ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2017
Implementation of Epic Beaker Anatomic Pathology at an Academic Medical Center.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data migration, validation and implementation of a new laboratory information system (LIS) in an academic pathology department, using Ellkay data archive, and Epic Beaker anatomic and clinical pathology modules.Journal of pathology informatics · 2025Article
- Impact of sex used for assignment of reference intervals in a population of patients taking gender-affirming hormones.Journal of clinical & translational endocrinology · 2024Article
- Implementing Epic Beaker Laboratory Information System for Diagnostics in Anatomic Pathology.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Review
- Informatics driven quality improvement in the modern histology lab.JAMIA open · 2020Article
- Evaluation of switch from satellite laboratory to central laboratory for testing of intraoperative parathyroid hormone.Practical laboratory medicine · 2020Article
- Pathologist Opinions about EPIC Beaker AP: a Multi-Institutional Survey of Early Adopters.Journal of medical systems · 2020Article
- Variation in Results Release and Patient Portal Access to Diagnostic Test Results at an Academic Medical Center.Journal of pathology informatics · 2017Article
- Evaluating the utility and challenges associated with "unknown" and fictional patients in the electronic medical record.Academic pathologyArticle
- Impact of Daylight Saving Time on the Clinical Laboratory.Academic pathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBeaker 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsWe 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.