RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare
Yes, I do agree, that is why I call it a tool for people to use. I think that it is a stereotype to think that histologists are not experienced or knowledgable about computers. There are some histologists who have had a fairly good introduction to computer systems, how computers work, what they can and cannot do, software, applications, interfaces, databases, and have worked with 5 or more LIS systems, barcodes etc. Though admittedly, in my experience this is a rarity. Most of what I have learned about computers, I have gotten from formal classes, but I also have used this knowledge in other arenas, and wish I could use it more in my job. I am just not fortunate enough to have been given the opportunity to have much influence on the processes, or the computer systems. I think that many who have been promoted into management simply also accept this stereotype that histologists know only technical information, and so we are not consulted, though we do the work everyday.I wish that you could come to our lab and educate those who have been given this authority! I would love to have a computer geek come to our lab and inform us of what is available to help us to our jobs better. Joelle Weaver HTL (ASCP) From: m...@pathview.com To: joellewea...@hotmail.com; jel...@yumaregional.org; histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:14:21 -0500 People are always at the forefront. Someone has to build that new tool, or come up with some new process or whatever. That's why before we do any installation of our software, we spend what probably amounts to 100 to 200 hours interviewing and watching each clerk, PA, histotech, secretary, cytotech, and pathologist and THEN we propose how we would install and tailor our software. By the way, at the end of that analysis, people are usually pretty tired of hearing me ask 'why do you do that', but guess what -- you are way, way more likely to get 'buy in' from the staff. That tech you spoke to at 3 a.m. remembers that some computer geek took the time and effort and asked them how they would do things better. ...but let me address a real world issue. I am not versed in the technologies of many aspects of the AP/Cytology department (you'll never hear me speak on subjects of which stainer is better for instance), but I do know a few things about work flow and computerization. I like to illustrate via example, so let's try this one: In the real world, a histotechnologist may have only worked in let's say 3 or 4different labs in their life, and perhaps only 1 or 2 different computer systems. With that background, how are they supposed to know what's possible or not possible to do with computer technology. Personally, I think it's the job of the LIS vendor to work TOGETHER with the histotechnologist and other department personnel to come up with better solutions. In this example, each side has knowledge and experience that needs to be conveyed to the other. When that communication occurs, magic happens. Barcodes are not the magic. It's how you use those barcodes in your work flow. It's always about the people. Michael Mihalik PathView Systems | cell: 214.733.7688 | 800.798.3540 | fax: 270.423.0968 -Original Message- From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu [mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of joelle weaver Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:53 PM To: jel...@yumaregional.org; Histonet Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Well, I can't speak for everyone of course, but I know in the program that I am affiliate with that we stress, if not require, thinking beyond the manual methods. In fact, I really see an in depth understanding of basic manual histology methods as only a beginning point to how I want the future histologists to think and apply their technical knowledge.I encourage this at every opportunity myself, in every course. Crtical thinking skills, process thinking and the ability to see how our function fits into total laboratory and diagnostic patient services is stressed. I see it as imperative that this is incorporated into training in formal programs and within the lab. We cannot afford to not further this trend. I really don't see any other alternative really. If you look at newer instrumentation, it really is little more than a computer with software and application interfaces connected to the mechanics that perform the tasks of histology. Technology is really just another tool at our disposal to perform our jobs better. We in histology, are due to begin to merge and become cohesive with the totality of healthcare delivery and to begin to operate in such a parallel manner. I believe that the emerging histologist will be better armed with a broader educational background that provides this insight,due
RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare
Yea, I probably didn't communicate quite clearly enough, but I didn't want to elaborate too much as I suspect some people may be getting tired of hearing me talk. .but yes, invariably in every lab I run into, I find at least one person in each area who is more knowledgeable about computers than others and the good news, is that I suspect that trend will increase. Remember a lot of people in this area didn't grow up with computers. The newer generations are quite different. Michael Mihalik http://www.pathview.com/ PathView Systems | cell: 214.733.7688 | 800.798.3540 | fax: 270.423.0968 From: joelle weaver [mailto:joellewea...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:48 AM To: m...