SoftBank versus Cerner

[Jack J]

Which BloodBank computer system do you prefer and why? We have SoftBank and administration would like reasons why to keep it rather than switch to Cerner, which is our HIS. In January we have to pay for SoftBank upgrade which may be more expensive then installing Cerner.

Thanks,

Jack

[marvy1]

I used Softbank years ago and it was a real good LIS for bloodbank at that time. I can only assume they have improved since then. As for Cerner, I did the install of the Transfusion part of Cerner Millenium a few years back. It is an acceptable LIS and it is nice to have all the LIS/HIS systems together. However, the Transfusion portion (and most all of the lab portion) of the Cerner LIS is far inferior to the power of Softbank and SoftLab and SoftMic (in my opinion).

[GilTphoto]

I have no experience with Softbank, but just switched to Cerner a week ago, from Sunquest. Cerner is a piece of s***. The workload has increased fourfold. Too many unnecessary steps. The lab portion of Cerner called Pathnet, I have renamed Pathetic Net.

We were forced to change due to a corporate change in systems, and are unable to customize to our needs due to corporate Clinical Lab Standards team. Some desk jockies have decided how things should be. For instance:

1. No more test bundling, so no Type and Screen or Type and Cross. Tests have to be ordered individually. Nurses have to order ABO/Rh, Antibody Screen and Red Cell Product (Blood Bank has to order the crossmatch).

2. We use a 2 cell screen at 2 phases (37, IAT), but must use a screen with 3 cells at 3 phases (report not tested on cells and phases we don't do). We must also select method (tube, gel) when we only use tube. This has caused a increase from 7 keystrokes in Sunquest, to 28 keystokes for negatives and 33 keystrokes for positives in Cerner.

3. All positives generate failures where we must answer: Pattern match not found, Do you want to change results: NO, Override? YES, then select a reason: POSITIVE TEST RESULT. This is just nonsense.

4. All crossmatches stay pending for the 3 days the specimen is good for, so when you print a pending, you have no idea what is done and what isn't.

5. Can't see the entire ABO/Rh result fields on the screen at the same time. Requires scrolling left and right

I would rather go back to paper, than use this system!

For all the Cerner users that will say the program can be custom tailored, it isn't so in our case due to Corporate standards.

[marvy1]

I'm sorry you cannot customize Cerner to what you need. I was allowed a fair bit of freedom when building and it turned out not so bad (we could bundle tests and could eliminate unused phases in testing). But even after customizing, Cerner is still inferior to both Sunquest and Cerner for Transfusion (I have used all 3 for years each).

[Eagle Eye]

Yes I agree with marvy1....You can build your tests ---super gropup or group. It all depneds on who is building the system. We build antigen antibody check at crossmatch and dispense after 15 years...Cerner has capability but in our case we never used that function...

[tbostock]

In my opinion, SoftBank is FAR superior to Cerner. Don't switch!

[clmergen]

GilTPhoto, I feel your pain. We switched to Meditech 6.0 which in my opinion is far inferior to Cerner, but I can't tell if it is the programming or the stupid standards committee at the corporate level. I know a lot of your pain is the standards committee because we didn't run into your problems when I helped build Cerner two jobs ago.

[Barbarakym]

GilTphoto: what corporation are you with? Sounds like mine. We are just transitioning to cerner and it will not be able to be adjusted I told.

[albaugh]

I've only ever used Cerner, so I can't comment on whether it's better or worse than SoftBank. I will say that all of the problems noted by GilTphoto are avoidable.

1. You can create test bundles - called care sets - to make ordering easier.

2. Antibody screens can be built with 2, 3 or 4 cells (or however many you want!) with whatever phases you need. We have several different antibody screens with different parameters: 2 and 4 cells with AHG phase for the Galileo, 3 cells with AHG phase for gel, 3 cells with IS, 37, AHG phase for tube testing, etc.

