ArticleJournal of medical systems2020
Pathologist Opinions about EPIC Beaker AP: a Multi-Institutional Survey of Early Adopters.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- Implementing Epic Beaker Laboratory Information System for Diagnostics in Anatomic Pathology.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
EPIC Systems Corporation provides a widely used electronic medical record. Beaker Anatomic Pathology is a newly developed laboratory information system (LIS) that has been implemented at a small number of academic pathology departments. Pathologist opinions of EPIC Beaker AP have not been well described in the literature. A 37-question survey was administered to pathologists and pathology trainees to assess overall satisfaction and efficiency of report generation using Beaker AP. Data about experience in pathology, signout responsibilities, Beaker AP usage, and the legacy LIS was also collected. Seventy-four pathologists (51 faculty, 23 residents) responded to the survey (overall response rate 29.7%). Overall pathologist satisfaction with Beaker AP showed high inter-institutional variability; institutions with legacy LISs with a graphical interface had a generally neutral to negative assessment of Beaker AP. The majority of respondents disagreed with the statement "Beaker AP is easy to use and designed for my needs". Pathologists felt that Beaker AP was useful for reviewing clinical information and billing; areas of weakness included searching for prior cases and grossing efficiency. Overall, pathologists had a neutral opinion of whether generating and signing out a complete report was faster in Beaker AP, with marked inter-institutional variation. This variability was likely due to a combination of the efficacy of the legacy LIS, familiarity with Beaker AP at the time of the survey, and institution-specific optimization efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32377870What 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.