@pathview.com; Histonet Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Yes, I do agree, that is why I call it a tool for people to use. I think that it is a stereotype to think that histologists are not experienced or knowledgable about computers. There are some histologists who have had a fairly good introduction to computer systems, how computers work, what they can and cannot do, software, applications, interfaces, databases, and have worked with 5 or more LIS systems, barcodes etc. Though admittedly, in my experience this is a rarity. Most of what I have learned about computers, I have gotten from formal classes, but I also have used this knowledge in other arenas, and wish I could use it more in my job. I am just not fortunate enough to have been given the opportunity to have much influence on the processes, or the computer systems. I think that many who have been promoted into management simply also accept this stereotype that histologists know only technical information, and so we are not consulted, though we do the work everyday.I wish that you could come to our lab and educate those who have been given this authority! I would love to have a computer geek come to our lab and inform us of what is available to help us to our jobs better. Joelle Weaver HTL (ASCP) From: m...@pathview.com To: joellewea...@hotmail.com; jel...@yumaregional.org; histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:14:21 -0500 People are always at the forefront. Someone has to build that new tool, or come up with some new process or whatever. That's why before we do any installation of our software, we spend what probably amounts to 100 to 200 hours interviewing and watching each clerk, PA, histotech, secretary, cytotech, and pathologist and THEN we propose how we would install and tailor our software. By the way, at the end of that analysis, people are usually pretty tired of hearing me ask 'why do you do that', but guess what -- you are way, way more likely to get 'buy in' from the staff. That tech you spoke to at 3 a.m. remembers that some computer geek took the time and effort and asked them how they would do things better. ...but let me address a real world issue. I am not versed in the technologies of many aspects of the AP/Cytology department (you'll never hear me speak on subjects of which stainer is better for instance), but I do know a few things about work flow and computerization. I like to illustrate via example, so let's try this one: In the real world, a histotechnologist may have only worked in let's say 3 or 4different labs in their life, and perhaps only 1 or 2 different computer systems. With that background, how are they supposed to know what's possible or not possible to do with computer technology. Personally, I think it's the job of the LIS vendor to work TOGETHER with the histotechnologist and other department personnel to come up with better solutions. In this example, each side has knowledge and experience that needs to be conveyed to the other. When that communication occurs, magic happens. Barcodes are not the magic. It's how you use those barcodes in your work flow. It's always about the people. Michael Mihalik PathView Systems | cell: 214.733.7688 | 800.798.3540 | fax: 270.423.0968 -Original Message- From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu [mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of joelle weaver Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:53 PM To: jel...@yumaregional.org; Histonet Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Well, I can't speak for everyone of course, but I know in the program that I am affiliate with that we stress, if not require, thinking beyond the manual methods. In fact, I really see an in depth understanding of basic manual histology methods as only a beginning point to how I want the future histologists to think and apply their technical knowledge.I encourage this at every opportunity myself, in every course. Crtical thinking skills, process thinking and the ability to see how our function fits into total laboratory
RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare
I do agree that computers are tools that are indeed an asset to anatomic path laboratories. Michael I applaud you for your efforts in getting the staff and engaging them. This is the basis of my entire theory, in order to create efficiencies within histology that there are 3 distinct area of the process Histology, Transcription, and Pathologist. Unlike the clinical laboratory we are not a straight test result type of methodology, rather a fair straight forward process that has inter-connected components. Those components have for so long relied o the fact of internal checks and balances, but with the explosion that has happened within AP in the last 10-15 years we are seeing those checks and balances begin to have cracks and stress points. I would applaud anyone that takes advance courses in anything, but I would caution an IT person looking at Anatomic Pathology that does not have the clinical background that is necessary to see the cracks and stress points. I use PowerPath as my LIS and as the University of Washington our facility has made strides in stream lining and innovation with our LIS,, but I am open to help anyone that is looking to get information on this subject. Jesus A Ellin HT/PA ASCP Department of Pathology/Histology Yuma Regional Medical Center 2400 South Ave A Yuma, AZ 85364 - 7170 ( Office: (928) 336-1743 (Fax: (928) 336-7319 *Email: jel...@yumaregional.org -Original Message- From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu [mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of joelle weaver Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:48 AM To: m...