{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024558710667689946, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00844205679201842, 'mean_word_length': 5.330097087378641, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Five years' experience in a (really) rural teleradiology practice. Was it worth it? The successes and the failures

During the past 5 years (1992 - 1997) the Department of Radiology of the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center has developed an active teleradiology program. Contracts are in place to provide both routine and emergency image interpretations 24 hours per day, every day of the year. Several rural hospitals are served as well as the Navajo Indian Health Service. Areas of success: include significantly improved radiologic service to the rural sites, specialty consultations to general radiologists, successful teaching of teleradiology practice to radiology residents and staff, good diagnostic quality images, a small but real profit, improved quality assurance for the rural sites, and no significant medical-legal problems. Failures include: significant telecommunications problems, lack of acceptance and utilization by some of the rural sites, poor QA compliance by some sites, a long period of disappointing technical support by equipment vendors, and slow acceptance of DICOM by equipment manufacturers. The successes outweigh the failures. We would do it again -- but somewhat differently. We offer advice to institutions developing a new rural teleradiology operation.