But, be careful - Cerner has a wonderful sales force and is unable to
produce what has been sold. Voice of experience here.
Joyce Weems
Pathology Manager
Saint Joseph's Hospital of Atlanta


	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Janssen,Mark X [SMTP: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
	>