@pathview.com; Histonet Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Yes, I do agree, that is why I call it a tool for people to use. I think that it is a stereotype to think that histologists are not experienced or knowledgable about computers. There are some histologists who have had a fairly good introduction to computer systems, how computers work, what they can and cannot do, software, applications, interfaces, databases, and have worked with 5 or more LIS systems, barcodes etc. Though admittedly, in my experience this is a rarity. Most of what I have learned about computers, I have gotten from formal classes, but I also have used this knowledge in other arenas, and wish I could use it more in my job. I am just not fortunate enough to have been given the opportunity to have much influence on the processes, or the computer systems. I think that many who have been promoted into management simply also accept this stereotype that histologists know only technical information, and so we are not consulted, though we do the work everyday.I wish that you could come to our lab and educate those who have been given this authority! I would love to have a computer geek come to our lab and inform us of what is available to help us to our jobs better. Joelle Weaver HTL (ASCP) From: m...@pathview.com To: joellewea...@hotmail.com; jel...@yumaregional.org; histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:14:21 -0500 People are always at the forefront. Someone has to build that new tool, or come up with some new process or whatever. That's why before we do any installation of our software, we spend what probably amounts to 100 to 200 hours interviewing and watching each clerk, PA, histotech, secretary, cytotech, and pathologist and THEN we propose how we would install and tailor our software. By the way, at the end of that analysis, people are usually pretty tired of hearing me ask 'why do you do that', but guess what -- you are way, way more likely to get 'buy in' from the staff. That tech you spoke to at 3 a.m. remembers that some computer geek took the time and effort and asked them how they would do things better. ...but let me address a real world issue. I am not versed in the technologies of many aspects of the AP/Cytology department (you'll never hear me speak on subjects of which stainer is better for instance), but I do know a few things about work flow and computerization. I like to illustrate via example, so let's try this one: In the real world, a histotechnologist may have only worked in let's say 3 or 4different labs in their life, and perhaps only 1 or 2 different computer systems. With that background, how are they supposed to know what's possible or not possible to do with computer technology. Personally, I think it's the job of the LIS vendor to work TOGETHER with the histotechnologist and other department personnel to come up with better solutions. In this example, each side has knowledge and experience that needs to be conveyed to the other. When that communication occurs, magic happens. Barcodes are not the magic. It's how you use those barcodes in your work flow. It's always about the people
RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare
Thanks for posting this.I just couldn't help commenting on this post because as a working histologist, I have tried to convince managers in the past who have tried to recituify the need for specimen tracking in histology, and the general situation with very time consuming, tedious and inaccurate manual transcription steps in the effort to create tracking and not have to buy anything. I have printed off information from vendor websites, showing that middleware was not always needed, and presented this information to them, but they just don't believe it. Lack of understanding I think, caused them to instead go with manual the manual processes to create a paper trail. Even in this day and age, people are surprisingly afraid of, and unaware of technology. In my experience, these manual processes are marginally effective at best, and of course moved the process away from efficiency and reliability, not to mention frustrated employees who are already struggling to get their work done with time pressures and staffing constraints. My position has always been that computer systems are very good at some things, such as repetitive information processing, and they do not get tired, transpose numbers etc. Please use them for this!You cannot check a process step which introduces humam errors of oversight and transcription with another process that introduces the same type of error potential. To do so, merely expands the opportunity for this kind of error to pass farther into the process. As a working histologist, I do wish that people would not be so afraid of technology in our field, and use it to improve and update histology processes.More education is needed! So keep posting this type of information. Only by incorporating this aspect will the field be able to move forward and keep pace with the other areas of the laboratory and medical practice in general. Joelle Weaver HTL (ASCP) From: m...@pathview.com To: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:46:11 -0500 Subject: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Good morning, I was just at the Lab Infotech Summit in Las Vegas last week where the subject of the conference was informatics in Anatomic and Clinical Pathology. Along with the usual seminars were the usual vendors in the exhibitor's hall demonstrating and talking about their products and services. As one of those vendors, I had the opportunity to talk to a few people and a general trend appeared to merge -- one which I would like to dispel, if possible. I'd like to make sure that everyone is aware that you do NOT have to have middleware in order to have bar coded cassettes, slides, etc., and you do NOT have to have middleware in order to have specimen/material tracking. Let me explain. If, on the one hand, you are quite content with your current information system and you simply wish to add barcodes and specimen tracking and you do not want to work with your information system vendor because either they don't have this capability or for some other reason, then YES, middleware is