Supply usage integration between Lawson and EPIC

Has anyone integrated supply usage between EPIC and Lawson? We are looking to go live with EPIC in the next couple of months and one of the biggest concerns is supply usage. If a stock item is used by a patient we'd like to reduce inventory by the amount of usage. Has anyone done this with EPIC? If so can you describe the flow and modules needed? Do you need MSCM, POU, CX-Case Carts, and/or PC-Patient Charge modules?

Find more posts tagged with

Infor Lawson Supply Chain Group - Discussion

Comments

unknown

I worked on the interface between Cerner and Lawson. I would imagine that you would use the same Lawson Interface programs. The EPIC file should be formatted in the IC500 format. We run the IC500, IC141 and IC142 daily. The inventory is decremented and a requisition is created if the inventory go below par.

jreese

We have an interface coming from EPIC to Lawson for requisitions of case pick items that is run through ProcessFlow and RQ10 records are created. We have a requester created for each hospital that receives all these requisitions. Currently the file is processed through our HL7 interface engine Egate but we are moving to Cloverleaf. Items that are Nurse picked or taken from a par location are not passed through the interface.

jon-athey

jreese, can you talk about why you moved from Egate to Cloverleaf? We've just kicked off our Epic implementation project. I would like to determine the best process for sending data between Epic and Lawson at the lowest cost. We currently use Rhapsody to move data for over 100 interfaces.

For data going to Epic, I want to create a SQL extract out of Lawson to send to Epic through Rhapsody. I think a lot of Lawson/Epic customers are doing it this way.

For data going from Epic to Lawson (supply usage) I would like to use what we already have in place for our Cath Lab system where a simple csv file with Lawson item number and quantity used in the case/encounter is converted through ProcessFlow into a requisition. Probably similar to your process.

What was the advantage of Cloverleaf/Infor Clinical Bridge over other interface engines?

jreese

Our version of Egate was no longer supported so they began evaluating all the HL7 interface engines and determined that Cloverleaf was the product of choice. With our move to v10 we did abandon using IC527 to create files going to Epic and are now using a custom SQL script to create the HL7 files.

As far as what sold them on Cloverleaf over others, I do not know exactly, but already having a relationship with Infor probably played a part. I do know the developers are happy with the product and that they completed the conversion of all the interfaces in less time than they anticipated. I can try to get more detail on the selection process from the developers.

unknown

We are considering a similar workflow from Epic to Lawson for the OR. Can I ask why you didn't use RQ500 to create the reqs?

jreese

A big reason was that I didn't want to have to have a file created out of EPIC with all the fields required for RQ500. We only pass about 6 fields in our interface. We also wanted more exposure to any issues that occurred when the file was being imported into Lawson. Multiple individuals are emailed with a full descriptions of errors that occur for every file imported into Lawson. With the RQ500, an error file is created but you have to access it on the server to see what the issues were. Another advantage of using an IPA flow is that using file channels, every time a file hits the server the flow runs so nothing needs to be scheduled.

Copyright © 2025 Infor. All rights reserved.