My hospital recently went live with EPIC’s BPAM module, because of which we had to increase the amount of data being sent across the interface (more OBX segments cross into EPIC for the patient/product matching aspect).
The Transfusion Service uses Softbank and we've discovered one the main Soft interfaces into EPIC can only process so many lines of data at one time. How did we discover this? We broke the interface! One massively transfused patient sent across so much data that it crashed.
Soft is currently working on a fix for this, but the main workaround they gave is to limit the number of products you can crossmatch/dispense on each order (recommended max =16) and create a new order when that amount is exceeded.
For most patients this isn’t a problem, however I am at a loss for what to do with the massive bleeders. In order to be electronically crossmatched the red cell product needs to be on the same order number as the Type and Screen. So when a liver transplant takes a turn for the worse and you transfuse 80 crossmatched red cell units emergently, what do you do? It seems ethically wrong to flip to the uncrossmatched status just because the software doesn't like more than 16 units on one order. Another suggestion was to create "fake" type and screen specimens for each set of 16 units, which also doesn't sit well with me.
Does anyone else have Soft and come across this problem?
Currently my lab is using Cerner Millennium. We are being asked to look at new Blood Bank LIS systems because the rest of the lab is going to Epic Beaker. I have seen demos of Haemonetics SafeTrace and Mediware HCLL. I am also trying to get one with Soft scheduled. I am seeking advice from current users of` these systems.
Are you happy with your BB LIS?
If given the chance to change to another would you?
Any additional advice is appreciated.
We are in the process of narrowing our new Blood Bank software down to Softbank or SafeTrace Tx frm Haemonetics. Our new LIS system will be Beaker (our current EHR is Epic). We have heard pros and cons about both systems and are interested in users giving us feedback on their thoughts, especially if they have Softbank as a standalone (i.e., not part of the entire LIS system). All information is welcome.
My hospital just expanded and opened another hospital. The laboratories are separate, however we are all in the same lab system. The system recognizes the 2 different sites, but everyone has access to both sites results.
My question is, does anyone else have this? I feel like there is a HIPAA issue here. I have worked at two other organizations that had multiple entities and I have never had access to the other labs' results, unless I had access to an EMR and then I could see the results there, but never in my lab system.
I can only enter things into the other sites if I move the specimen and receive it into the other site, but just having access when many of us don'r work over there seems like a problem to me. Also, because we are linked, the system doesn't recognize that a type and screen done at the other site doesn't apply to my site.
Does anyone use the Typenex Barcode Plus Condensed blood band at their facility? Or any other blood band that does not require patient demographics on the blood band? https://www.typenex.com/products/pdf/barcode-plus-condensed-dfu.pdf
We currently use a barcoded blood bank band that requires the patient demographic information to be handwritten on. It has a carbonless sticker system. The sticker is peeled off and put on the T/S specimen, the carbonless copy is part of the armband. We have problems with clerical errors, name changes (especially after a John Doe is identified) and illegible handwriting.
We are considering going to the condensed armband that just has the barcoded number on it for the blood bank. This will be used in conjunction with the hospital armband that has the patient name, MR#, account # and DOB on it.
I'd appreciate any insight from those who have used the condensed band or a similar product.