a viable alternative. On the other hand, if you are planning to purchase a new Information System for your laboratory, then by all means, DEMAND of your new vendor, the ability to have barcoded everything and to have specimen tracking built into your new information system. There are lots of good reasons to have all this capability in your information system and not in some middleware product. I'd be happy to discuss the reasons for my statements, but I've taken up enough of everyone's time. If you'd like to hear more, then please, just ask. I just thought everyone should know... Michael Mihalik PathView Systems | cell: 214.733.7688 | 800.798.3540 | fax: 270.423.0968 ___ Histonet mailing list Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet _ Quick access to Windows Live and your favorite MSN content with Internet Explorer 8. http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A___ Histonet mailing list Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare
Quote: You cannot check a process step which introduces human errors of oversight and transcription with another process that introduces the same type of error potential. I love that line. May I use it? The only thing I would add is a subtlety. The easiest way to use barcoding in any information system is to just 'add it on'. A truly efficient system INCORPORATES the technology. What do I mean? Here's an example: In Scenario 1: bar coded cassettes are printing at accessioning. They are then moved to the gross area with the requisitions and specimen. However, we know that cassettes can be separated from the requisitions and specimen, so some systems have you scan the specimen and each block to confirm that they match. This is an example of an 'add on' functionality. The additional step to scan the specimen and blocks has been added. This increases quality at the cost of more work. In Scenario 2: bar coded cassettes are printed at the grossing station by scanning the bar code on the specimen label. Only the blocks for that specimen are printed. This provides the same increase in quality WITHOUT any extra work. This is an example of an 'incorporated' technology. The difference between the two philosophies is huge and it's a hard one to ferret out by simply reading product brochures because in both scenarios 'barcodes are used'. .but you have to ask yourself, which system would you use? And finally, I apologize if this is coming across as a sales pitch, but I'm very, very passionate about work flow analysis. The best systems out there don't just collect information, they help you get your work done faster, better, etc. and you can't do that without analyzing how work flows to the department, within the department, and out of the department. Michael Mihalik http://www.pathview.com/ PathView Systems | cell: 214.733.7688 | 800.798.3540 | fax: 270.423.0968 From: joelle weaver [mailto:joellewea...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:09 AM To: m...@pathview.com; Histonet Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Thanks for posting this.I just couldn't help commenting on this post because as a working histologist, I have tried to convince managers in the past who have tried to recituify the need for specimen tracking in histology, and the general situation with very time consuming, tedious and inaccurate manual transcription steps in the effort to create tracking and not have to buy anything. I have printed off information from vendor websites, showing that middleware was not always needed, and presented this information to them, but they just don't believe it. Lack of understanding I think, caused them to instead go with manual the manual processes to create a paper trail. Even in this day and age, people are surprisingly afraid of, and unaware of technology. In my experience, these manual processes are marginally effective at best, and of course moved the process away from efficiency and reliability, not to mention frustrated employees who are already struggling to get their work done with time pressures and staffing constraints. My position has always been that computer systems are very good at some things, such as repetitive information processing, and they do not get tired, transpose numbers etc. Please use them for this!You cannot check a process step which introduces humam errors of oversight and transcription with another process that introduces the same type of error potential. To do so, merely expands the opportunity for this kind of error to pass farther into the process. As a working histologist, I do wish that people would not be so afraid of technology in our field, and use it to improve and update histology processes.More education is needed! So keep posting this type of information. Only by incorporating this aspect will the field be able to move forward and keep pace with the other areas of the laboratory and medical practice in general. Joelle Weaver HTL (ASCP) From: m...@pathview.com To: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:46:11 -0500 Subject: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Good morning, I was just at the Lab Infotech Summit in Las Vegas last week where the subject of the conference was informatics in Anatomic and Clinical Pathology. Along with the usual seminars were the usual vendors in the exhibitor's hall demonstrating and talking about their products and services. As one of those vendors, I had the opportunity to talk to a few people and a general trend appeared to merge -- one which I would like to dispel, if possible. I'd like to make sure that everyone is aware that you do NOT have to have middleware in order to have bar coded cassettes, slides, etc., and you do NOT have to have middleware in order to have specimen/material tracking. Let me explain. If, on the one hand, you
Re: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare
