Tag Archives: Lab information systems

September 2023—Point-of-care testing—the requests and the committees that oversee them, the connectivity, what AI might bring. CAP TODAY publisher Bob McGonnagle on July 21 met online with a laboratory operations director and a medical director from large health systems and with company representatives for a look at where things stand today. Their conversation follows.

April 2022—All things billing, revenue, income, and business-related were tossed around when representatives of four billing companies met online Feb. 14 with CAP TODAY publisher Bob McGonnagle. With them were Vachette Pathology founder Mick Raich and Al Lui, MD, of Innovative Pathology Medical Group, Torrance, Calif. The No Surprises Act, pathologist shortage, pharmacies, and SARS-CoV-2 testing post-pandemic were just some of what came up. Artificial intelligence too. “In the next two or three years, the payers are going to use AI to deny claims,” Raich predicts. “They’re going to know which claims are less likely to be appealed when they’re billed.” And that will only make more difficult an already tough situation. In the past year, says Kyle Fetter of Xifin, “there’s been an increase in the use of the CO-252 rejection/denial code.” Chris Condon of APS Medical Billing agrees, saying the job of the carrier “is to figure out ways to not pay pathologists.”

November 2021—Flexible scheduling to suit family life and new “lab associate” roles—two solutions in progress or in place in labs wrestling with the staffing shortage. That and precision medicine test pre-approvals and utilization were some of what Compass Group members talked about on Oct. 5 in a virtual roundtable led by CAP TODAY publisher Bob McGonnagle.

November 2021—Cybersecurity and the cloud, COVID care gaps, and lab consolidation were among the topics CAP TODAY publisher Bob McGonnagle talked to LIS vendors and Toby Cornish, MD, PhD, about in a Sept. 20 virtual roundtable. A return to on-site trade shows, too, came up: “I do miss walking the vendor floor. I feel like I’m out of touch with what the developments are,” said Dr. Cornish of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.

August 2021—The downtime manual that the anatomic pathology laboratory at the University of Vermont Medical Center maintained in 2020 was never intended to be used for dealing with a cyberattack. In fact, it wasn’t actually a manual. It was a laboratory-wide policy essentially consisting of one instruction to be used in the event of a power failure or short-term IT disruption or other emergency: “Bring everything to a halt.” In anatomic pathology, “Our downtime protocol was: You stop in your tracks,” says dermatopathologist Anne M. Stowman, MD. “For the urgent/emergent specimens, you get out your paper logs, you do paper recording of the cases coming in, and you handwrite your cassettes, your descriptions, your slides.” That would be a bit slower and less efficient, but it would work for brief, temporary outages and disruptions. But the cyberattack that UVMMC experienced in October 2020, cutting off the labs’ access to the medical center’s information technology systems and disabling operations for more than three weeks, was an abrupt wake-up call.

June 2021—As COVID-19 restrictions halted traditional laboratory inspections, virtual and blended inspections became the stand-ins, and early adopters say there’s much to like and hold on to post-pandemic.

May 2021—In the best of times, the health care industry has been the one most targeted by cyberattacks in the past decade. The pandemic has made health care an even more inviting mark, increasing the urgency of adopting effective cybersecurity measures.

April 2021—After he finished interviewing for a fellowship one morning last October at the University of Vermont Medical Center, pathology resident William O. Humphrey, MD, checked in to attend grand rounds virtually. Then the cyberattack struck. It began mysteriously, with people dropping one by one off the Zoom screen and emails arriving only intermittently. Internet service grew patchy and a hospital staffer unmuted and canceled grand rounds, saying, “We aren’t really sure what’s going on.” From there, a cascade of failures indicated serious trouble. “All of a sudden we’re realizing we can’t sign into our EMR. We can’t get into our email either. My phone isn’t working on the Wi-Fi. Something is wrong,” recalls Dr. Humphrey, a member of the CAP Informatics Committee. That was the prelude to a siege in which fax machines and penmanship were unretired from obsolescence, paperlessness became a relic of the past, and words like “runners” and “bouncers” entered routine laboratory vocabulary.

April 2021—Whirlwind timelines, novel problems, and a never-ending workload: On the anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, pathology informatics leaders David S. McClintock, MD, and Christopher Williams, MD, reflected on the year’s onslaught of challenges.

