1 / 13

Tissuebanking System Review

This comprehensive review assesses six established tissue banking systems, aiming to identify key vocabularies and functionalities essential for workspace projects. Through collaboration with experts, a detailed checklist was developed to evaluate these systems on architecture, security, patient management, and more. Commonalities were found, including effective biospecimen tracking and role-based security measures. While each system has its advantages such as strong auditing capabilities and integration with clinical technologies, they also present limitations like lack of customization and specific user interface challenges.

hana
Télécharger la présentation

Tissuebanking System Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tissuebanking System Review Andrew Q. Winter Northwestern University 10/27/2005

  2. The goal • To review 6 existing tissue banking systems to identify: • Vocabularies that can be leveraged • Functionality that should be recommended for workspace projects • Produce a checklist/scorecard for a Consumer Reports-type synopsis of a cross-section of systems

  3. Systems identified for review • Solicited suggestions for systems to review from the Workspace • Narrowed the list down to 6: • Dataworks Development, Inc: Freezerworks • Duke University: MAW3 • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: CRDB • University of Alabama, Birmingham: CHTN • …two others…

  4. Systems identified for review • Two systems ultimately had to be removed from the review due to various issues including: • Changes in personnel • Applying for caBIG funding • General timing issues

  5. Creation of the Checklist • Worked with Kim Johnson (Duke/CALGB) to create a scorecard for both this SOW and her evaluation of cooperative group banking systems. • Contains 127 items broken into 11 sections

  6. Introduction Architecture Security Auditing Software Interface Reporting Patient Management Sample/Specimen Management Biospecimen storage Data Sharing Pathology Diagnosis Checklist sections

  7. Commonalities across all systems • Track biospecimens by patient • Track specimen/sample relationships • Store biospecimen annotations • Request sample withdrawal from a bank • Reflect the shipment of a sample • Reflect the depletion of a specimen

  8. Commonalities (continued) • Display the location of samples • Auditing of changes • All employ a native security system • All use role-based security (more or less)

  9. Advantages: Professional product with support Runs on Windows, Mac, web client in testing Excellent auditing Sophisticated (though complicated and slow) querying Limitations: Not especially customizable for workflow Managing users is cumbersome Runs on obscure database (4D) No published API or official access to the tables Summary: Freezerworks

  10. Advantages: Impressive de-identification mechanism Querying/searching paradigm throughout interface Uses common ontology (SNOMED) Stores and parses pathology reports, similar to caTIES Limitations: Presently only used for two banking studies Windows/IE only interface Designed to specifically meet Duke’s needs Summary: MAW3 (Duke)

  11. Advantages: Interesting approach to managing investigators and projects Networked to all CHTN sites Searches samples across multiple banks, locations Limitations: Very busy interface to meet CHTN needs Large grain role-based security (admin/user) No anonymization/de-identification Barcoding not in scope for CHTN system Summary: CHTN (UAB)

  12. Advantages: Integrated with CTMS system, providing patient outcomes information Uses CPT codes for surgical procedures Incorporates business rules such as automatic verification of consent status Limitations: Relies heavily on Oracle technologies Built specifically to address MSKCC’s workflow Summary: CRDB (MSKCC)

  13. Thanks: • Raj Dash (Duke) • Chris Hubbard (Duke) • Kim Johnson (Duke) • John Speakman (MSKCC) • Li Zeng (MSKCC) • Brian Cundiff (NU) • Adekunle Raji (NU) • Bill Grizzle (UAB) • Kathy Sexton (UAB)

More Related