BACKGROUND: Our laboratory, a large, commercial, esoteric reference laboratory, sought some form of total laboratory automation to keep pace with rapid growth of specimen volumes as well as to meet competitive demands for cost reduction and improved turnaround time. METHODS: We conducted a systematic evaluation of our needs, which led to the development of a plan to implement an automated transport and sorting system. We systematically analyzed and studied our specimen containers, test submission requirements and temperatures, and the workflow and movement of people, specimens, and information throughout the laboratory. We performed an intricate timing study that identified bottlenecks in our manual handling processes. We also evaluated various automation options. RESULTS: The automation alternative viewed to best meet our needs was a transport and sorting system from MDS AutoLab. Our comprehensive plan also included a new standardized transport tube; a centralized automated core laboratory for higher volume tests; a new "automation-friendly" software system for order entry, tracking, and process control; a complete reengineering of our order-entry, handling, and tracking processes; and remodeling of our laboratory facility and specimen processing area. CONCLUSIONS: The scope of this project and its potential impact on overall laboratory operations and performance justified the extensive time we invested (nearly 4 years) in a systematic approach to the evaluation, design, and planning of this project.
BACKGROUND: Our laboratory, a large, commercial, esoteric reference laboratory, sought some form of total laboratory automation to keep pace with rapid growth of specimen volumes as well as to meet competitive demands for cost reduction and improved turnaround time. METHODS: We conducted a systematic evaluation of our needs, which led to the development of a plan to implement an automated transport and sorting system. We systematically analyzed and studied our specimen containers, test submission requirements and temperatures, and the workflow and movement of people, specimens, and information throughout the laboratory. We performed an intricate timing study that identified bottlenecks in our manual handling processes. We also evaluated various automation options. RESULTS: The automation alternative viewed to best meet our needs was a transport and sorting system from MDS AutoLab. Our comprehensive plan also included a new standardized transport tube; a centralized automated core laboratory for higher volume tests; a new "automation-friendly" software system for order entry, tracking, and process control; a complete reengineering of our order-entry, handling, and tracking processes; and remodeling of our laboratory facility and specimen processing area. CONCLUSIONS: The scope of this project and its potential impact on overall laboratory operations and performance justified the extensive time we invested (nearly 4 years) in a systematic approach to the evaluation, design, and planning of this project.