Changing Manufacturer codes - LawsonGuru.com

Name	Points
Greg Moeller	4184
David Williams	3349
JonA	3291
Kat V	2984
Woozy	1973
Jimmy Chiu	1883
Kwane McNeal	1437
Ragu Raghavan	1375
Roger French	1315
mark.cook	1244

Bev Edwards

Veteran Member Send Private Message

Posts: 366

6/27/2014 10:07 PM

I have recently found several duplicates of manufacturer codes as well as several versions of manufacturer codes/divisions.

For instance, we have 8 JJ codes, 7 of which have different divisions.
For JJ/MITE we also have a DEPU/MITE.

Depuy Mitek is a division of JJ, so we don't need both manufacturer codes. Easy enough to clean up in Lawson, but here's the issue.

Many of our Lawson items interface to our Meditech ORM. For implants specifically, the IT and OR teams do not want the manufacturer changed in Meditech for 2 reasons. One, they search using a mnemonic that matches the Manuf. code in Lawson (Ex. DEPU/MITE mnemonic is ORDEPUMITExxxx in Meditech). The other reason is they are saying that if they change Meditech to match Lawson and an implant is recalled, the information in Meditech would not match the old item being recalled.

If we're updating in Lawson, I'm not sure how we would search for old information on a recalled item if the manufacture info has been changed.

I'm interested in knowing how other hospitals handle the manufacturer codes when an acquisition takes place and if they interface to a clinical system, do you update that system or leave the old info in place for implants?

Bev

Kat V

Veteran Member Send Private Message

Posts: 1020

6/30/2014 2:17 PM

In addition to the item feed, we also send a version of IC14 across for Epic to update their codes to match. I had the same pushback from our ORs - recalled items. The problem with that logic is that Depuy is not likely to be the source of any future recalls. The recall - if it happens - will be from J&J. (We ECRI Alert Tracker - they tend to be helpful listing akas in these instances as well.)

J&J isn't actually my problem. It's what to call Kendall. We get several products through Cardinal - who still call them Tyco Kendall and not Covidien Kendall.

As for the mnemonic problem you have, Epic searches by description so I don't quite have that issue. But for you, it would only be while they were using up old stock. Afterwards, they would be searching for the manufacturer on the box - J&J - wouldn't they?

In the end, the ones the ORs complain to me about are mostly the ones we didn't change to please them. So we've stopped asking, quite frankly.

Bev Edwards

Veteran Member Send Private Message

Posts: 366

6/30/2014 2:45 PM

They're mainly concered about possible recalls on implants. I'm not certain how we would track an implant in Lawson if we change the manufacturer code (product code would also change).

I'm thinking that for implants specifically, if a manufacturer that sells implants to us gets acquired by another company, we should (for the implants) inactivate the Lawson number and create new ones for the implants.

I can't think of any other way to keep the historical data.

Our IT person is telling me that the OR staff key in the mnemonic when searching implants and other items. If they are used to searching under a specific mnemonic (which is associated witht the MC), and it changes, they would have to get used to searching under the new code.

My input was that they would be informed of MC changes so they would know what to search for. Also, I would think they should be using packing (product codes) to search as that information is transferred to Meditech via our interface.

Am I thinking the correct way? I'm still learning my way around Lawson, so I want to be sure that my logic sounds/is correct.

Bev

JonA

Veteran Member Send Private Message

Posts: 1163

6/30/2014 6:22 PM

Yes they should be searching by the manufacturer's product code. We build a new item when the product code changes. You're in the right, I don't think the OR should be able to dictate how you manage your item master. If your MC's are incorrect you should be able to update as necessary. The OR needs to change their process.