Implementation of Epic Beaker Clinical Pathology at Stanford University Medical Center.
American journal of clinical pathology, Vol: 147, Issue: 3, Page: 261-272
2017
- 20Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage20
- Abstract Views20
Article Description
OBJECTIVES: To provide an account of implementation of the Epic Beaker 2014 clinical pathology module at Stanford University Medical Center and highlight strengths and weaknesses of the system.METHODS: Based on a formal selection process, Stanford selected Epic Beaker to replace Sunquest as the clinical laboratory information system (LIS). The rationale included integration between the LIS and already installed Epic electronic medical record (EMR), reduction in the number of systems and interfaces, and positive patient identification (PPID). The build was significantly customized and included a first of its kind Epic-to-Epic interface. This was due to the clinical laboratory serving two hospitals (pediatric and adult) with independent instances of Epic.RESULTS: Test turnaround times showed improvement from historical baselines, mostly because of the implementation of PPID. PPID also resulted in significant reduction in mislabeled specimens.CONCLUSIONS: Epic 2014 Beaker clinical pathology is a viable LIS with adequate functionality for a large academic center. Strengths include PPID and integration with the EMR. Integration provides laboratory users with ready access to the patient's relevant clinical history to assist releasing of results and gives physician and nurse providers sophisticated add-on ordering and specimen collection workflows. Areas that could use further development include specimen aliquoting, quality control reporting, and maintenance tools.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know