April 2021—A look at laboratories post-pandemic was at the heart of a revenue- and billing-focused roundtable led by CAP TODAY publisher Bob McGonnagle on Feb. 10. With McGonnagle were Mick Raich, Vachette Pathology; Bob Dowd, NovoPath; Kwami Edwards, Telcor; Kyle Fetter, Xifin; and Tom Scheanwald and Matt Zaborski, APS Medical Billing.

February 2021—What is the one most important thing to look for in an anatomic pathology computer system? That is one of several questions CAP TODAY publisher Bob McGonnagle put to five people in a Dec. 14 call on the AP LIS and more—surgical pathology volumes amid COVID-19, data integration, practice consolidation.

January 2021—Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) for cytology specimens is performed at many institutions to improve the quality of health care by proper triage of obtained material to increase the diagnostic yield, or to direct appropriate investigation. It also helps to control health care costs by reducing the rate of nondiagnostic specimens, unnecessary passes, and repeat procedures. The number of procedures requiring ROSE is growing due to the increase in the number of platforms used to perform minimally invasive procedures.

November 2020—Information technology from a COVID-19 perspective. What has been the impact on IT, and what change is yet to come? That is what seven people who met virtually on Sept. 10 talked about with CAP TODAY publisher Bob McGonnagle. They are James Harrison, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia; J. Mark Tuthill, MD, of Henry Ford; Stephen Hewitt, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute; Bob Dowd of NovoPath; Michelle Del Guercio of Sunquest; Curt Johnson of Orchard; and Brian Gunderson of Roche. You will see here, in the conversation that follows, where their focus is as the crisis continues.

April 2020—Billing and collecting for pathology and laboratory services is “tough and getting tougher.” That’s the view of consultant Al Sirmon of Pathology Practice Advisors, Pawleys Island, SC. “In what other industry,” he asks, “do you rely on a third party to decide how much and when you’re going to get paid for a service you provide to someone else?” On the bright side, he says: “We have better tools now.”

February 2020—Middleware, transmitting and consuming reports, and artificial intelligence are just some of what AP LIS roundtable panelists talked about in December with CAP TODAY publisher Bob McGonnagle. Members of the panel were pathologists Monica de Baca, MD, and Jeffrey Prichard, DO, Rick Callahan of NovoPath, David Liberman, MD, of Computer Trust, and Chad Meyers of Sunquest. Here is what they said.

December 2019—IT as it relates to laboratory consolidation and the labor supply for lab IT were some of what came up when CAP TODAY publisher Bob McGonnagle convened a panel in September to talk about laboratory information systems. Part one of the discussion is in the November issue (with the LIS product guide); part two begins here. On the panel were J. Mark Tuthill, MD, of Henry Ford Health System, Curt Johnson of Orchard Software, Wally Soufi of NovoPath, Michelle Del Guercio of Sunquest Information Systems, Nick Trentadue of Epic, Sepehr Seyedzadeh of Siemens Healthineers, and Tony Barresi of Beckman Coulter.

November 2019—Middleware, result reporting workflow, consolidation of labs, and IT and laboratory labor were the center of discussion when CAP TODAY publisher Bob McGonnagle convened a panel in September to talk about lab information systems. Part one of the roundtable begins here; part two, on consolidation and labor, will be published in the December issue. On the panel were J. Mark Tuthill, MD, of Henry Ford Health System, Curt Johnson of Orchard Software, Wally Soufi of NovoPath, Michelle Del Guercio of Sunquest Information Systems, Nick Trentadue of Epic, Sepehr Seyedzadeh of Siemens Healthineers, and Tony Barresi of Beckman Coulter.

August 2019—Having an enterprisewide health care platform can put laboratories in a stronger decision-making position for enterprisewide IT, whereas in most other circumstances, “we are relatively isolated,” said Raj C. Dash, MD, in a talk he gave at this year’s Executive War College. Dr. Dash, vice chair of pathology IT at Duke University Medical Center, shared what he called the blessings and curses of his department’s move in 2014 to a lab information system that’s fully integrated with the electronic medical record. His focus was Beaker’s AP-LIS module.