If anyone is seriously looking at a new Lab Information System LIS, please give Michael a call. This is not a paid endorsement. We do not use his product, but being only a few miles away from where they went live with their first client, has given us the opportunity to see the program. We use PowerPath currently, but if we were in a shopping mood, Michael's product Pathview would be on the short list. Michael and our team have met several times and his philosophies and ours' are so in sync it is scary. We have developed our own software to incorporate with PowerPath. Cases that need only one cassette are printed at accessioning. For complex cases the PA or Resident orders the cassettes in real time. They scan the specimen label and select the quantity of cassettes. This was a major change in workflow for us, which had it's challenges. Now that the bugs are out of the system, the end users really like it. No more wasting cassettes because too many were printed. The cassettes are scanned at embedding to provide information or special instructions to the embedder. Scanning the cassette at the microtome generates the slide labels. Scanning the slide after staining marks the order as completed and starts the tracking of the slide to the pathologist and back to the slide room. Enough rambling, the technology is available and getting better all the time. Victor Victor Tobias Clinical Applications Analyst University of Washington Medical Center Dept of Pathology Room BB220 1959 NE Pacific Seattle, WA 98195 vic...@pathology.washington.edu 206-598-2792 206-598-7659 Fax = Privileged, confidential or patient identifiable information may be contained in this message. This information is meant only for the use of the intended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, or if the message has been addressed to you in error, do not read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmission. Instead, please notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the message and any attachments. Michael Mihalik wrote: Quote: You cannot check a process step which introduces human errors of oversight and transcription with another process that introduces the same type of error potential. I love that line. May I use it? The only thing I would add is a subtlety. The easiest way to use barcoding in any information system is to just 'add it on'. A truly efficient system INCORPORATES the technology. What do I mean? Here's an example: In Scenario 1: bar coded cassettes are printing at accessioning. They are then moved to the gross area with the requisitions and specimen. However, we know that cassettes can be separated from the requisitions and specimen, so some systems have you scan the specimen and each block to confirm that they match. This is an example of an 'add on' functionality. The additional step to scan the specimen and blocks has been added. This increases quality at the cost of more work. In Scenario 2: bar coded cassettes are printed at the grossing station by scanning the bar code on the specimen label. Only the blocks for that specimen are printed. This provides the same increase in quality WITHOUT any extra work. This is an example of an 'incorporated' technology. The difference between the two philosophies is huge and it's a hard one to ferret out by simply reading product brochures because in both scenarios 'barcodes are used'. .but you have to ask yourself, which system would you use? And finally, I apologize if this is coming across as a sales pitch, but I'm very, very passionate about work flow analysis. The best systems out there don't just collect information, they help you get your work done faster, better, etc. and you can't do that without analyzing how work flows to the department, within the department, and out of the department. Michael Mihalik http://www.pathview.com/ PathView Systems | cell: 214.733.7688 | 800.798.3540 | fax: 270.423.0968 From: joelle weaver [mailto:joellewea...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:09 AM To: m...@pathview.com; Histonet Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Thanks for posting this.I just couldn't help commenting on this post because as a working histologist, I have tried to convince managers in the past who have tried to recituify the need for specimen tracking in histology, and the general situation with very time consuming, tedious and inaccurate manual transcription steps in the effort to create tracking and not have to buy anything. I have printed off information from vendor websites, showing that middleware was not always needed, and presented this information to them, but they just don't believe it. Lack of understanding I think, caused them to instead go with manual the manual processes to create
RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare
I am very passionate about this as well! Yes, you may use my line- but if you could, and it fits into the conversation, indicate that it was histotech that said it! I completely agree that the best use of technology, such as bar coding is to incorporate it.- and especially true in light of the histology process which is peppered if you will, with intensly manual steps. Our field will never catch up in advancement until more people accept this notion. So what you are saying really does not come across as a pitch to me, because I think it just makes sense. Regards- Joelle Weaver HTL (ASCP) From: m...@pathview.com To: joellewea...