Great Computer System

[mearley]

Does anyone have a transfusion service computer system that they love & would recommend? We're especially interested in one that has rule based logic, great reports, and can have several different users accessing an emergency patient's application when needed. Thanks so much.

[tubeshaker]

Hi Mearley,

The best LIS I ever used was DBSS, the Defense Blood Standard System. Unfortunately, if you're not a U.S. military facility, it's not available to you.

I do have one I would caution against, however. My previous facility had (is still having) extreme difficulty getting Mediware HCLL up and running. Everything is user defined, so unless you have a highly competent and invested IT department (we didn't), it can be very difficult to implement. It looks like a great package once you get it up, but their Mediware implementation project was started around February 2008 and they still haven't gotten to the final validation stage. It could have been limitations of the people involved in the project and other members may have had different experiences, but I would recommend being aware of the investment involved if you're considering this LIS.

Cheers,

J

[L106]

That's interesting, tubeshaker. We started our HCLL implementation the Spring of 2006 and were up and running 8 months later. Our "Go-Live" went on schedule and without a hitch. I wouldn't say HCLL is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but we're pretty satisfied with it (and would probably choose them if we had it to do over again.)

I'm not a computer whiz, so I really don't know how much of a challenge it presented to our Information Systems Dept. (But I do believe that our Info Systems Dept is pretty sharp.) I know that it was a lot of work for me to build all the tables, etc. As with most things, the more time & thought & effort you put into it, the better product you end up with.

In my opinion, one of the most crutial factors in successful implementation is the Implementation Specialist from the computer company. You need someone who is very knowledgable, patient, encouraging, and can explain things clearly (and able to explain things in more than one way.) (Of course, you probably don't have any control over who gets assigned to your project, but if it doesn't seem to be working out, speak up.) Also, it's important that everyone be held accountable for their progress and deadlines. (Sure, problems happen and cause delays, but you have to keep pushing each other to keep things moving along.)

Donna

[tubeshaker]

Hi Donna,

Good points, and I would concede on every one. I think the point I was trying to make was, at least at this facility, we were unprepared for the amount of work that would be going in to the project (and I can't say whether or not a salesperson was at least partly to blame for that) and didn't have the IT support we needed. I'm not trashing Mediware, our Implementation Specialist was fantastic and very patient with us, and like I said, the software looks great when you're seeing the finished product, just somewhere along the line (further up the purchasing chain?) someone was either misinformed or blissfully ignorant of the resources and personnel required to get it up and running. My part of the project was getting it interfaced with our Galileo, which took a couple weeks (while working on the side off the bench) came off without a hitch.

Incidentally, I just talked with a former co-worker, and the first of 6 or 7 (can't remember) facilities within the organization sharing the software just went live this week, 2 years and 5 months after starting and I'm sure an embarrassingly huge sum over budget. Most people I've spoken to that have experience with HCLL didn't take nearly as long to implement, 3-6 months has been the average.

JD

[L106]

Hi tubeshaker,

Thanks for the email. I totally agree that the implementation is A LOT of work, grossly underestimated by "the powers that be". I took an interfaced laptop home to work in my "off" hours, and had an out-of-town one week vacation planned, so I took my trusty laptop and worked in our hotel room for 2 days. (Even though it was still work, it felt kind of good to be "away" for a few days!!) I haven't heard of anyone going live in less than 6 months. (They must have had a cast of a dozen working on it! I had no help!)

Glad to hear that your former coworkers finally went up. I hope all their troubles are behind them. (That's not extremely likely, but let's hope!)

Good to hear from you, and I appreciate your posts.

Donna

[macarton]

We are currently on Meditech Client Server. Our previous system was Softbank which I liked.

[marvy1]

I have used several systems. Currently using Meditech which is one of the worst for Transfusion. In the past, I used Softbank by SCC and found it to be a very good system. A little bit keystroke heavy but overall very easy to work with.

[macarton]

Meditech is not user friendly. I can't think of anything I like. Things that we like we lost in our update to 5.65. Mary

[Dr. Pepper]

Thanks, Mary, for the encouragement, as we are in the upgrade process. What will I lose? I also dislike Meditech intensely. When we went live our trainers were hopelessly clueless souls who learned the system "just by playing around with it for a while" and "taught" us the same way. We went through 3 different instructors during training. They would often contradict and argue with each other in class. Mysis (aka Sunquest), our previous vendor, did it right: they hired seasoned lab techs who wanted a second career and also knew exactly what the issues were you were talking about. The system was built by laboratorians. Meditech hires computer geeks without a shred of clinical background or training. The system seems to have been constructed by someone who thought they knew what a laboratory might like but missed the mark entirely. Every time a choice had to be made they seem to have made the wrong one. Support is often a joke. And Blood Bank is the worst.

[macarton]

when we went to 5.65, you can't print reports from BB you go back to lab. The spreadsheets a problem we found before go live (January) during validations still hasn't been fixed. You can't put in an autologous or directed donor or markerswhile logging in a unit from batch. You log it in then edit the unit to add what is needed. FFP order one place, change expiration another, assign another place, reprint patient cards in another, then go to issue in another, then back to lab to print report. Most places where you hit enter before, it just sits there and you have to click save or ok to proceed. Need more encouragement?

[Dr. Pepper]

when we went to 5.65, you can't print reports from BB you go back to lab. The spreadsheets a problem we found before go live (January) during validations still hasn't been fixed. You can't put in an autologous or directed donor or markerswhile logging in a unit from batch. You log it in then edit the unit to add what is needed. FFP order one place, change expiration another, assign another place, reprint patient cards in another, then go to issue in another, then back to lab to print report. Most places where you hit enter before, it just sits there and you have to click save or ok to proceed. Need more encouragement?

That's enough for today, thanks. The batch issue shouldn't affect us as we get all ISBT128 blood that you can only enter in the quick enter units routine anyway. The others promise to be interesting, particularly problems with the spreadsheets. I think I'll just buy a winning Powerball ticket on the way home instead.