3. The Interp Tool lets you say what patterns are valid for positive and negative interps, as well as ABORH and crossmatches. 'Pattern match not found' simply means that the pattern is not defined in the tool. It should be used as a way to catch omissions or what the computer thinks is an error - for example, a negative reaction at AHG without an entry for check cells in a tube antibody screen, or the forward and reverse ABO types don't match. Forcing techs to override every positive is dangerous and leads to ‘alarm fatigue’, where eventually you stop reading the alerts and override when you shouldn’t.

4. Yes, crossmatches stay on the pending for 3 days because they are not completed until the specimen is expired. This might require a change in your process.

5. If you maximize your screen view, you should be able to see the whole ABORH, depending on how many DTAs (result fields) you have built into it and how they are named (affects column width).

GilTphoto, I really hate that the powers that be are forcing you to use the system in this way. It could be SOOO much better if they would build it the way it should be built. The build and validation is a lot of work, but it's ultimately safer for the techs to have a system that is easier for them to use. And that translates into safer test results and blood products for the patient. Maybe if you approach it from a patient safety standpoint, you could get them to fix some of these easily fixable issues. The tools are all there - they just have to be used.

Jack J, I've used Cerner for many years, and it's got a lot of capability. It's not perfect, but no software is. And, change is always hard - even upgrading from Cerner Classic to Cerner Millennium was a huge hurdle for the techs. In time, though, things settle down and people learn how to make the system do what they want. Please don't base your decision on the experiences of a new user who is forced to use a poorly built system.

[Jack J]

Thanks,

Most info I am hearing is that SoftBank is the Gold Standard and other systems would be a step down.

[Kathy]

Gotta say that I disagree.  I went from Cerner at my former employer to Softbank with my current employer and could not believe the number of steps involved with Softbank (selecting units before you can crossmatch them, building and clearing worksheets, the inability to dispense blood products without an order - real problem for traumas, having to open lots and modify the racks before you can can get them on QC, having to order the thawing and splitting process and result it before it bills....).  I could go on and on.  Maybe the newer version of Softbank is better, but this one is a huge pain.  I am really glad that my current employer is switching to Cerner.  It is going to save my techs and myself a lot of time.  The only thing I don't like with Cerner is the inability to electronically document supervisor review of results and exceptions.

[Dansket]

Blood Bankers need to get out from under IT people and take control of their computer systems.  I worked with SoftBank v19 for years and found it to be infinitely configurable to my operation. But I was doing the configuration, not leaving it to IT people to control.

[tbostock]

 

Blood Bankers need to get out from under IT people and take control of their computer systems.  I worked with SoftBank v19 for years and found it to be infinitely configurable to my operation. But I was doing the configuration, not leaving it to IT people to control.

 

I wholeheartedly agree! The sytem that works for you depends how much control you have over it, how much training you received to build and adapt it, how much you're willing to adapt your previous workflow ("gasp!") to make the system work better, how good your support is from the vendor, etc.

I personally found Cerner horrific compared to SoftBank, but then again I had no input at all for Cerner and no IT support for it at all.

[DOGLOVER]

We are just starting the planning process for upgrading from Cerner Classic.  Our EMR is Cerner so it should work well. Our health system has hired an outside expert to help set up the system to do what we want it to do. He has extensively worked with Cerner and seems to know what he is doing. I think the biggest issue for GilT is the lack of corporate support. It is absolutely necessary that the BB be fully involved, otherwise no matter what system you have it is not going to work. Cerner may not be the absolute top of the line, but it does work well and definitely can be configured to your needs.

[Eagle Eye]

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree! The sytem that works for you depends how much control you have over it, how much training you received to build and adapt it, how much you're willing to adapt your previous workflow ("gasp!") to make the system work better, how good your support is from the vendor, etc.

I personally found Cerner horrific compared to SoftBank, but then again I had no input at all for Cerner and no IT support for it at all.