February 2019—Practice consolidation and complexity, Web-based and cloud computing, and artificial intelligence. That and more is what writer Valerie Neff Newitt asked six AP-LIS companies about recently. Here is what they had to say. The profiles of their AP information systems are in the Anatomic pathology product guide, along with those of 16 other companies.

November 2018—CAP TODAY’s lineup of laboratory information systems begins on page 41. Here, six of the 30 companies that have LISs listed in the guide tell us what you, our readers, want from your LIS and what they want you to know about them.

February 2018—Customer demand, cancer protocols, and consolidation of pathology practices are some of what CAP TODAY asked about when it spoke in January with four anatomic pathology computer system companies. Their AP systems and those of 17 other companies are profiled in the anatomic pathology computer systems interactive product guide. “It’s a really good time for our market right now,” says Joe Nollar of Xifin, “and systems providers need to be creative in helping their clients get the solutions they need to be scalable, competitive, and profitable.” Here is more of what they told writer Anne Ford.

November 2017—If they were located in the Land of Oz, laboratories selecting a laboratory information system might not have to make a choice between full functionality and seamless integration with their electronic medical record system. They could just follow the helpful advice of the Scarecrow to Dorothy at a crossroads: “Go both ways.”

November 2017—“There’s an app for that” was a common, if flippant, catch phrase to suggest that a software solution had already been devised for just about every need (at least until 2010, when Apple trademarked the catch phrase). In the laboratory industry today, you are likely to hear more references to software’s “functionality,” but the concept is the same. While debate continues over whether best-of-breed products or comprehensive information technology systems should rule the laboratory, health care IT companies have developed a profusion of modules or ancillary applications—sometimes packaged with an LIS, sometimes sold separately—to fill software gaps.

May 2017—The laboratory financial systems of yesteryear were built to deliver on a prime directive: achieve optimal, timely payment. Fast-forward to today and the overriding goal remains largely the same, but the means to the end has become more sophisticated, with billing/accounts receivable/revenue cycle management systems providing capabilities to recover outstanding payments, pinpoint reimbursement bottlenecks, and deliver a diverse range of data.

April 2017—“No man putteth new wine into old wineskins” reads the biblical aphorism in Luke 5:36–39, which continues by giving the reason: “The new wine would burst the skins and be spilled, and the skins would perish.” Old wineskins, biblical scholars say, would typically be stretched to the limit or become brittle as wine had fermented in them.

April 2017—Twenty years ago, CAP TODAY released its first product guide for laboratory-provider links software. The demand for connectivity was growing as laboratories built their outreach business, and the future looked bright for LPL software companies.

February 2017—Software for anatomic pathology has evolved mightily since 1987, the year that CAP TODAY set sail on its maiden voyage as a monthly publication. During that year, HL7 was founded and the Co-Path system, then the flagship product of Collaborative Medical Systems, made a terrific splash on the small exhibit floor at the Palmer House Hotel in Chicago.

December 2016—As personalized and predictive medicine have progressed from not-in-my-lifetime to now available, health care information technology vendors have faced the challenge of how to manage a mass of molecular data and direct molecular testing processes. CAP TODAY asked vendors of molecular diagnostics lab information systems to explain what their products contribute to the flourishing field of molecular testing. Here are their responses.

November 2016—When CAP TODAY magazine ran its first laboratory information systems product guide in the 1980s, an LIS was an LIS—nothing more and nothing less. Today, however, it’s a lot more, and the black and white of it have swirled to gray.

April 2015—Alexis Carter, MD, immediate past president of the Association for Pathology Informatics, isn’t under any illusion about how well information technology is meeting the needs of molecular diagnostics. “Laboratory information systems right now do a fairly decent job of getting samples to the right lab, tracking the sample, and reporting results,” Dr. Carter says. But when it comes to molecular diagnostics laboratories, “LISs are really not where they should be. They’re kind of moving at a turtle’s pace to keep up.”

March 2015—In the span of human history, seven years is nothing but an eye blink. But in technological terms, seven years might as well be a geologic epoch. Consider: Only since 2007 have we seen Netflix streaming services; Kindles, Nooks, and other e-readers; and the sweeping adoption of the iPhone.

