Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?

 

Thanks!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


We use Softbank and will start using Epic this May. When we have a massive bleeder and need to make multiple

order numbers, we have the option of linking the new order number(s) to the type and screen. That way Softbank

knows there is a valid workup and we can continue with electronic xmatches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, soozmlt said:

We use Softbank and will start using Epic this May. When we have a massive bleeder and need to make multiple

order numbers, we have the option of linking the new order number(s) to the type and screen. That way Softbank

knows there is a valid workup and we can continue with electronic xmatches.

You can link order numbers??? That would be amazing!

I'm going to reach out and ask SCC about this, but would it be possible to get a little bit more information about how the process works?

Thank you!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of our orders are done through Order Entry in Softlab. In Softlab, create a new order number containing the products you need to select.

Then, when you go to select the units, Soft will give a pop-up box that says patient has a T&S would you like to link this new order to that order.

Just click yes and you should be good to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also use Softbank and have Epic BPAM and noticed the same problem with massive bleeds.  We do the same, make more orders as needed and link them.  I understand they are looking at fixing this in a future upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By BBKaren
      Hi everyone, new to the group.  Our Blood Bank is upgrading from ProVue to a Vision.  We are also upgrading from Meditech Magic 5.67 to Expanse.  I'm wondering if anyone has that set up?  I'm interested in how the interface is working, are you able to run everything you want and have the results cross over?  Any problems?  Information and advice appreciated!  Thanks!
      Karen
    • By jayinsat
      Yesterday I attended the first of what I am sure to be many National Whole Blood Summits here in San Antonio.  https://strac.org/summit/
      If your facility or trauma surgeons are not already pushing it, be prepared.  It is coming back.  The conferences was excellent.  The information and statistics presented was compelling.  Low Titre O whole blood is coming (back) and will be the preferred product in traumas and hemorrhagic shock.  Get ready!
    • By maybe
      Is there any regulation that requires Transfusion Services to have a massive transfusion protocol?
      My hospital system has two facilities- one is a trauma center with a very active MTP that works great. The other hospital is much smaller and in theory does not accept any trauma patients. I found a mini MTP policy at the smaller facility today- it basically states exactly the same thing as the normal Uncrossmatched policy does. The only reason I can think of why this mini policy exists is because some regulating agency says so.
       
    • By SMILLER
      The idea is that whole blood was always the best way to accommodate massively bleeding patients---plasma, RBCs and platelets all in one shot so to speak.  And that the common use of component therapy over the years is more due to convenience than otherwise. There have been a few retrospective studies out that seem to suggest that the use of whole blood in these patients leads to better outcomes.  On the other hand, maintaining an inventory of WB for the occasional massive transfusion patient seems impractical.   Here's one article:
      http://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-professionals/clinical-updates/trauma/whole-blood-transfusions-reduce-mortality-in-massively-hemorrhaging-patients
      I am curious if some of our more astute PathLabTalk associates have any opinions on this topic?
      Thanks, Scott
    • By SMILLER
      The idea is that whole blood was always the best way to accommodate massively bleeding patients---plasma, RBCs and platelets all in one shot so to speak.  And that the common use of component therapy over the years is more due to convenience than otherwise. There have been a few retrospective studies out that seem to suggest that the use of whole blood in these patients leads to better outcomes.  On the other hand, maintaining an inventory of WB for the occasional massive transfusion patient seems impractical.   Here's one article:
      http://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-professionals/clinical-updates/trauma/whole-blood-transfusions-reduce-mortality-in-massively-hemorrhaging-patients
      I am curious if some of our more astute PathLabTalk associates have any opinions on this topic?
      Thanks, Scott
  • Advertisement

  • Site Suggestions

    Site Feedback & Suggestions

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.