Mark, thanks for letting us know that Cerner has an upgrade!  Now if I can
just get the powers that be to do it...
Wanda

-----Original Message-----
From: JanssenMark X [mailto:Mark.X.Janssen@kp.org]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 4:19 PM
To: 'Jeff and Wanda Gray'; Weems Joyce; 'Janice Mahoney';
histonet@pathology.swmed.edu; jmacdonald@sach.org
Subject: RE: Order Entry -Reply

I've just returned from a Thurs - Fri  back to back CoPath - Cerner demo.
Seems to me like Wanda was looking at the old Cerner system.  I agree the
old Cerner system was not ready for prime time.

To me the two current products seem only slightly different in the core
functions.  Both look and feel like Windows programs, which is good.  Both
are intuitive.  Both are good to adequate in all of the most important
areas.

When it comes to bells and whistles, and fine points, they may be different.
Perhaps Cerner's word processing is a little "cleaner" than CoPath (CoPath
uses Word.  With Cerner you have the choice, Word or a cleaner faster
system.)  I think Cerner has the edge on making it easy to support report
distribution and inquiry from many different distributed offices, etc.
Their web functionality exists today and is robust.  CoPath seems to still
be working on the fine points.  Cerner isn't into voice as deeply as CoPath,
but they are going there.  I am not a big fan of voice yet.  CoPath used
IBM's Medspeak.  Cerner is licensed to use the same thing, but has not
decided to use it.  CoPath may have a little edge on management report ease
of use.  My impression is that database management is mature at Cerner, and
less mature at CoPath, but that this is almost unimportant.

As in everything, unless some of the bells and whistles are "core" for you,
with the "core core" functions evenly matched, you have to consider the
quality of the company, the commitment to support, and the cost.  Cost is
hard to compare, because Cerner license fees are tied to your amount of work
(so small operations can afford it).  CoPath fees are tied to "seats", the
number of users.  The quality of the company is hard to compare.  Ask people
about how well Cerner and/or CoPath have supported them in the last two
years.  Call me at 714-279-5505 for my opinions on that, if you want to
know.

MJ

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff and Wanda Gray [SMTP:jefwan@InfoAve.Net]
> Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 7:48 AM
> To:   Weems Joyce; 'Janice Mahoney'; histonet@pathology.swmed.edu;
> jmacdonald@sach.org
> Subject:      RE: Order Entry -Reply
>
> Hello all,
> Used the new CoPath at the last job, and loved it.  Have Cerner at the new
> job and it is a big step backwards (my opinion, not that of the current
> employer etc, etc).   New CoPath is windows based, does all the workload
> recording, does everything but wash the used glassware, as far as I'm
> concerned.
> The Cerner system is DOS based (at least the one we use), you have to
> manually go out of a screen, to the main menu, every single time you want
> to
> do something else, like make a label after ordering a test.  With CoPath,
> it
> at least throws you a "pick the next option" screen, so you don't have to
> go
> out, come back in, over and over and over.
> Just my two cents, any one wants more opinions from me,(not my employer or
> its agents) feel free to contact me.
> Wanda Shotsberger Gray HT (ASCP)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weems Joyce [mailto:JWEEMS@sjha.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 6:05 PM
> To: 'Janice Mahoney'; histonet@pathology.swmed.edu; jmacdonald@sach.org
> Subject: RE: Order Entry -Reply
>
> I don't know about the new Copath - but Cerner is definitely as well
> geared
> to AP as Sunquest was. Good luck!
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Janice Mahoney [SMTP:jmahoney@alegent.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 2:51 PM
> > To:   histonet@pathology.swmed.edu; jmacdonald@sach.org
> > Subject:      RE: Order Entry -Reply
> >
> > Hello,
> > While we're on the subject of accessioning, I have a question.  We're in
> > the process of choosing a new LIS.  We're down to two systems, Sunquest
> > and Cerner.  Does anyone out there have a good feel for  how the two
> > compair as far as ordering and accessioning AP specimens goes?  Which is
> > faster with less key strokes?
> > Thanks for any input.
> > Jan Mahoney
>