ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2025
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.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implementation of a new laboratory information system (LIS) poses a significant challenge, amplified when synchronous with launch of a new electronic medical record (EMR) system. Our institution made an executive decision to switch to Epic EMR and Epic Beaker LIS from Cerner Soarian/Altera Sunrise EMR and Cemer CoPath Plus LIS in anatomic pathology and molecular genetic pathology, with a simultaneous go-live date. This synchronous migration required a complete overhaul in our department of laboratory medicine, impacting all standard operating procedures (SOPs). In our efforts to minimize potential risks, we pursued a phased approach to comprehensive validation, starting with iterative rounds of optimization, ending with the final round of validation assessing 45 consecutive pathology cases, simulating the entire workflow in a dry-lab setting, from ordering to reporting, including addenda, with additional cases tested for specific workflow steps. In addition, we pursued validation of result component migration, in form of legacy pathology results to the Epic EMR, and the Ellkay archiving system. We found that our SOP adaptations for Epic Beaker reproduced >99% of the workflows previously established using CoPath Plus. The validation performed was limited to Epic Beaker LIS functionality, and, post-go-live, deficiencies were uncovered largely upstream of the LIS. Based on our experience, we formed a framework for systematic validation of LIS workflows, and share our comprehensive handbook, detailing all workflows built before go-live.
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.