@hotmail.com; histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:08:32 -0500 Quote: You cannot check a process step which introduces human errors of oversight and transcription with another process that introduces the same type of error potential. I love that line. May I use it? The only thing I would add is a subtlety. The easiest way to use barcoding in any information system is to just ‘add it on’. A truly efficient system INCORPORATES the technology. What do I mean? Here’s an example: In Scenario 1: bar coded cassettes are printing at accessioning. They are then moved to the gross area with the requisitions and specimen. However, we know that cassettes can be separated from the requisitions and specimen, so some systems have you scan the specimen and each block to confirm that they match. This is an example of an ‘add on’ functionality. The additional step to scan the specimen and blocks has been added. This increases quality at the cost of more work. In Scenario 2: bar coded cassettes are printed at the grossing station by scanning the bar code on the specimen label. Only the blocks for that specimen are printed. This provides the same increase in quality WITHOUT any extra work. This is an example of an ‘incorporated’ technology. The difference between the two philosophies is huge and it’s a hard one to ferret out by simply reading product brochures because in both scenarios ‘barcodes are used’. …but you have to ask yourself, which system would you use? And finally, I apologize if this is coming across as a sales pitch, but I’m very, very passionate about work flow analysis. The best systems out there don’t just collect information, they help you get your work done faster, better, etc. and you can’t do that without analyzing how work flows to the department, within the department, and out of the department. Michael Mihalik PathView Systems | cell: 214.733.7688 | 800.798.3540 | fax: 270.423.0968 From: joelle weaver [mailto:joellewea...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:09 AM To: m...@pathview.com; Histonet Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Thanks for posting this.I just couldn't help commenting on this post because as a working histologist, I have tried to convince managers in the past who have tried to recituify the need for specimen tracking in histology, and the general situation with very time consuming, tedious and inaccurate manual transcription steps in the effort to create tracking and not have to buy anything. I have printed off information from vendor websites, showing that middleware was not always needed, and presented this information to them, but they just don't believe it. Lack of understanding I think, caused them to instead go with manual the manual processes to create a paper trail. Even in this day and age, people are surprisingly afraid of, and unaware of technology. In my experience, these manual processes are marginally effective at best, and of course moved the process away from efficiency and reliability, not to mention frustrated employees who are already struggling to get their work done with time pressures and staffing constraints. My position has always been that computer systems are very good at some things, such as repetitive information processing, and they do not get tired, transpose numbers etc. Please use them for this!You cannot check a process step which introduces humam errors of oversight and transcription with another process that introduces the same type of error potential. To do so, merely expands the opportunity for this kind of error to pass farther into the process. As a working histologist, I do wish that people would not be so afraid of technology in our field, and use it to improve and update histology processes.More education is needed! So keep posting this type of information. Only by incorporating this aspect will the field be able to move forward and keep pace with the other areas of the laboratory and medical practice in general. Joelle Weaver HTL (ASCP) From: m...@pathview.com To: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:46:11 -0500 Subject
RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare
Thanks and no problem with your request. I'm a big one for 2 things: 1. Admit when you make a mistake, and 2. Always give credit where credit is due. .and along those lines, the best part of our system, comes from the people who work in AP, day in and day out. Michael Mihalik http://www.pathview.com/ PathView Systems | cell: 214.733.7688 | 800.798.3540 | fax: 270.423.0968 From: joelle weaver [mailto:joellewea...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:52 PM To: m...@pathview.com; Histonet Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare I am very passionate about this as well! Yes, you may use my line- but if you could, and it fits into the conversation, indicate that it was histotech that said it! I completely agree that the best use of technology, such as bar coding is to incorporate it.- and especially true in light of the histology process which is peppered if you will, with intensly manual steps. Our field will never catch up in advancement until more people accept this notion. So what you are saying really does not come across as a pitch to me, because I think it just makes sense. Regards- Joelle Weaver HTL (ASCP) _ From: m...@pathview.com To: joellewea...@hotmail.com; histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:08:32 -0500 Quote: You cannot check a process step which introduces human errors of oversight and transcription with another process that introduces the same type of error potential. I love that line. May I use it? The only thing I would add is a subtlety. The easiest way to use barcoding in any information system is to just 'add it on'. A truly efficient system INCORPORATES the technology. What do I mean? Here's an example: In Scenario 1: bar coded cassettes are printing at accessioning. They are then moved to the gross area with the requisitions and specimen. However, we know that cassettes can be separated from the requisitions and specimen, so some systems have you scan the specimen and each block to confirm that they match. This is an example of an 'add on' functionality. The additional step to scan the specimen and blocks has been