ABSTRACT
EPIC Systems Corporation provides a widely used electronic medical record. Beaker Anatomic Pathology is a newly developed laboratory information system (LIS) that has been implemented at a small number of academic pathology departments. Pathologist opinions of EPIC Beaker AP have not been well described in the literature. A 37-question survey was administered to pathologists and pathology trainees to assess overall satisfaction and efficiency of report generation using Beaker AP. Data about experience in pathology, signout responsibilities, Beaker AP usage, and the legacy LIS was also collected. Seventy-four pathologists (51 faculty, 23 residents) responded to the survey (overall response rate 29.7%). Overall pathologist satisfaction with Beaker AP showed high inter-institutional variability; institutions with legacy LISs with a graphical interface had a generally neutral to negative assessment of Beaker AP. The majority of respondents disagreed with the statement "Beaker AP is easy to use and designed for my needs". Pathologists felt that Beaker AP was useful for reviewing clinical information and billing; areas of weakness included searching for prior cases and grossing efficiency. Overall, pathologists had a neutral opinion of whether generating and signing out a complete report was faster in Beaker AP, with marked inter-institutional variation. This variability was likely due to a combination of the efficacy of the legacy LIS, familiarity with Beaker AP at the time of the survey, and institution-specific optimization efforts.
Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Information Systems/organization & administration , Electronic Health Records/organization & administration , Pathology, Clinical/organization & administration , Humans , Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/statistics & numerical data , Pathologists/standards , Surveys and Questionnaires , Telepathology/organization & administrationABSTRACT
We retrospectively reviewed 74 fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cases of presumptive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). All the cases had cytology and core-needle biopsy and 53 cases had concurrent flow cytometric analysis. FNA (cytology and flow cytometry) and core-needle biopsy were evaluated independently. FNA was diagnostic of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBL) in 25% (13/53) of cases and small B-cell NHL in 15% (8/53) of cases, whereas core-needle biopsy was diagnostic of DLBL in 37% (27/74) of cases and small B-cell NHL in 8% (6/74) of cases. Subclassification of small B-cell NHL was reached in 3/6 cases by core-needle biopsy. Insufficient cases were observed in both FNA (47%; 25/53) and core-needle biopsy (28%; 21/74) groups. With the combination of FNA and core-needle biopsy, diagnostic cases of DLBL increased to 43% (32/74) and insufficient samples were reduced to 16% (12/74). There was no clear advantage in the diagnosis and classification of small B-cell NHL by adding core-needle biopsy to FNA (14%; 10/74). We conclude that core-needle biopsy is a useful adjunct to FNA in the diagnosis of DLBL and shall be encouraged. In small B-cell NHL, core-needle biopsy does not add to the diagnostic ability of FNA. Cases insufficient for diagnosis may be seen in both core-needle biopsy and FNA. A combined approach reduces the number of insufficient cases and is recommended in routine FNA practice.