An anonymous academic pathologist describes below, as a guest blog note, his experience with Epic and its LIS, Beaker. A number of previous notes have been posted in Lab Soft News about Beaker (see: Introducing the Epic Laboratory Information System (LIS); It's Called Beaker; An Update on Epic's LIS, Called Beaker, from HIStalk; More Information about Epic's Beaker LIS and Its Sibling; Assessing the True Cost of Serving as a Beta Test Site for the Beaker LIS; Details about Epic's Beaker LIS, Supplied by the Company).
Over the last several months, there have been a few posts in Lab Soft News which have shed some light on a relative newcomer to the LIS party that goes by the name Beaker. Beaker, as you may recall from the earlier stories, is the latest development from Epic.
A few months ago, I had the opportunity to actually see Beaker in action. For perspective, I am at a large academic hospital and our Department is in the market for a new LIS. This situation did not arise overnight Thus, several of us, who keep up with such topics (here and elsewhere), have a few familiar candidates in mind we would like to review. However, as our first LIS demonstration, it was suggested by top hospital brass (not in pathology) that we should consider Beaker since after all we use Epic as our EMR. It sounds reasonable, especially with purported seamless integration with the patient chart and the many benefits thereof.
Our presentation included demos of both the Beaker Clinical Pathology and the Beaker Anatomic Pathology systems. Things started out rather well as we reviewed and examined the workflow and reporting elements associated with Clinical Chemistry operations. Functionalities appeared well-designed, easy to use and understand, and complete. As we moved on to Microbiology and then raised questions with regard to support for Molecular Diagnostics and Tissue Antigen labs, things quickly went down hill. Yes, there is some tangible built-in support for microbiology processing, yet the module was deemed quite limited in scope and design. For the remainder of laboratory operations, it was suggested [by company representatives] that either they were under development or could be adapted from other operational tools.
For the domain of Anatomic Pathology, I must share that there was very little usable service. A Surgical Pathology component is offered, yet upon casual observation this module is poorly designed with regard to workflow, does not appear readily adaptable to site-specific reporting, and is not ready to provide adequate imaging support. The demonstration for Cytopathology was essentially aborted as Beaker could not adequately address most any scenario we suggested. There is no support for Autopsy services.
Following this experience, we collectively were astonished that the two Beaker systems were being rolled out as full-service “best-of-breed” products. It is certain that an integrated EMR and LIS complement would be of enormous advantage to any pathology service. Yet, as presented a few months ago, such a solution is not at all what is offered by Epic.
Our CP and AP Divisions, as well as the interested hospital representatives, are all in agreement that Beaker is not a viable option for now. Such attempts at LIS, as outlined herein, must be examples of product development with little to no end-user collaboration. It must be considered that my related commentary is based upon observations from several months ago. Yet the omnibus consensus from all attending the LIS presentation was that the Beaker is half-empty and certainly not ready for prime time.
Comments