Difference between revisions of "Template:Article of the week"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Updated article of the week text.)
(Updated article of the week text.)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''"[[Journal:Laboratory information system – Where are we today?|Laboratory information system – Where are we today?]]"'''
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig3 Vaas PeerJCompSci2016 2.jpg|240px]]</div>
'''"[[Journal:Electronic laboratory notebooks in a public–private partnership|Electronic laboratory notebooks in a public–private partnership]]"'''


Wider implementation of [[laboratory information system]]s (LIS) in [[Clinical laboratory|clinical laboratories]] in Serbia was initiated 10 years ago. The first LIS in the Railway Health Care Institute was implemented nine years ago. Before the LIS was initiated, manual admission procedures limited daily output of patients. Moreover, manual entering of patient data and ordering tests on analyzers was problematic and time-consuming. After completing tests, [[laboratory]] personnel had to write results in a patient register (with potential errors) and provide invoices for health insurance organizations. The first LIS brought forward some advantages with regards to these obstacles, but it also showed various weaknesses. These can be summarized as rigidity of the system and inability to fulfill user expectation. After four years of use, we replaced this system with another LIS. Hence, the main aim of this paper is to evaluate the advantages of using LIS in the Railway Health Care Institute's laboratory and also to discuss further possibilities for its application. ('''[[Journal:Laboratory information system – Where are we today?|Full article...]]''')<br />
This report shares the experience during selection, implementation and maintenance phases of an [[electronic laboratory notebook]] (ELN) in a public–private partnership project and comments on users' feedback. In particular, we address which time constraints for roll-out of an ELN exist in granted projects and which benefits and/or restrictions come with out-of-the-box solutions. We discuss several options for the implementation of support functions and potential advantages of open-access solutions. Connected to that, we identified willingness and a vivid culture of data sharing as the major item leading to success or failure of collaborative research activities. The feedback from users turned out to be the only angle for driving technical improvements, but also exhibited high efficiency. Based on these experiences, we describe best practices for future projects on implementation and support of an ELN supporting a diverse, multidisciplinary user group based in academia, NGOs, and/or for-profit corporations located in multiple time zones. ('''[[Journal:Electronic laboratory notebooks in a public–private partnership|Full article...]]''')<br />
<br />
<br />
''Recently featured'':  
''Recently featured'':  
: ▪ [[Journal:Laboratory information system – Where are we today?|Laboratory information system – Where are we today?]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Clinical note creation, binning, and artificial intelligence|Clinical note creation, binning, and artificial intelligence]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Clinical note creation, binning, and artificial intelligence|Clinical note creation, binning, and artificial intelligence]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Predicting biomedical metadata in CEDAR: A study of Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO)|Predicting biomedical metadata in CEDAR: A study of Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO)]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Predicting biomedical metadata in CEDAR: A study of Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO)|Predicting biomedical metadata in CEDAR: A study of Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO)]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Rapid development of entity-based data models for bioinformatics with persistence object-oriented design and structured interfaces|Rapid development of entity-based data models for bioinformatics with persistence object-oriented design and structured interfaces]]

Revision as of 19:04, 6 November 2017

Fig3 Vaas PeerJCompSci2016 2.jpg

"Electronic laboratory notebooks in a public–private partnership"

This report shares the experience during selection, implementation and maintenance phases of an electronic laboratory notebook (ELN) in a public–private partnership project and comments on users' feedback. In particular, we address which time constraints for roll-out of an ELN exist in granted projects and which benefits and/or restrictions come with out-of-the-box solutions. We discuss several options for the implementation of support functions and potential advantages of open-access solutions. Connected to that, we identified willingness and a vivid culture of data sharing as the major item leading to success or failure of collaborative research activities. The feedback from users turned out to be the only angle for driving technical improvements, but also exhibited high efficiency. Based on these experiences, we describe best practices for future projects on implementation and support of an ELN supporting a diverse, multidisciplinary user group based in academia, NGOs, and/or for-profit corporations located in multiple time zones. (Full article...)

Recently featured:

Laboratory information system – Where are we today?
Clinical note creation, binning, and artificial intelligence
Predicting biomedical metadata in CEDAR: A study of Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO)