What is the recommended practice for testing new configurations in Epic End User?

What is the recommended practice for testing new configurations in Epic End User?

• A. Test changes directly in production with end users.
• B. Use a non-production test environment, perform user acceptance testing, and obtain sign-off before go-live.
• C. Skip testing to save time.
• D. Only perform automated tests without user involvement.

Answer: (B)

Start with the idea that changes should be tested in a separate environment, with real users validating the work, and only after formal approval go live. This approach protects live operations, data, and users while ensuring the configuration actually supports how people work. Using a non-production test environment lets you mimic real workflows without risking patient data or system availability. End users participate in acceptance testing to confirm that the changes meet their needs and align with daily tasks, which helps catch issues that only appear in real-world use. Formal sign-off creates accountability and a clear, documented go-ahead before the change reaches production, reducing the chance of missed requirements or unapproved modifications. In contrast, testing directly in production can disrupt care, impact patient safety, and expose data to risk. Skipping testing means potential defects and misconfigurations go unnoticed until after deployment. Relying only on automated tests misses the human perspective and the practical nuances of actual use.

Start with the idea that changes should be tested in a separate environment, with real users validating the work, and only after formal approval go live. This approach protects live operations, data, and users while ensuring the configuration actually supports how people work.

Using a non-production test environment lets you mimic real workflows without risking patient data or system availability. End users participate in acceptance testing to confirm that the changes meet their needs and align with daily tasks, which helps catch issues that only appear in real-world use. Formal sign-off creates accountability and a clear, documented go-ahead before the change reaches production, reducing the chance of missed requirements or unapproved modifications.

In contrast, testing directly in production can disrupt care, impact patient safety, and expose data to risk. Skipping testing means potential defects and misconfigurations go unnoticed until after deployment. Relying only on automated tests misses the human perspective and the practical nuances of actual use.