In OpenSpecimen v2.0, we are trying to simplify the shipping and distribution workflow. Goal is to remove unnecessary fields, steps and make it faster and easier. Please review the requirements and mock screenshots on wiki - https://catissueplus.atlassian.net/wiki/x/QAAzAg.
You can provide us feedback on the forum or directly on the wiki in comments section with name and institute if not logged in.
Thanks,
Poornima
This looks pretty straight forward to me and user friendly. However, I will note that we return a lot of FFPE blocks to sites and currently in CaTissue 2.0, we distribute them to the site we received them from, however all of these sites do not have OpenSpecimen/CaTissue at their site so they will not be able to receive them in a shipment queue. We would need to use the “Ship to Site” feature, but there would be no need for the receiving aspect of this electronically. I would say we would just use the “Ship to Researcher” field, however then it would be recorded incorrectly. There may need to be another option for “Ship to Site”.
Best, Rachel
Thanks for the feedback @Rachel_Jewell.
Yes for your workflow where you don’t want to track the specimens after sent to another site, ‘Distribute to Researcher’ is better. This is same as distribution option you are using in caTissue 2.0 with some of the steps simplified. If the naming is confusing, we can discuss with the community what to call it.
Thanks,
Poornima
In the shipment and tracking window, I see Shipment Requests, and Shipments (incoming). For auditing purposes, what is the best way to audit completed shipments? I have used advanced query for this, though I’m curious how others audit completed shipments (and if there’s a better way to do so). In light of quick auditing, would it be helpful to have a section for Completed Shipments?
First I think we need to better define the when the two features should/could be used. A Distribution can/should be used when specimens are give to a researcher that a) does not use OS to track the specimen assays one they have received the specimen from the lab , b) the researcher is not using the same instance of OS as the lab where specimens are stored., c) a specimen is being returned to a site that submitted it and does not use OS. In scenarios a), b) and c) this could mean the user is physically shipping the the specimen off site, but the user should be distributing the specimens in OS not using the shipping feature. Shipping and tracking are used when both parties are on the same instance of OS and the collection protocol is shared between the sites.
On the screen shot of the send shipment page what is the purpose of having the current specimen container listed? Does it ship (transfer) the container to the site too? There are two shipping scenarios here that can take place. User just want to ship the specimens to the site (not the storage container) and the user wants to ship the entire container to the site (container moved from freezer A to Freezer B). I do like the like to upload an MTA document. Will Shipment that have been received clear the queue? If the site ships the container, can the receiving site rename the container in the Receive Shipment screen?
On the Distribution page what is the purpose of the storage container? Can the user sort the specimen labels by clicking on the header? What screen is displayed after the user clicks submit? Are they given the option to print a distribution report then or does the user navigate back the order page like in Plus? What does the consent verification page look like?
Hello @Amy_Brink,
Thanks for the explanation. You are right, people often get confused between distribution and shipping. We will make this clear in the documentation. Answers to your questions:
Thanks,
Poornima
@Amy_Brink I would rather put some of questions back to you to understand what you as end user would want us to do.
If the site ships the container, can the receiving site rename the container in the Receive Shipment screen?
Q: Do you need it to be renamed?
. What screen is displayed after the user clicks submit? Are they given the option to print a distribution report then or does the user navigate back the order page like in Plus?
Q: What do you want it do?
What does the consent verification page look like?
Q: Is the one in OpenSpecimen fine? If no, what are the issues?
~Sri
Thank you for the clarifications, and I admit to sometimes confusing shipping with distribution. Perhaps I’m wrapped up in semantics, as I interpret shipping as a form of distribution. @pgovindrao the flowchart helps clear this up. Would it be possible to condense the multiple terms for moving a specimen from point A to point B (i.e. transferring, shipping, distributing)?
Regarding the workflow diagram:
Would it be possible/helpful to show screenshots of the email confirmations? There might be some ideas/suggestions from the community on what to include in the notifications.
Would it be possible to include screenshots of how a “moved” specimen appears in the Collection Protocol Based View (i.e. how the specimen changes after being moved, if there is an event created, etc)?