added. This increases quality at the cost of more work. In Scenario 2: bar coded cassettes are printed at the grossing station by scanning the bar code on the specimen label. Only the blocks for that specimen are printed. This provides the same increase in quality WITHOUT any extra work. This is an example of an 'incorporated' technology. The difference between the two philosophies is huge and it's a hard one to ferret out by simply reading product brochures because in both scenarios 'barcodes are used'. .but you have to ask yourself, which system would you use? And finally, I apologize if this is coming across as a sales pitch, but I'm very, very passionate about work flow analysis. The best systems out there don't just collect information, they help you get your work done faster, better, etc. and you can't do that without analyzing how work flows to the department, within the department, and out of the department. Michael Mihalik PathView http://www.pathview.com/ Systems | cell: 214.733.7688 | 800.798.3540 | fax: 270.423.0968 From: joelle weaver [mailto:joellewea...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:09 AM To: m...@pathview.com; Histonet Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Thanks for posting this.I just couldn't help commenting on this post because as a working histologist, I have tried to convince managers in the past who have tried to recituify the need for specimen tracking in histology, and the general situation with very time consuming, tedious and inaccurate manual transcription steps in the effort to create tracking and not have to buy anything. I have printed off information from vendor websites, showing that middleware was not always needed, and presented this information to them, but they just don't believe it. Lack of understanding I think, caused them to instead go with manual the manual processes to create a paper trail. Even in this day and age, people are surprisingly afraid of, and unaware of technology. In my experience, these manual processes are marginally effective at best, and of course moved the process away from efficiency and reliability, not to mention frustrated employees who are already struggling to get their work done with time pressures and staffing constraints. My position has always been that computer systems are very good at some things, such as repetitive information processing, and they do not get tired, transpose numbers etc. Please use them for this!You cannot check a process step which introduces humam errors of oversight and transcription with another process that introduces the same type of error potential. To do so, merely
RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare
Well, I can't speak for everyone of course, but I know in the program that I am affiliate with that we stress, if not require, thinking beyond the manual methods. In fact, I really see an in depth understanding of basic manual histology methods as only a beginning point to how I want the future histologists to think and apply their technical knowledge.I encourage this at every opportunity myself, in every course. Crtical thinking skills, process thinking and the ability to see how our function fits into total laboratory and diagnostic patient services is stressed. I see it as imperative that this is incorporated into training in formal programs and within the lab. We cannot afford to not further this trend. I really don't see any other alternative really. If you look at newer instrumentation, it really is little more than a computer with software and application interfaces connected to the mechanics that perform the tasks of histology. Technology is really just another tool at our disposal to perform our jobs better. We in histology, are due to begin to merge and become cohesive with the totality of healthcare delivery and to begin to operate in such a parallel manner. I believe that the emerging histologist will be better armed with a broader educational background that provides this insight,due to more structured training program requirments. I for one, certainly hope that this is the next wave of evolution in our practice! Joelle Weaver HTL(ASCP) Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:10:14 -0700 From: jel...@yumaregional.org To: joellewea...@hotmail.com I want to throw this notion out there as well,, how are we training our techs to think? I would say that the majority of the histology programs still teach to manual methodology rather than to think out of the box and provide a total solution to the problem (with work flow and technology). In my experience I see that people tend to take technology and imitate their current manual process's rather than looking at improving the current one. I like to hear what other people think on this matter? It seems to me that there is a hunger for this technology within the histology community but a lack of knowledge on how to implement a viable solution to our current manual problems.. We are starting to see the coming of age again, an evolution within our field were a technology similar to IHC, FISH, etc, will change the course on how we tend to do things in the future. But we are not educating our selves or our replacements, on how to handle these issues. We cannot continue to solve a problem at the same level of thinking as the previous solution. We need to begin to have a culture and environmental shift in order for this technology to be adapted by the industry. But people we are not looking at the downstream affect of what our actions are, for example transcription, pathologist, send out etc.. I am also very passionate about this.. The University of Washington has done some excellent work on this solution from a histology level and as for Path view, I have heard good things, but you all mention barcode, incorporation, and technology. But what I have not heard is that it is the people that drive this to the fore front. This would create a Anatomic Histo/Pathology Improvement System were technology, methodology improvement, and people come together to create an efficient way to handle our issues. Sorry for the long winded remark but I am also passionate about this Jesus A Ellin HT/PA ASCP Department of Pathology/Histology Yuma Regional Medical Center 2400 South Ave A Yuma, AZ 85364 - 7170 ( Office: (928) 336-1743 ( Fax: (928) 336-7319 * Email: jel...