definition, structure, content, use and impacts of electronic health records: A review of the research literature. Int J Med Inf, 2008; 77:291–304.
3.
van GinnekenAM. The computerized patient record: Balancing effort and benefit. Int J Med Inf, 2002; 65:97–119.
4.
WellsSA, SowterC. Telepathology: A diagnostic tool for the millennium?J Pathol, 2000; 191:1–7.
5.
SowterC, WellsC. System requirements, the use of telepathology in diagnostic pathology and its application to quality assurance programmes. J Curr Diagn Pathol, 2003; 4:65–72.
6.
DemichelusF, BarbareschiM, BoiS, ClementeC, Dalla PalmaP, EccherC, FortiS. Robotic telepathology for intraoperative remote diagnosis using a still-imaging-based system. Am J Clin Pathol, 2001; 93:34–38.
7.
FurnessP. A randomized controlled trial of the diagnostic accuracy of Internet-based telepathology compared with conventional microscopy. J Histopathol, 2007; 50:266–273.
8.
LeongFJ, McGeeJO. Automated complete slide digitization: A medium for simultaneous viewing by multiple pathologists. J Pathol, 2001; 195:508–514.
9.
YagiY, GilbertsonJP. Digital imaging in pathology: The case standardization. J Telemed Telecare, 2005; 11:109–116.
10.
PrittBS, GibsonPC, CooperK. Digital imaging guidelines for pathology: A proposal for general and academic use. Adv Anat Pathol, 2003; 10:96–100.
11.
HeidenreichG, BlobelB. IT standards for applications in telemedicine. Towards efficient data interchange in medicine. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz, 2009; 52:316–323.
12.
HarnettB. Telemedicine systems and telecommunications. J Telemed Telecare, 2006; 12:4–15.
13.
WeinsteinRS, GrahamAR, RichteLC, BarkerGP, KrupinskiEA, LopezAM, ErpsKA, BhattacharyyaAK, YagiY, GilbertsonJR. Overview of telepathology, virtual microscopy, and whole slide imaging: prospects for the future. Hum Pathol, 2009; 40:1057–1069.
14.
RochaR, VassalloJ, SoaresF, MillerK, GobbiH. Digital slides: Present status of a tool for consultation, teaching, and quality control in pathology. Pathol Res Pract, 2009; 205:735–741.
15.
HufnaglP, SchlunsK. Virtual microscopy and routine diagnostics. A discussion paper. Pathologe, 2008; 29:250–254.
16.
KaplanKJ, BurgessJR, SandbergGD, MyersCP, BigottTR, GreenspanRB. Use of robotic telepathology for frozen-section diagnosis: A retrospective trial of a telepathology system for intraoperative consultation. J Mod Pathol, 2002; 15:1197–1204.
