Stand-alone laboratory information systems versus laboratory modules incorporated in the electronic health record.
The increasing availability of laboratory information management modules within enterprise electronic health record solutions has resulted in some institutional administrators deciding which laboratory information system will be used to manage workflow within the laboratory, often with minimal input from the pathologists. This article aims to educate pathologists on many of the issues and implications this change may have on laboratory operations, positioning them to better evaluate and represent the needs of the laboratory during this decision-making process. The experiences of the authors, many of their colleagues, and published observations relevant to this debate are summarized. There are multiple dimensions of the interdependency between the pathology laboratory and its information system that must be factored into the decision. Functionality is important, but management authority and gap-ownership are also significant elements to consider. Thus, the pathologist must maintain an active role in the decision-making process to ensure the success of the laboratory.
From the Informatics Program, Department of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut (Dr Sinard); the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, PennState Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania (Dr Castellani); the Division of Laboratory Medicine, Geisinger Medical Laboratories, Danville, Pennsylvania (Dr Wilkerson); and the Center for Pathology Informatics, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (Dr Henricks).
John H
JH
Sinard
William J
WJ
Castellani
Myra L
ML
Wilkerson
Walter H
WH
Henricks
D002984:Clinical Laboratory Information Systems; D057286:Electronic Health Records; D006801:Humans; D010338:Pathology, Clinical / Q000379:methods*