March 2015—When Pete Fisher, MD, says his name aloud, the speech-recognition system he uses spits out the words “deep fissure” on the screen. And there are times when he says “note that” and “note fat” pops up instead. Despite the occasional hiccups, he loves the software and the freedom it affords him to do his work without being bound to a transcriptionist’s timetable.

March 2015—From tracking charges in anatomic pathology and maintaining documentation to the changing classifications of some cancers, representatives of five companies tell CAP TODAY what their AP systems offer and what they’re working on to help labs.

February 2015—Tissue processors, tissue embedders, microtomes, slide stainers—we tackled them all in our first-ever product guide to anatomic pathology automation. (Yes, we realize most tissue embedders are largely manual but included them because they are vital to the automated process.) Zeroing in on what questions to ask the vendors—that is, knowing what you, the readers, need to know—was no simple task.

November 2014—So, you have a great idea that will improve laboratory workflow and reduce errors? Chances are the change will depend on automation of some sort, and will involve the LIS. But upgrades to laboratory information systems may not come fast enough, and the middleware may not be available to accomplish what you need. Then the question becomes how to customize the LIS to achieve your aims.

October 2014—From a focus on donor screening to inroads with inventory and tweaks to transfusion functionality, marketers of blood bank information systems and ancillary solutions continue to make their products faster, safer, smarter, greener. Here’s what CAP TODAY heard about what’s new and soon to come.

August 2014—Change takes time. Ask anyone who’s ever joined a gym, coached an underperforming sports team, or felt themselves growing older—cell by graying, wrinkling cell—in the change-of-address line at the DMV. Or just ask Donald Karcher, MD. Since 2008, when the Joint Commission began mandating that health care organizations rigorously evaluate physician performance when granting or renewing practice privileges, Dr. Karcher has watched laboratories gradually move from noncompliance to curiosity to comprehension and finally to compliance.

May 2014—From federal requirements to voluntary standards to back-office activities and business tools, vendors of billing/AR/RCM systems share how they are helping their clients. Beginning on page 16 is CAP TODAY’s 2014 guide to lab billing/accounts receivable/revenue cycle management systems.

April 2014—It’s not a race, but you gotta keep pace or risk losing face (and customers and revenue). While this rhyme isn’t an axiom, for vendors of laboratory-provider linking software, it might as well be. “It seems like a new health care initiative, best practice, or regulation is announced every year,” says Tim Kowalski, president and CEO of Halfpenny Technologies. “That makes it crucial to choose laboratory vendor partnerships and solutions that are designed to withstand this ever-changing industry.”

March 2014—A wide-ranging set of recommended health information technology safety practices recently issued by the Department of Health and Human Services is likely to accentuate the essential role that pathologists and laboratory leaders play in minimizing the adverse consequences of health IT.

February 2014—Call it the “Huh?” heard ’round the world: Just last month, Google spent $3.2 billion to acquire Nest Labs, a manufacturer of thermostats and smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. As Brandon Willis, director of technology at Pathagility, puts it, “Who knew Google would want a company that makes home thermostats?”

Hopes, fears, frustrations, and change. In time for our annual LIS product guide (pages 23–38), that’s what CAP TODAY asked LIS companies and lab users of IT about. What we heard was talk of uncertainty, complexity, finite IT resources, the need to stay current, and, as one company president put it, “swimming with an anchor” attached. Here’s what they told us.

September 2013—From future innovations to tighter regulations, seven users and marketers of blood bank software shared their perspectives on the blood bank systems marketplace with CAP TODAY. Here and on the following pages is what they told us. Beginning on page 20 is the 2013 guide to blood bank information systems.

August 2013—In ancient Rome, the legions might gird for combat with a muscled cuirass, helmet, and greaves, and carry a pilum. But none of them ever had to confront a hospital system C-suite, with high-level executives whose titles start with “chief” deciding between a single, enterprisewide information system or a “best-of-breed” laboratory information system.

February 2013—In the market for an anatomic pathology system? Check out the 27 AP offerings from 24 vendors. The systems profiled in this annual product guide are commercially available in the United States. In this year’s lineup for the first time is information pertaining to whether vendors provide a list of client sites to potential customers on request.