The bar code-based computerized tracking system detected and prevented identification and matching errors, thereby reducing the proportion of blood samples rejected and increasing patient safety.

No abstract

Background:Epic Beaker Clinical Pathology (CP) is a relatively new laboratory information system (LIS) operating within the Epic suite of software applications. To date, there have not been any publications describing implementation of Beaker CP. In this report, we describe our experience in implementing Beaker CP version 2012 at a state academic medical center with a go-live of August 2014 and a subsequent upgrade to Beaker version 2014 in May 2015. The implementation of Beaker CP was concurrent with implementations of Epic modules for revenue cycle, patient scheduling, and patient registration.Methods:Our analysis covers approximately 3 years of time (2 years preimplementation of Beaker CP and roughly 1 year after) using data summarized from pre- and post-implementation meetings, debriefings, and the closure document for the project.Results:We summarize positive aspects of, and key factors leading to, a successful implementation of Beaker CP. The early inclusion of subject matter experts in the design and validation of Beaker workflows was very helpful. Since Beaker CP does not directly interface with laboratory instrumentation, the clinical laboratories spent extensive preimplementation effort establishing middleware interfaces. Immediate challenges postimplementation included bar code scanning and nursing adaptation to Beaker CP specimen collection. The most substantial changes in laboratory workflow occurred with microbiology orders. This posed a considerable challenge with microbiology orders from the operating rooms and required intensive interventions in the weeks following go-live. In postimplementation surveys, pathology staff, informatics staff, and end-users expressed satisfaction with the new LIS.Conclusions:Beaker CP can serve as an effective LIS for an academic medical center. Careful planning and preparation aid the transition to this LIS.

Background Transgender women and nonbinary people seeking feminizing therapy are often prescribed estrogen as a gender-affirming hormone, which will alter their reproductive hormone axis. Testosterone, estradiol, and other reproductive hormones are commonly evaluated to assess therapy, but reference intervals specific to transgender women have not been established. The objective of this study was to derive reference intervals for commonly measured analytes related to reproductive endocrinology in a cohort of healthy gender nonconforming individuals on stable feminizing hormone therapy. Methods Healthy transgender individuals who had been prescribed estrogen (n = 93) for at least a year were recruited from internal medicine and primary care clinics that specialize in transgender medical care. Total testosterone and estradiol were measured using immunoassay and mass spectrometry; LH, FSH, sex hormone binding globulin, prolactin, progesterone, anti-mullerian hormone (AMH), and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) were measured using immunoassay; free testosterone was calculated. Reference intervals (central 95%) were calculated according to Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Results The distribution of results for transgender women was different than what would be expected from cisgender men or women across all measurements. Use of spironolactone was associated with changes in the result distribution of AMH, FSH, LH, and progesterone. Compared to liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS), immunoassay was sufficient for the majority of estradiol and total testosterone measurements; free testosterone added little clinical value beyond total testosterone. Conclusion Reference intervals specific to transgender women should be applied when evaluating reproductive endocrine analytes. Spironolactone is a significant variable for result interpretation of some tests.

Background Gender-affirming therapy with testosterone is commonly prescribed to aid in the masculinization of transgender men. Sex-hormone concentrations are routinely measured, but interpretation of results can be difficult due to the lack of published reference intervals. Methods Healthy transgender individuals who had been prescribed testosterone (n = 82) for at least a year were recruited from internal medicine and primary care clinics that specialize in transgender medical care. Total testosterone and estradiol were measured using immunoassay and mass spectrometry; LH, FSH, SHBG, prolactin, progesterone, anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) were measured using immunoassay; free testosterone was calculated. Reference intervals (central 95%) were calculated according to Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Results When evaluating general endocrine laboratory tests in people using masculinizing hormones, reference intervals for cisgender men can be applied for total and free testosterone and SHBG and reference intervals for cisgender women can be applied for prolactin. Reference intervals for estradiol, LH, FSH, AMH, and DHEAS differ from those used for cisgender men and cisgender women, and therefore should be interpreted using intervals specific to the transmasculine population. For testosterone and estradiol, results from immunoassays were clinically equivalent to mass spectrometry. Conclusion Masculinizing hormones will alter the concentrations of commonly evaluated endocrine hormones. Providers and laboratories should use appropriate reference intervals to interpret the results of these tests.