implementation of epic beaker anatomic pathology at an academic medical center
Clicks: 283
ID: 182268
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
283 views
45 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #14 of 24 articles by views in annual review of materials science
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Background: Beaker is a relatively new laboratory information system (LIS) offered by Epic Systems Corporation as part of its suite of health-care software and bundled with its electronic medical record, EpicCare. It is divided into two modules, Beaker anatomic pathology (Beaker AP) and Beaker Clinical Pathology. In this report, we describe our experience implementing Beaker AP version 2014 at an academic medical center with a go-live date of October 2015. Methods: This report covers preimplementation preparations and challenges beginning in September 2014, issues discovered soon after go-live in October 2015, and some post go-live optimizations using data from meetings, debriefings, and the project closure document. Results: We share specific issues that we encountered during implementation, including difficulties with the proposed frozen section workflow, developing a shared specimen source dictionary, and implementation of the standard Beaker workflow in large institution with trainees. We share specific strategies that we used to overcome these issues for a successful Beaker AP implementation. Several areas of the laboratory-required adaptation of the default Beaker build parameters to meet the needs of the workflow in a busy academic medical center. In a few areas, our laboratory was unable to use the Beaker functionality to support our workflow, and we have continued to use paper or have altered our workflow. In spite of several difficulties that required creative solutions before go-live, the implementation has been successful based on satisfaction surveys completed by pathologists and others who use the software. However, optimization of Beaker workflows has continued to be an ongoing process after go-live to the present time. Conclusions: The Beaker AP LIS can be successfully implemented at an academic medical center but requires significant forethought, creative adaptation, and continued shared management of the ongoing product by institutional and departmental information technology staff as well as laboratory managers to meet the needs of the laboratory.
| Reference Key |
blau2017journalimplementation
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;John Larry Blau;Joseph D Wilford;Susan K Dane;Nitin J Karandikar;Emily S Fuller;Debbie J Jacobsmeier;Melissa A Jans;Elisabeth A Horning;Matthew D Krasowski;Bradley A Ford;Kent R Becker;Jeanine M Beranek;Robert A Robinson |
| Journal | annual review of materials science |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI |
10.4103/jpi.jpi_31_17
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.