@yumaregional.org This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that the dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the e-mail, fax, address, or telephone number listed above and delete this e-mail from your computer. Thank You. _ Windows Live™ SkyDrive: Get 25 GB of free online storage. http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_032009___ Histonet mailing list Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare
People are always at the forefront. Someone has to build that new tool, or come up with some new process or whatever. That's why before we do any installation of our software, we spend what probably amounts to 100 to 200 hours interviewing and watching each clerk, PA, histotech, secretary, cytotech, and pathologist and THEN we propose how we would install and tailor our software. By the way, at the end of that analysis, people are usually pretty tired of hearing me ask 'why do you do that', but guess what -- you are way, way more likely to get 'buy in' from the staff. That tech you spoke to at 3 a.m. remembers that some computer geek took the time and effort and asked them how they would do things better. ...but let me address a real world issue. I am not versed in the technologies of many aspects of the AP/Cytology department (you'll never hear me speak on subjects of which stainer is better for instance), but I do know a few things about work flow and computerization. I like to illustrate via example, so let's try this one: In the real world, a histotechnologist may have only worked in let's say 3 or 4different labs in their life, and perhaps only 1 or 2 different computer systems. With that background, how are they supposed to know what's possible or not possible to do with computer technology. Personally, I think it's the job of the LIS vendor to work TOGETHER with the histotechnologist and other department personnel to come up with better solutions. In this example, each side has knowledge and experience that needs to be conveyed to the other. When that communication occurs, magic happens. Barcodes are not the magic. It's how you use those barcodes in your work flow. It's always about the people. Michael Mihalik PathView Systems | cell: 214.733.7688 | 800.798.3540 | fax: 270.423.0968 -Original Message- From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu [mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of joelle weaver Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:53 PM To: jel...@yumaregional.org; Histonet Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Well, I can't speak for everyone of course, but I know in the program that I am affiliate with that we stress, if not require, thinking beyond the manual methods. In fact, I really see an in depth understanding of basic manual histology methods as only a beginning point to how I want the future histologists to think and apply their technical knowledge.I encourage this at every opportunity myself, in every course. Crtical thinking skills, process thinking and the ability to see how our function fits into total laboratory and diagnostic patient services is stressed. I see it as imperative that this is incorporated into training in formal programs and within the lab. We cannot afford to not further this trend. I really don't see any other alternative really. If you look at newer instrumentation, it really is little more than a computer with software and application interfaces connected to the mechanics that perform the tasks of histology. Technology is really just another tool at our disposal to perform our jobs better. We in histology, are due to begin to merge and become cohesive with the totality of healthcare delivery and to begin to operate in such a parallel manner. I believe that the emerging histologist will be better armed with a broader educational background that provides this insight,due to more structured training program requirments. I for one, certainly hope that this is the next wave of evolution in our practice! Joelle Weaver HTL(ASCP) Subject: RE: [Histonet] Information Systems: Specimen Tracking MiddleWare Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:10:14 -0700 From: jel...@yumaregional.org To: joellewea...@hotmail.com I want to throw this notion out there as well,, how are we training our techs to think? I would say that the majority of the histology programs still teach to manual methodology rather than to think out of the box and provide a total solution to the problem (with work flow and technology). In my experience I see that people tend to take technology and imitate their current manual process's rather than looking at improving the current one. I like to hear what other people think on this matter? It seems to me that there is a hunger for this technology within the histology community but a lack of knowledge on how to implement a viable solution to our current manual problems.. We are starting to see the coming of age again, an evolution within our field were a technology similar to IHC, FISH, etc, will change the course on how we tend to do things in the future. But we are not educating our selves or our replacements, on how to handle these issues. We cannot continue to solve a problem at the same level of thinking as the previous solution. We need to begin to have a culture and environmental shift in order for this technology to be adapted