I agree with Amy about being able to upload a MTA agreement. Being able to print a distribution report would be helpful. There have been questions about whether there are any dynamic flags/notifications created when trying to ship a specimen whose consent status should not allow shipment (i.e. change in consent status). In our use, an entire container is typically not shipped, rather individual specimens are pulled and placed in a new box (or boxes, in the event of shipping >80-90 shipments), and a paper copy shipping manifest is included with each shipment. I think it’s important to note that the order of specimens in the box that is shipped can be different from the original order of specimens as they are stored in the freezer (think: specimens can be pulled from multiple boxes and assembled together for shipment). This reordering is relevant for large, longitudinal clinical studies with multiple time points, especially those whose specimens are collected retrospectively.
Can we add one more enhancement to distributions? It would be awesome of the user could define the distribution report format when a distribution protocol is created. Often times the format (fields) selected for the distribution report depend on the distribution protocol. For one distribution maybe the PI is allowed to see PHI and for another distribution report the PI cannot. By defining the format of the distribution report staff members would not have to remember what fields are needed for different distributions.
What screen is displayed after the user clicks submit? Are they given the option to print a distribution report then or does the user navigate back the order page like in Plus?
Q: What do you want it do?
Amy Response I would think that the users would want to immediately decide what fields they want in the distribution report and print/ export the report. I do not want to have to navigate to another screen (Biotab> Orders> pick the order> then export distribution) as that is too many clicks.
I would like to add a few thoughts to this topic from our groups perspective:
a. When we distribute samples to researchers for review or science, our template is in a packing slip format. It includes basics at the top such as, Project Name, Special Instructions/Comments field, Ship to Address (w/ Name, Address, Phone Number, and Email), Ship from Address, Date Shipped, Carrier Tracking Number, and Shipper Name. Then below all the basic info is the specimen info including (but could be dependent on the project as Amy suggests in her above comment from yesterday) Sample Type, Specimen ID/Label, Time Point, Qty, Volume/Size, Box Number, Slot Number.
b. When we return a sample to a site, our template is in letter format w/ (from top to bottom) Ship from Address, Phone, Email at top right, then Date, Ship to Address, Carrier Name, Attention To Name, CaTissue Distribution Identifier Code. Then there is the body of the letter stating “Dear CRA, Thank you for your submission of [# samples], for patient [#], study [#]. Our repository has taken the sampling needed for the study and have kept representative samples on file. Thank you again for your participation.” Following, there is an Enclosure field where we type in what is being returned (ex. 2 H&E slides), a field for the shipper/coordinators name and phone number, and lastly the Carrier Tracking Number. Obviously, this can be modified however needed moving forward but it is nice being able to send a letter format to sites because it provides the functionality to express different things such as “we were able to cut representative sections” or you can change that as needed to situations such as “we were not able to cut representative sections as the block is scant” or “this type of tissue is not requested per the trial requirements and is being returned to you”, etc., etc.
I agree with Amy in that it would be really nice if the user could define these templates when they make the Distribution Protocol. This way the report can be printed out as the packing slip and would then be added physically into the shipping package with the samples. Currently, CaTissue does not create such distribution reports, and/or there’s more work that has to go into making the report look the way you want it to (such as editing views), so it is quicker to create our Distribution Template in Excel and our Return Letter in Adobe. If OSv’s had this functionality built in when building the DP, all those steps would be eliminated making the process more efficient. Plus, if each report is saved in OSv’s, and linked to each sample included in the shipment via an event, then a user could review the report/distribution list at any time.
Food for thought 
@Matthew_Marcetich, replies to your questions:
Email content will be shared shortly for review.
Yes, moved specimens will have appropriate events - Transfer, distributed, shipped and this can be viewed in CP based view under events of individual specimens.
Distribution report can be created even in current version in CSV format which can be opened in Excel and printed.
@Amy_Brink
Yes, you would be able to configure and generate distribute report immediately after distribution. We will log enhancement for configuring the report template in the distribution protocol.
@Rachel_Jewell
Thanks for the explanation, we have different formats for distribution and shipping manifest even in current version of OS v1.1. We will consider your inputs for the next version.
Thanks,
Poornima
In line with previous comments in this thread, one of our users also needs to transfer FFPE specimens between Sites. While at these Sites, the FFPE specimen would be stored short-term or would be processed into a derivative. Would shipping be the best way to transfer the FFPE specimen between Sites in this case? I wanted to pose the question to the forum as other users in the community might have similar workflows.