I totally agree...Our cerner is quiet old but when I became in charge, I made so many changes to make it the full proof system. that is almost 15 years into the system... 

there were so many simple thing we could have used it but were not used eventhough we had someone from BB validated the system. & it all depends on how opended minded you are to the change .....the crew we had were there for 20-30 years and grew up with paper & pen so they were reluctant to any change.....it was very difficult for our director when he brought in Gel system back in 2000...Now we have automation and the system which we validated the way we want and which is the best for the patient...

[albaugh]

Blood Bankers need to get out from under IT people and take control of their computer systems.  I worked with SoftBank v19 for years and found it to be infinitely configurable to my operation. But I was doing the configuration, not leaving it to IT people to control.

 

In our lab IT department, 4 of the 5 clinical analysts are former blood bankers, and 3 of those 4 worked in the blood bank at this hospital (myself included). So maybe we're at a bit of an advantage!

[Eagle Eye]

In our lab IT department, 4 of the 5 clinical analysts are former blood bankers, and 3 of those 4 worked in the blood bank at this hospital (myself included). So maybe we're at a bit of an advantage!

 Yes. I think it is great... If my IT pays me enough/more than Blood bank I will sure move to IT. 

 

I want to give you one example. We started using cerner IN 1990....we did not have our table set up to stop us from issuing incompatible plasma, eg. giving out Non AB FFAP to patient without blood type or giving O FFP to A/B/AB patient.....When I was getting trained on the bench I myself reserved O plasma to A patient ....It was not issued as some one caught at the time of issue that was even human intervention not LIS stop....We had no exception report set up to catch this kind of incident!!! SO this bothered me a lot and after several years when I became QA, first thing I called cerner to make all these changes. We had only two exception report (expired unit & COR)....No have have what 10-12 exception report set up....Yes I was considered bad/like to catch errors etc etc.... But eventually all old staff left and the new staff appreciate the fact that we have a computer system we can rely on...

[Sandy L]

I would totally agree with albaugh who described how Cerner can be customized to your needs and then said “Maybe if you approach it from a patient safety standpoint, you could get them to fix some of these easily fixable issues.” 

You should not be forced to work with such a poorly constructed LIS system.  It truly is a patient safety issue.  I would recommend that you document it as such and then get your Medical Director involved when you present your argument to your “Corporate” folks.

[Eagle Eye]

I have no experience with Softbank, but just switched to Cerner a week ago, from Sunquest. Cerner is a piece of s***. The workload has increased fourfold. Too many unnecessary steps. The lab portion of Cerner called Pathnet, I have renamed Pathetic Net.

We were forced to change due to a corporate change in systems, and are unable to customize to our needs due to corporate Clinical Lab Standards team. Some desk jockies have decided how things should be. For instance:

1. No more test bundling, so no Type and Screen or Type and Cross. Tests have to be ordered individually. Nurses have to order ABO/Rh, Antibody Screen and Red Cell Product (Blood Bank has to order the crossmatch).

2. We use a 2 cell screen at 2 phases (37, IAT), but must use a screen with 3 cells at 3 phases (report not tested on cells and phases we don't do). We must also select method (tube, gel) when we only use tube. This has caused a increase from 7 keystrokes in Sunquest, to 28 keystokes for negatives and 33 keystrokes for positives in Cerner.

3. All positives generate failures where we must answer: Pattern match not found, Do you want to change results: NO, Override? YES, then select a reason: POSITIVE TEST RESULT. This is just nonsense.

4. All crossmatches stay pending for the 3 days the specimen is good for, so when you print a pending, you have no idea what is done and what isn't.

5. Can't see the entire ABO/Rh result fields on the screen at the same time. Requires scrolling left and right

I would rather go back to paper, than use this system!

For all the Cerner users that will say the program can be custom tailored, it isn't so in our case due to Corporate standards.

I believe you need to take your frustration to your MD and then she/he needs to take it to higher up and explained that this is causing undue stress for all techs and it may jeopardize patient safety....