Teleradiology requires cooperation between participating parties, but it cannot be assumed that such cooperation will work well. A survey was carried out of 12 radiology departments in Norway which used picture archiving and communication systems in connection with teleradiology. Qualitative interviews were carried out with 26 out of 29 resource persons (response rate 90%). The respondents identified 17 issues of importance for cooperation in teleradiology. None of the problems with cooperation seem large enough to prevent effective teleradiology cooperation in future. For organizations planning teleradiology of a larger volume, the cooperation issue is important. It is recommended that managers lead change processes in their organizations where the different issues of importance to cooperation are treated and the right measures are taken to realize the full potential of teleradiology. For telemedicine, it is important that future research includes investigations on cooperation for the different applications.
References
1.
CohenSGMankinD.Collaboration in the virtual organization. In: CooperCLRousseauDM, eds. The Virtual Organization. Trends in Organizational Behaviour. Vol. 6. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1999: 105–20
2.
van GilsMR. Interorganizational relations and networks. In: DrenthPJDThierryHWillemsPJde WolffCJ, eds. Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 2. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1984: 1073–100
3.
Webster's New World Dictionary. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1994
4.
WagnerEH. The role of patient care teams in chronic disease management. Br Med J2000; 320: 569–72
5.
AasIH. Telemedical work and cooperation. J Telemed Telecare2001; 7: 212–18
6.
AkselsenSEidsvikAKFolkowT.ISDN: New possibilities for telemedicine. Telektronikk1993; 89: 64–71
7.
MayCHarrisonRFinchT. Understanding the normalization of telemedicine services through qualitative evaluation. J Am Med Inform Assoc2003; 10: 596–604
8.
SalvadorCHGonzalezMAMunozAPascualM.Teleradiology from primary care: Comparison of user activity In two different scenarios. J Telemed Telecare2002; 8: 178–82
9.
HagedoornJDuystersJ.Learning In dynamic inter-firm networks: The efficacy of multiple contacts. Org Studies2002; 23: 525–48
10.
CascioWF. Virtual workplaces: Implications for organizational behaviour. In: CooperCLRousseauDM, eds. The Virtual Organization. Trends in Organizational Behaviour. Vol. 6. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1999: 1–4
11.
KarastiHReponenJTervonenOKuuttiK.The teleradiology system and changes in work practices. Comput Methods Programs Biomed1998; 57: 69–78
12.
WeinsteinRSDunnBEGrahamAR. Telepathology networks as models of telemedicine services by cybercorps. New Med1997; 1: 235–41
13.
WelshTPringleM.Social capital. Br Med J2001; 323: 177–8
14.
ChanlatJ-F. Conflict and politics. In: SorgeAWarnerM, eds. The IEBM Handbook of Organizational Behaviour. London: International Thomson Business Press, 1997: 472–80
15.
BerggrenL.Människors revir i hälso- och sjukvárdsorganisationen. [The defence of own territory in the health care organization.] In: KöhlerL, ed. Folkhälsovetenskap. Ett nordiskt perspektiv. [Public health science. A Nordic perspective.]Vol. 2. Göteborg: A Nordic School of Public Health Report, 1989: 197–212
16.
AasIH. Organizational change: Decentralization in hospitals. Int J Health Plan Manage1997; 12: 103–14
17.
KrupinskiEMcNeillKHaberKOvittT.High-volume teleradiology service: Focus on radiologist satisfaction. J Digital Imag2003; 16: 203–9
18.
CaramellaDReponenJFabbriniFBartolozziC.Teleradiology in Europe. Eur J Radiol2000; 33: 2–7
19.
AasIH. Incentives and financing methods. Health Policy1995; 34: 205–20
20.
RobinsonDFSavageGTCampbellKS. Organizational learning, diffusion of innovation, and international collaboration in telemedicine. Health Care Manage Rev2003; 28: 68–78
21.
AasIH. Changes In the job situation due to telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare2002; 8: 41–7
LeysM.Health care policy: Qualitative evidence and health technology assessment. Health Policy2003; 65: 217–26
25.
MaysNPopeC.Rigour and qualitative research. Br Med J1995; 311: 109–12
26.
BarbourRS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog?Br Med J2001; 322: 1115–17
27.
DeversKJ. How will we know ‘good’ qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Serv Res1999; 34: 1153–88
28.
PattonMQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res1999; 34: 1189–208
29.
ClarkJP. How to peer review a qualitative manuscript. In: GodleeFJeffersonDM, eds. Peer Review in Health Sciences. 2nd edn.London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2003: 219–35
